Possibly the new fan code has not passed quality control yet, so they let the devs play with it but not consumers yet. That would mean it will come out in 10.4 later.
Look, I don't care what Chucker says, OS X does not and cannot control the fans. That's why, for example, to solve the MacBook "mooing" problem, Apple had to release a firmware update for the SMC.
I have my iMac dual booting Tiger and Vista pre-RC1 and I have to say, in all objectivity, that Apple is now playing catch-up. At WWDC, Bertrand Serlet poked fun at MS rather extensively, but now, only a few weeks later, they are at RC1 and Apple (with this Leopard update) are no where near even first beta. It's a two horse race again, and Apple needs to stop poking fun and start racing.
all you have to do is simply compare the features, see whats new, see whats been done, put it in a table if you wish, then you will see who is playing catch up.
Look, I don't care what Chucker says, OS X does not and cannot control the fans. That's why, for example, to solve the MacBook "mooing" problem, Apple had to release a firmware update for the SMC.
You're wrong. It does. In conjunction with firmware maybe...
Why else d'you think a kernel panic results in the fan speed being turned up? Why do you think that running Linux on a G5 until recently meant max fan speed? When Linux added software to control the Mac's fans, it meant that their speed was reduced to a manageable level.
You're wrong. It does. In conjunction with firmware maybe...
Why else d'you think a kernel panic results in the fan speed being turned up? Why do you think that running Linux on a G5 until recently meant max fan speed? When Linux added software to control the Mac's fans, it meant that their speed was reduced to a manageable level.
You're wrong. It does. In conjunction with firmware maybe...
Why else d'you think a kernel panic results in the fan speed being turned up? Why do you think that running Linux on a G5 until recently meant max fan speed? When Linux added software to control the Mac's fans, it meant that their speed was reduced to a manageable level.
Amorya
We're talking about Intel Macs here (the guy in the report was talking about MacBook fan behaviour) and in Intel Macs the SMC is completely independent of the OS. I don't know why everyone is so keen to deny what Apple themselves have stated very clearly in their developer notes about the Intel machines.
Like I said, the SMC being independent of the OS doesn't mean that OS changes can't effect how often the fans come on. If the OS has better power management such that the CPU doesn't heat up as much, the fans will come on less often. But on Intel machines OS X does not control the fans.
Like I said, the SMC being independent of the OS doesn't mean that OS changes can't effect how often the fans come on.
That is not what you said.
Quote:
A major piece of confusion is that the OS doesn't even control the fans
Quote:
If the OS has better power management such that the CPU doesn't heat up as much, the fans will come on less often. But on Intel machines OS X does not control the fans.
You need to make up your mind. Of course the fans aren't controlled directly from the OS; of course there's hardware abstraction to it. Noone is arguing that. However, you were implying earlier that the OS had no influence at all on fan behaviour, when it definitely does.
Indeed. A major piece of confusion is that the OS doesn't even control the fans, the PMU does, independently of the OS.
Of course, if the OS has better power management and uses less CPU power to do the same jobs, then the fans will have to come on less often.
The only thing I got wrong was that I was talking about the SMC, not the PMU as I called it. Everything else is correct and I fail to see how that is any different from what I said later:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
OS X does not and cannot control the fans. That's why, for example, to solve the MacBook "mooing" problem, Apple had to release a firmware update for the SMC.
and:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
We're talking about Intel Macs here … and in Intel Macs the SMC is completely independent of the OS. …
Like I said, the SMC being independent of the OS doesn't mean that OS changes can't effect how often the fans come on. If the OS has better power management such that the CPU doesn't heat up as much, the fans will come on less often. But on Intel machines OS X does not control the fans.
No story changing going on here. The only thing was a bit of clarification that I'm talking about Intel Macs, which I thought was obvious given that the article was talking about a MacBook and the documents I linked to were all about Intel Macs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
You need to make up your mind.
No, I do not, my mind is "made up". OS X does not control the fans. That is not the same as saying "OS X cannot influence how often the fans come on". The OS "controlling the fans" would mean that the OS decides when and how fast the fans come on, and when they switch off. OS X on an Intel Mac does none of those things and therefore does not control the fans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker
Of course the fans aren't controlled directly from the OS; of course there's hardware abstraction to it. Noone is arguing that.
You said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker
It's a hardware component that runs on its own, but it can be (and is, in the case of OS X) controlled by software.
and
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker
That's not entirely true, as you can easily see by inserting the Hardware Test DVD.
Both of which are wrong. The SMC is not controlled by OS X, and the fans do not run at full speed when booted from the Hardware test DVD on an Intel Mac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker
However, you were implying earlier that the OS had no influence at all on fan behaviour, when it definitely does.
