Correction: I get close to 50% better battery life. When searching for "mac linux battery duration" the first linksays: "The only two things I *really* loved in OSX were: * longer battery life * very fast and efficient suspend/resume".
The second link says: "720p - Mac OS X... Result on 720p playback: +1h57 or +42% battery life."
The third link says: "To date the best estimated battery life value I have seen under Linux is 5 hours (I have not run an actual timed test yet) as compared to 7.5 in Mac OS"
Just one web search, three results all saying the same thing I have tested & seen for myself. OS X is much better than Linux. Shut yer trap linux bigot.
Listen you illiterate twit, I HAVE proven that Linux is less energy efficient than OS X by booting Linux on a Mac & testing how long it lasts. I get almost twice the battery life - just like every one else does. You, blinded by your prejudice refuse to perform the test (presumably because you'd need to touch a Mac & contaminate yourself) and are unable to comprehend ARS' article which clearly shows the work that Apple has performed on OS X that no other OS has. As you clearly filter out all information that contrary to your dialectic, and keep posting unsupported out & out lies, we're done here.
Hey troll boy, learn how to read. The graphs explain precisely and exactly what I repeat time & time again to counter your general ignorance & obtuseness: OSX aggregates running tasks into blocks so that the CPUs can be put to sleep (and not just start transitioning only to transition back when an interrupt occurs). Linux has nothing like Grand Central, nor App-Nap, keeps getting interrupted & thus puts the CPUs into low power modes much less often.
I've said so in my first post in this thread, in my second post, in my third post, in my fourth post,... I've detailed multiple times just how easily testable OS X's advantage over Linux is in battery time is but instead of performing the test yourself, you keep finding excuses.
The 50% added battery time has been tested & proven by everyone that has tried to run Linux on Macs. You say it's just me? Fine, point out even one recent site that has compared OSX & Linux battery duration on typical workloads. The test is trivial. Linux fails it every time. Thus I CAN know that OS X would be 50% more energy efficient than Linus is, because I have tested how Linux compares to OS X.
People talk about the Apple reality distortion field. You have a Linus distortion field that prevents you from parsing simple phrases & understanding simple graphs.
It's only apt to blame Bush if you chose to ignore Obama's mistakes. But of course Obama won the NPP so for people like you, he can do no wrong. Bush's actions had repercussions, but the rise to power of IS is almost purely Obama's responsibility.
Obama, by cutting and running - getting out as fast as he could, surrendered sovereignty to the Al-Maliki Shiite government who promptly declared the heads of the allied Sunni tribes terrorists and refused to integrate the sunni tribal members (as promised) into the national army nor continue to pay them to combat AQ. The allied tribesmen and the troop surge (criticized by Obama as sending more troops into a lost cause) that broke AQ in Iraq. It was Obama's abandonment of the Sunnis that what created the power vacuum that created IS. Had Obama not abandoned the Sunni tribesmen and forced Al-Maliki to respect the promises given to the Sunnis there would be no IS.
Oh sure, Obama is the prince of peace. He won the NPP, closed Guantanamo & left Iraq in a state capable of dealing with IS.
By cutting and running Obama abandoned the partnership with the Sunni tribes that were the main reason violence in Iraq went down to the level it did as Obama took office. In doing so, Obama created the power vacuum that birthed ISIS. But of course some will blame Bush for everything bad in the world.
Has world peace made a major step forward in the years Obama has been President? No. In fact by abandoning Iraq before they were ready Obama fostered the Islamic State which we will be spending the next few presidencies working on.
Obama was indeed handed the NPP for not being Bush but that says more about the NPP's political leanings and how irrelevant the NPP is than anything else.
Oh look at you, trying to climb all the way up onto that high, high horse...
You badly paraphrase gizmo and try to throw dirt on him by equating his remark that women often use sex appeal with "she deserved it".
"well sure" versus RAPIST, hmmm, which carries the most weight? You have to be pretty stupid to not realize which is the stronger term, which is why you don't throw around "she deserved it" or RAPIST casually like you did.
Reread the post that you replied to. Nowhere did Gizmo say "she deserved it" That's all in YOUR mind.
We seem to agree that using sex appeal is used by both sexes. Do we also agree that people who denounce women using their sex appeal to unfairly obtain favors does not equal "she asked to be raped"?
No, it's I saw YOU Megol RAPE a child! MEGOL IS A RAPIST! Lets round up a bunch of easily inflamed people & go STRING YOU UP!
