Re: Smokers are smarter, I say.

From	nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups	comp.os.linux.advocacy, sci.physics, alt.privacy.anon-server, comp.sys.mac.system, alt.comp.os.windows-10, alt.cellular-phone-tech
Subject	Re: Smokers are smarter, I say.
Date	2017-04-18 17:09 -0400
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<180420171709208387%nospam@nospam.invalid> (permalink)
References	(21 earlier) <D517A457.9F248%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <150420171350418541%nospam@nospam.invalid> <D517AFC7.9F260%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <150420171445154999%nospam@nospam.invalid> <D517EAD6.9F310%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>

Cross-posted to 6 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

In article <D517EAD6.9F310%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit
<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> >>>> They have an outdated file system (which is going to change soon,
> >>> 
> >>> hfs+ is not in any way slow. benchmarks are consistent with the maximum
> >>> data rate of the interface.
> >> 
> >> Would like to see those.
> > 
> > easily done with any disk benchmarking utility
> 
> I look forward to it! When you have them please share.

i use blackmagic. there are others.

> >> From what I understood it hit bottlenecks if you
> >> had multiple processes / threads all working to read / write.
> > 
> > that is a separate issue.
>  
> The fact the file system handles this poorly is very much tied to the file
> system. :)

it's not normally an issue.

there are always edge cases, even with apfs, zfs or whatever file
system you want to use.

> >>>> FINALLY)
> >>>> running of absurdly slow drives (5400 rpm).
> >>> 
> >>> those are also not slow, and can easily be replaced if desired.
> >> 
> >> That is very slow. Who else sells machines with drives that slow.
> > 
> > microsoft surface studio ships with a 5400 rpm drive.
> 
> Looking it up seems they do -- but tied to a SSD, similar to the Fusion
> drives Apple uses (though not the same).
>  
> > plenty of other systems do.
> 
> Amy desktops?

lots of them

drive makers are making mostly 5400 rpm drives for cost and ssds for
speed. 7200 rpm drives don't represent a good deal anymore.

> >> Try a Mac
> >> with a hard drive vs. one with a Flash drive. The speed difference is
> >> pretty amazing.
> > 
> > that's not exclusive to macs.
> 
> Of course not. But what other system comes with a 5400 rpm drive (alone).

many. 

> > ssd is faster no matter what the platform
> > (unless a hard drive can saturate the interface).
> > 
> >>> that's not a limitation of the mac.
> >> 
> >> You can buy a higher end one with a faster drive or a Fusion drive or do it
> >> after-market, but, yes, it is a weakness of the iMac line.
> > 
> > it's not a weakness at all.
> 
> The fact you can replace it does not make it not a weakness. Heck, the fact
> you suggested such a fix demonstrates you know it IS a weakness.

it's not a weakness. it's a design choice. everything has tradeoffs.

> >>>>>> But, sure, I have played with disk
> >>>>>> light or things similar to it years ago... never found the need. Not
> >>>>>> used it in years.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> no need for that at all.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Or, at best, the situations where there is a need are very, very few.
> >>> 
> >>> as in none. 
> >> 
> >> There is certainly a market for those who want it. And their are Apple
> >> supplied tools to show it (even Activity Monitor).
> > 
> > there is *constant* disk activity, for all sorts of reasons. it's
> > meaningless. it offers no useful information.
> 
> So Apple added it to Activity Monitor for no reason? Of course not. And it
> does show amount read / write per second.

activity monitor is for diagnostics, not normal routine use.

> Really comes down to YOU find no use of value in it. I am OK with that.

99.9% of the world finds no use for it.

Back to comp.sys.mac.system | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-13 23:42 +0000
  Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 18:36 +0100
    Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 10:55 -0700
      Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 19:03 +0100
        Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 11:17 -0700
          Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 19:43 +0100
            Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 12:17 -0700
              Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 20:29 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-14 15:35 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 21:33 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-14 16:35 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 22:04 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-15 12:10 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-18 21:50 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-18 17:09 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 12:44 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 21:28 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 15:57 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-15 00:58 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 17:17 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-15 12:10 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 10:20 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-15 13:50 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 11:08 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-15 14:45 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 15:20 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-18 17:09 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-18 14:13 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-15 12:10 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-18 21:52 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-18 13:59 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-18 17:09 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Andreas Rutishauser <andreas@macandreas.ch> - 2017-04-15 08:06 +0200
            Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-14 15:35 -0400
              Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 21:30 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-14 16:35 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 22:05 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-14 21:21 +0000
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 23:48 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 17:25 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 20:37 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-17 12:45 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 02:20 +0000
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-15 09:03 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 13:51 +0000
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 23:06 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-17 22:11 +0000
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-19 01:35 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 23:05 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-17 22:12 +0000
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-19 01:33 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-15 12:10 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-19 18:53 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 17:20 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-17 20:35 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-17 12:46 -0700

csiph-web