No, I did not.
Again, from my first post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Of course, if the OS has better power management and uses less CPU power to do the same jobs, then the fans will have to come on less often.
How is that "implying that the OS has no influence at all on fan behaviour"?
You guys are getting your panties in a twist I guess what Mr. H is trying to say is there is DIRECT control of the fans via SMC. INDIRECT control as Mr. H suggests can happen at the OS X level. This indirect control could occur, if I am right, via things such as controlling the CPU speed and cache stepping up and down, which has some INDIRECT influence on fan behavior.
After the initial MacBook and MacBookPro furore over fan noise, I wonder how things are now. But clearly it looks like improvements at the SMC layer and OS X layer are needed over time for Apple to get a handle on heat, power, battery, speed and fan noise issues - an almost diabolical challenge to get the right balance. And let's not forget the hardware layer - GPU clock and GPU ram clock, heat sinks, heat pipes, fan design, and the recently-favoured whipping boy, thermal paste application.
Yeah I did think that, sorry if it seemed over the top, it's just annoying being mis-understood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman
I guess what Mr. H is trying to say is there is DIRECT control of the fans via SMC. INDIRECT control as Mr. H suggests can happen at the OS X level. This indirect control could occur, if I am right, via things such as controlling the CPU speed and cache stepping up and down, which has some INDIRECT influence on fan behavior.
Glad we got it figured out. Thanks sunilraman, and sorry Mr. H.
No worries
The next question is: is the improved fan behaviour under Leopard actually due to specific power-management code that could make its way into Tiger, or is it due to the whole OS just being generally more efficient at a low level?
The next question is: is the improved fan behaviour under Leopard actually due to specific power-management code that could make its way into Tiger, or is it due to the whole OS just being generally more efficient at a low level?
Do we have any evidence whatsoever that there is, indeed, "improved behaviour"? And if so, is that compared to the previous preview, or is it compared to 10.4.7?
Do we have any evidence whatsoever that there is, indeed, "improved behaviour"? And if so, is that compared to the previous preview, or is it compared to 10.4.7?
Good question.
The only thing we have to go by is the un-named source from the article. The quote reads "[It's] immensely better than with Tiger but that was true even before I installed the Leopard Preview update." So we don't know which version of Tiger (s)he is referring to. We also don't know if the Leopard preview installation also installs the MacBook Pro SMC firmware update, but I doubt it does that.
Do we have any evidence whatsoever that there is, indeed, "improved behaviour"? And if so, is that compared to the previous preview, or is it compared to 10.4.7?
Nope this is a rumor site and this is a rumor methinks.
However, I'm now hoping it's true and that it will be released when it is ready for consumers in Tiger.
I have my iMac dual booting Tiger and Vista pre-RC1 and I have to say, in all objectivity, that Apple is now playing catch-up. At WWDC, Bertrand Serlet poked fun at MS rather extensively, but now, only a few weeks later, they are at RC1 and Apple (with this Leopard update) are no where near even first beta. It's a two horse race again, and Apple needs to stop poking fun and start racing.
That's interesting, but you can read around the web that many beta testers are having some major compatability, and performance problems with it still. One major problem is that virus checking software doen't work with it yet, and who knows when it will? There are still many voices calling for it to be delayed an additional three to six months to fix the problems.
If you haven't had any of these problems, either you didn't expect much to begin with, or don't use it extensively.
wow, three to six months, that is a loooooong time for an additional set back.
what does this mean for leopard?
Leopard itself is going to be three to six months late. Last year, Jobs said that Leopard would be available by the end of the year to early next year. then they moved the Dev Conf back by three months, and he announced that it would be available in the Spring, which can mean anything between March 20th to June 20th.
If Apple hadn't had a delay, it might have mattered somewhat.
If we are optimistic (for no reason other than choosing to be), we might hope that it will come out early March, or, at best, late February.
Right now, the enterprise will see Vista someyime in November, if they stay on track. That is the group least likely to be upgrading right away.
The consumer version, which will come installed on all new machines (whether one likes it on not. Only businesses can choose to continue having XP installed on new machines), is now due out in late January, or possibly, depending on how you read the MS tea leaves, early February.
If it is further delayed, it will come out around the time 10.5 will be due.
That would be interesting, though I don't see it making much of a difference. I don't see many people making changes in buying plans because of it. That's mostly hype. People buying Macs will continue to do so, and people buying PC's will also continue to do so.
A small number may change their minds because of these delays, but not many.
MS intends to come out with a multi $100 million advertising campaign at that time though. Apple will spend far less, and depend on the press, as always.