My point is that before stringing anyone up, literally or figuratively, BOTH sides of the story need to be presented before a judge. This is not the case at present with regard to TFA & the lynch mobbers need to calm down.
I agree with you 150% but good luck with getting women from societies like Algeria where most of the population believe & treat women like chattel to know their (western) rights and attempt to fight back.
And it's not as if women don't use their sex-appeal when it suits them.
Well sure. But now you're using the "she asked to be raped" stupidity.
What is stupidity is feigning to ignore reality. Women DO consciously use their sex appeal to their advantage when it suits them. That doesn't mean that they are asking to be raped but neither does it mean that their using sex to their advantage doesn't exist, nor that we cannot all acknowledge that it does. It is abject stupidity to attempt to be blind to this and rejecting anyone who brings it up as a latent rapist is part of the problem.
What better way to learn what undiscovered security holes there are in a product than to be able to see the source code?
Oh, you thought that the reason China wants to audit the code is so that they can "protect" their citizens. Yes, because not at all well known for targeting dissent, no, not at all...
Can anyone tell us if that's vulnerable (& on what platforms)?
I don't have flash installed but I do have chrome (with it's integrated flash) for those sites that just cannot keep up with the times. Yes, I use flashcontrol to autoexecute only whitelisted sites, but you never know...
No, my argument was that there is parity between major OSes.
You're wrong.
Again, and for reasons I have explained multiple times, Linux does not aggregate periods of CPU use/non-use because it has nothing like Grand Central, App-Nap & other technologies Apple has developed to get more efficient use of the hardware.
Again, OS X's advantage is trivially provable: Dual-boot Linux & OS X & see how long each OS lasts on battery performing the exact same tasks. Thousands of people have done so & the result is that OS X lasts in general 50% longer.
That's 50% more energy efficiency in OS X compared to Linux.
It's not a question of "you think that bla bla bla", it's been proven.
That your CPU spends part of it's time in low power states using Linux doesn't change the fact that it would spend 50% more time in low power states were you using OS X.
Just in case you're not to lazy or prejudiced to learn, here's a review of OS X that goes into some detail: http://arstechnica.com/apple/2.... It has graphics that even you should be able to understand.
You appear to think that cooperation with "cpu outfits" like Intel & AMD has given Linux an advantage in power consumption efficiency. You're wrong as can be trivially proven by running OSX & Linux on the same hardware & the same workload. OS X battery duration is generally over 150% that of Linux. You can buy older & slower hardware to eke out longer battery duration (at the price of lower performance) but some of us need modern hardware AND good battery life.
Linux has nothing like grand central. When you have multiple tasks that need CPU on Linux, they all execute on their own rigid schedule with no cooperation to coalesce active and inactive periods. Every time it starts transitioning to low power, an unrelated task comes along and the CPU must transition back. Thus your CPU never actually spends time in low power states.
OSX has grand central. Tasks that need to execute regularly tell grand central what their schedule is but also give grand central a margin of acceptable movement in the schedule. Grand central uses the margins to coalesce active and inactive periods.
Why don't you explain exactly what it is in your "secure" email (besides faith that is) that would have preserved Sony from being compromised by a system level zero day or an insider attack, hmmm? Oh, sorry, that appears to be what you call pedantry. I should expect more snot comments & not reasoned debate I suppose.
Again with the simplistic overgeneralizing and again making blanket statements. Every email system is secure until it isn't and it isn't the assurances of the vendors (nor yours with it's infantile references) that changes this essential fact. Sony thought that their email was safe. You probably think that you use an impenetrable system given how childishly petulant you behave when I call it's security into question. Your confidence in your Impenetrable secure is as childish as your snot references.
"Actually" you've just exposed your ignorance, dumb...
OSX aggregates task execution much better so that it can put the processors into low power modes for much longer periods than Linux does. Entering/exiting low power modes is not immediate and without the work Apple has done the processors are always getting interrupted and sleeping much less in Linux than in OSX.
Ah, but you can make a blanket statement saying that "secure" email could have saved Sony from embarrassment. Why? Apparently because it's "secure". Why is it secure? Because. Again, that's cute, as is your contention that use of secure email is what makes a judge think that you are a terrorist instead of just meriting a closer look. Ahhh to have such a simplistic worldview...
Slashdot Mirror
Correction: I get close to 50% better battery life. When searching for "mac linux battery duration" the first linksays: "The only two things I *really* loved in OSX were:
* longer battery life
* very fast and efficient suspend/resume".
The second link says: "720p - Mac OS X ...
Result on 720p playback: +1h57 or +42% battery life."