Comments
Possibly the new fan code has not passed quality control yet, so they let the devs play with it but not consumers yet. That would mean it will come out in 10.4 later.
Look, I don't care what Chucker says, OS X does not and cannot control the fans. That's why, for example, to solve the MacBook "mooing" problem, Apple had to release a firmware update for the SMC.
I have my iMac dual booting Tiger and Vista pre-RC1 and I have to say, in all objectivity, that Apple is now playing catch-up. At WWDC, Bertrand Serlet poked fun at MS rather extensively, but now, only a few weeks later, they are at RC1 and Apple (with this Leopard update) are no where near even first beta. It's a two horse race again, and Apple needs to stop poking fun and start racing.
all you have to do is simply compare the features, see whats new, see whats been done, put it in a table if you wish, then you will see who is playing catch up.
Look, I don't care what Chucker says, OS X does not and cannot control the fans. That's why, for example, to solve the MacBook "mooing" problem, Apple had to release a firmware update for the SMC.
You're wrong. It does. In conjunction with firmware maybe...
Why else d'you think a kernel panic results in the fan speed being turned up? Why do you think that running Linux on a G5 until recently meant max fan speed? When Linux added software to control the Mac's fans, it meant that their speed was reduced to a manageable level.
Amorya
You're wrong. It does. In conjunction with firmware maybe...
Why else d'you think a kernel panic results in the fan speed being turned up? Why do you think that running Linux on a G5 until recently meant max fan speed? When Linux added software to control the Mac's fans, it meant that their speed was reduced to a manageable level.
Amorya
har har!! touche!!
You're wrong. It does. In conjunction with firmware maybe...
Why else d'you think a kernel panic results in the fan speed being turned up? Why do you think that running Linux on a G5 until recently meant max fan speed? When Linux added software to control the Mac's fans, it meant that their speed was reduced to a manageable level.
Amorya
We're talking about Intel Macs here (the guy in the report was talking about MacBook fan behaviour) and in Intel Macs the SMC is completely independent of the OS. I don't know why everyone is so keen to deny what Apple themselves have stated very clearly in their developer notes about the Intel machines.
Like I said, the SMC being independent of the OS doesn't mean that OS changes can't effect how often the fans come on. If the OS has better power management such that the CPU doesn't heat up as much, the fans will come on less often. But on Intel machines OS X does not control the fans.
Like I said, the SMC being independent of the OS doesn't mean that OS changes can't effect how often the fans come on.
That is not what you said.
A major piece of confusion is that the OS doesn't even control the fans
If the OS has better power management such that the CPU doesn't heat up as much, the fans will come on less often. But on Intel machines OS X does not control the fans.
You need to make up your mind. Of course the fans aren't controlled directly from the OS; of course there's hardware abstraction to it. Noone is arguing that. However, you were implying earlier that the OS had no influence at all on fan behaviour, when it definitely does.
That is not what you said.
My position has not changed one iota.
This is my first post on the subject:
Indeed. A major piece of confusion is that the OS doesn't even control the fans, the PMU does, independently of the OS.
Of course, if the OS has better power management and uses less CPU power to do the same jobs, then the fans will have to come on less often.
The only thing I got wrong was that I was talking about the SMC, not the PMU as I called it. Everything else is correct and I fail to see how that is any different from what I said later:
OS X does not and cannot control the fans. That's why, for example, to solve the MacBook "mooing" problem, Apple had to release a firmware update for the SMC.
and:
We're talking about Intel Macs here … and in Intel Macs the SMC is completely independent of the OS. …
Like I said, the SMC being independent of the OS doesn't mean that OS changes can't effect how often the fans come on. If the OS has better power management such that the CPU doesn't heat up as much, the fans will come on less often. But on Intel machines OS X does not control the fans.
No story changing going on here. The only thing was a bit of clarification that I'm talking about Intel Macs, which I thought was obvious given that the article was talking about a MacBook and the documents I linked to were all about Intel Macs.
You need to make up your mind.
No, I do not, my mind is "made up". OS X does not control the fans. That is not the same as saying "OS X cannot influence how often the fans come on". The OS "controlling the fans" would mean that the OS decides when and how fast the fans come on, and when they switch off. OS X on an Intel Mac does none of those things and therefore does not control the fans.
Of course the fans aren't controlled directly from the OS; of course there's hardware abstraction to it. Noone is arguing that.
You said:
It's a hardware component that runs on its own, but it can be (and is, in the case of OS X) controlled by software.
and
That's not entirely true, as you can easily see by inserting the Hardware Test DVD.