The third link says: "To date the best estimated battery life value I have seen under Linux is 5 hours (I have not run an actual timed test yet) as compared to 7.5 in Mac OS"
Just one web search, three results all saying the same thing I have tested & seen for myself. OS X is much better than Linux. Shut yer trap linux bigot.
Listen you illiterate twit, I HAVE proven that Linux is less energy efficient than OS X by booting Linux on a Mac & testing how long it lasts. I get almost twice the battery life - just like every one else does.
You, blinded by your prejudice refuse to perform the test (presumably because you'd need to touch a Mac & contaminate yourself) and are unable to comprehend ARS' article which clearly shows the work that Apple has performed on OS X that no other OS has.
As you clearly filter out all information that contrary to your dialectic, and keep posting unsupported out & out lies, we're done here.
Hey troll boy, learn how to read. The graphs explain precisely and exactly what I repeat time & time again to counter your general ignorance & obtuseness: OSX aggregates running tasks into blocks so that the CPUs can be put to sleep (and not just start transitioning only to transition back when an interrupt occurs). Linux has nothing like Grand Central, nor App-Nap, keeps getting interrupted & thus puts the CPUs into low power modes much less often.
I've said so in my first post in this thread, in my second post, in my third post, in my fourth post, ... I've detailed multiple times just how easily testable OS X's advantage over Linux is in battery time is but instead of performing the test yourself, you keep finding excuses.
The 50% added battery time has been tested & proven by everyone that has tried to run Linux on Macs. You say it's just me? Fine, point out even one recent site that has compared OSX & Linux battery duration on typical workloads. The test is trivial. Linux fails it every time. Thus I CAN know that OS X would be 50% more energy efficient than Linus is, because I have tested how Linux compares to OS X.
People talk about the Apple reality distortion field. You have a Linus distortion field that prevents you from parsing simple phrases & understanding simple graphs.
It's only apt to blame Bush if you chose to ignore Obama's mistakes. But of course Obama won the NPP so for people like you, he can do no wrong. Bush's actions had repercussions, but the rise to power of IS is almost purely Obama's responsibility.
Obama, by cutting and running - getting out as fast as he could, surrendered sovereignty to the Al-Maliki Shiite government who promptly declared the heads of the allied Sunni tribes terrorists and refused to integrate the sunni tribal members (as promised) into the national army nor continue to pay them to combat AQ. The allied tribesmen and the troop surge (criticized by Obama as sending more troops into a lost cause) that broke AQ in Iraq. It was Obama's abandonment of the Sunnis that what created the power vacuum that created IS. Had Obama not abandoned the Sunni tribesmen and forced Al-Maliki to respect the promises given to the Sunnis there would be no IS.
Oh sure, Obama is the prince of peace. He won the NPP, closed Guantanamo & left Iraq in a state capable of dealing with IS.
By cutting and running Obama abandoned the partnership with the Sunni tribes that were the main reason violence in Iraq went down to the level it did as Obama took office. In doing so, Obama created the power vacuum that birthed ISIS. But of course some will blame Bush for everything bad in the world.
Has world peace made a major step forward in the years Obama has been President? No. In fact by abandoning Iraq before they were ready Obama fostered the Islamic State which we will be spending the next few presidencies working on.
Obama was indeed handed the NPP for not being Bush but that says more about the NPP's political leanings and how irrelevant the NPP is than anything else.
Oh look at you, trying to climb all the way up onto that high, high horse...
You badly paraphrase gizmo and try to throw dirt on him by equating his remark that women often use sex appeal with "she deserved it".
"well sure" versus RAPIST, hmmm, which carries the most weight? You have to be pretty stupid to not realize which is the stronger term, which is why you don't throw around "she deserved it" or RAPIST casually like you did.
Reread the post that you replied to. Nowhere did Gizmo say "she deserved it" That's all in YOUR mind.
We seem to agree that using sex appeal is used by both sexes. Do we also agree that people who denounce women using their sex appeal to unfairly obtain favors does not equal "she asked to be raped"?
No, it's I saw YOU Megol RAPE a child! MEGOL IS A RAPIST! Lets round up a bunch of easily inflamed people & go STRING YOU UP!
My point is that before stringing anyone up, literally or figuratively, BOTH sides of the story need to be presented before a judge. This is not the case at present with regard to TFA & the lynch mobbers need to calm down.
I agree with you 150% but good luck with getting women from societies like Algeria where most of the population believe & treat women like chattel to know their (western) rights and attempt to fight back.
No. So far, we have only heard one side of the story & both sides need to be heard & in front of an impartial judge.