Both of which are wrong. The SMC is not controlled by OS X, and the fans do not run at full speed when booted from the Hardware test DVD on an Intel Mac.
However, you were implying earlier that the OS had no influence at all on fan behaviour, when it definitely does.
No, I did not.
Again, from my first post:
Of course, if the OS has better power management and uses less CPU power to do the same jobs, then the fans will have to come on less often.
How is that "implying that the OS has no influence at all on fan behaviour"?
After the initial MacBook and MacBookPro furore over fan noise, I wonder how things are now. But clearly it looks like improvements at the SMC layer and OS X layer are needed over time for Apple to get a handle on heat, power, battery, speed and fan noise issues - an almost diabolical challenge to get the right balance. And let's not forget the hardware layer - GPU clock and GPU ram clock, heat sinks, heat pipes, fan design, and the recently-favoured whipping boy, thermal paste application.
You guys are getting your panties in a twist
Yeah
I guess what Mr. H is trying to say is there is DIRECT control of the fans via SMC. INDIRECT control as Mr. H suggests can happen at the OS X level. This indirect control could occur, if I am right, via things such as controlling the CPU speed and cache stepping up and down, which has some INDIRECT influence on fan behavior.
I'd say that that is a rather good summing-up.
Glad we got it figured out. Thanks sunilraman, and sorry Mr. H.
No worries
The next question is: is the improved fan behaviour under Leopard actually due to specific power-management code that could make its way into Tiger, or is it due to the whole OS just being generally more efficient at a low level?
The next question is: is the improved fan behaviour under Leopard actually due to specific power-management code that could make its way into Tiger, or is it due to the whole OS just being generally more efficient at a low level?
Do we have any evidence whatsoever that there is, indeed, "improved behaviour"? And if so, is that compared to the previous preview, or is it compared to 10.4.7?
Do we have any evidence whatsoever that there is, indeed, "improved behaviour"? And if so, is that compared to the previous preview, or is it compared to 10.4.7?
Good question.
The only thing we have to go by is the un-named source from the article. The quote reads "[It's] immensely better than with Tiger but that was true even before I installed the Leopard Preview update." So we don't know which version of Tiger (s)he is referring to. We also don't know if the Leopard preview installation also installs the MacBook Pro SMC firmware update, but I doubt it does that.
Do we have any evidence whatsoever that there is, indeed, "improved behaviour"? And if so, is that compared to the previous preview, or is it compared to 10.4.7?
Nope this is a rumor site
However, I'm now hoping it's true and that it will be released when it is ready for consumers in Tiger.
I have my iMac dual booting Tiger and Vista pre-RC1 and I have to say, in all objectivity, that Apple is now playing catch-up. At WWDC, Bertrand Serlet poked fun at MS rather extensively, but now, only a few weeks later, they are at RC1 and Apple (with this Leopard update) are no where near even first beta. It's a two horse race again, and Apple needs to stop poking fun and start racing.
That's interesting, but you can read around the web that many beta testers are having some major compatability, and performance problems with it still. One major problem is that virus checking software doen't work with it yet, and who knows when it will? There are still many voices calling for it to be delayed an additional three to six months to fix the problems.
If you haven't had any of these problems, either you didn't expect much to begin with, or don't use it extensively.
There are still many voices calling for it to be delayed an additional three to six months to fix the problems.
wow, three to six months, that is a loooooong time for an additional set back.
what does this mean for leopard?
wow, three to six months, that is a loooooong time for an additional set back.
what does this mean for leopard?
Leopard itself is going to be three to six months late. Last year, Jobs said that Leopard would be available by the end of the year to early next year. then they moved the Dev Conf back by three months, and he announced that it would be available in the Spring, which can mean anything between March 20th to June 20th.
If Apple hadn't had a delay, it might have mattered somewhat.
If we are optimistic (for no reason other than choosing to be), we might hope that it will come out early March, or, at best, late February.
Right now, the enterprise will see Vista someyime in November, if they stay on track. That is the group least likely to be upgrading right away.
The consumer version, which will come installed on all new machines (whether one likes it on not. Only businesses can choose to continue having XP installed on new machines), is now due out in late January, or possibly, depending on how you read the MS tea leaves, early February.
If it is further delayed, it will come out around the time 10.5 will be due.
That would be interesting, though I don't see it making much of a difference. I don't see many people making changes in buying plans because of it. That's mostly hype. People buying Macs will continue to do so, and people buying PC's will also continue to do so.
A small number may change their minds because of these delays, but not many.
MS intends to come out with a multi $100 million advertising campaign at that time though. Apple will spend far less, and depend on the press, as always.