80 years ago when they were stringing up black men in the south, they often had "proof" of their guilt and acted on it. Stop acting like a mob.
And it's not as if women don't use their sex-appeal when it suits them.
Well sure. But now you're using the "she asked to be raped" stupidity.
What is stupidity is feigning to ignore reality. Women DO consciously use their sex appeal to their advantage when it suits them. That doesn't mean that they are asking to be raped but neither does it mean that their using sex to their advantage doesn't exist, nor that we cannot all acknowledge that it does. It is abject stupidity to attempt to be blind to this and rejecting anyone who brings it up as a latent rapist is part of the problem.
What better way to learn what undiscovered security holes there are in a product than to be able to see the source code?
Oh, you thought that the reason China wants to audit the code is so that they can "protect" their citizens. Yes, because not at all well known for targeting dissent, no, not at all...
Yeah, but you're no safer than I am. I only surf with chrome to sites that I've white listed.
It'd be nice to know whether or not chrome's flash is vulnerable or not.
Thanks but if I use a locked down browser for the few sites left, it's because I cannot avoid flash for some sites. Turning off flash isn't an option.
Can anyone tell us if that's vulnerable (& on what platforms)?
I don't have flash installed but I do have chrome (with it's integrated flash) for those sites that just cannot keep up with the times. Yes, I use flashcontrol to autoexecute only whitelisted sites, but you never know...
No, my argument was that there is parity between major OSes.
You're wrong.
Again, and for reasons I have explained multiple times, Linux does not aggregate periods of CPU use/non-use because it has nothing like Grand Central, App-Nap & other technologies Apple has developed to get more efficient use of the hardware.
Again, OS X's advantage is trivially provable: Dual-boot Linux & OS X & see how long each OS lasts on battery performing the exact same tasks. Thousands of people have done so & the result is that OS X lasts in general 50% longer.
That's 50% more energy efficiency in OS X compared to Linux.
It's not a question of "you think that bla bla bla", it's been proven.
That your CPU spends part of it's time in low power states using Linux doesn't change the fact that it would spend 50% more time in low power states were you using OS X.
Just in case you're not to lazy or prejudiced to learn, here's a review of OS X that goes into some detail: http://arstechnica.com/apple/2.... It has graphics that even you should be able to understand.
Kind of hard to complain (but they do anyway) when the DGSE is snooping on Boeing & handing the info over to Airbus...
You appear to think that cooperation with "cpu outfits" like Intel & AMD has given Linux an advantage in power consumption efficiency. You're wrong as can be trivially proven by running OSX & Linux on the same hardware & the same workload. OS X battery duration is generally over 150% that of Linux. You can buy older & slower hardware to eke out longer battery duration (at the price of lower performance) but some of us need modern hardware AND good battery life.
Linux has nothing like grand central. When you have multiple tasks that need CPU on Linux, they all execute on their own rigid schedule with no cooperation to coalesce active and inactive periods. Every time it starts transitioning to low power, an unrelated task comes along and the CPU must transition back. Thus your CPU never actually spends time in low power states.
OSX has grand central. Tasks that need to execute regularly tell grand central what their schedule is but also give grand central a margin of acceptable movement in the schedule. Grand central uses the margins to coalesce active and inactive periods.
Why don't you explain exactly what it is in your "secure" email (besides faith that is) that would have preserved Sony from being compromised by a system level zero day or an insider attack, hmmm? Oh, sorry, that appears to be what you call pedantry. I should expect more snot comments & not reasoned debate I suppose.
Again with the simplistic overgeneralizing and again making blanket statements. Every email system is secure until it isn't and it isn't the assurances of the vendors (nor yours with it's infantile references) that changes this essential fact. Sony thought that their email was safe. You probably think that you use an impenetrable system given how childishly petulant you behave when I call it's security into question. Your confidence in your Impenetrable secure is as childish as your snot references.
Insightful
"Actually" you've just exposed your ignorance, dumb...
OSX aggregates task execution much better so that it can put the processors into low power modes for much longer periods than Linux does. Entering/exiting low power modes is not immediate and without the work Apple has done the processors are always getting interrupted and sleeping much less in Linux than in OSX.
Stop confusing the poor man with facts!
Ah, but you can make a blanket statement saying that "secure" email could have saved Sony from embarrassment. Why? Apparently because it's "secure". Why is it secure? Because. Again, that's cute, as is your contention that use of secure email is what makes a judge think that you are a terrorist instead of just meriting a closer look. Ahhh to have such a simplistic worldview...