App Store based software update crapping out again … waiting etc

For some reason my software update seems to think it’s “waiting” for my brother printer 2.10 update forever, I also note that this brother 2.10 update is probably stalled, most likely because the driver updates software update is trying to install, are probably not as up-to-date as the mountain lion brother printer drivers that I quite recently installed manually from the brother website itself? and it cant quite deal in the background with the, the drivers already installed are more up to date etc ?

These App Store software update issues are a problem with Apple trying to simplify things too much and bind the software update system unnaturally into the App Store, when it doesn’t really run as smoothly as the old software update system, Which was far superior when it comes to updating the operating system, you once had the ability to store and download and retain installers permanently useful for very large, combo installers that you need to install on multiple machines, negating the necessity of re-downloading on every machine you needed to update, wasting both bandwidth and commercial time, obviously you can trawl the Apple website to find an update and downloaded and retain it, so you can install on many machines etc, but that used to be something that was easy to do do through the software update system without having to bother to trawl the Apple website which is better. You could do a specific noncontiguous selection of updates which were to be installed and which could be installed all in one hit, without much messing around or supernumerary restarts. Also there was a great deal more feedback as to what was going on, the word “waiting” and no petrol gauge doesn’t inform the users of much.

Also I note that you don’t get the ability to select individual updates to be done unless you click on the word “more” which isn’t used in such a way within gui’s or interfaces, except to refer to “more…” as in for extra textual description which has been truncated click here to see the whole text, rather than individual software install functionality etc, but in fact the individual update selection update buttons are hidden behind this “more” in non obvious manner. Additionally if you don’t want to install an update it will sit there for ever more in the list dangerously hidden behind the always reduced “more” text every time you launch software update within the App Store, leaving the potential danger of it being installed when you don’t want it to be, iTunes 11 anyone ? no thanks, or brother printer update I don’t need ? that will always fail to install, even if I accidentally set it to install, when I don’t want to, because it’s hidden behind the “more” text and I just clicked the main update button. It should be possible to remove printer updates if one doesn’t want them in the list.

I recommend the following article in order to sort these issues out, again allot of pissing about with websites and complicated things, in order to sort out the supposedly easy to use Apple software, sometimes it’s better to give the users more control rather than ask them to find out about how to resolve the problem, and find out what the real complexity looks like, behind the failing veneer of simplicity, this will usually involves lots and lots of forum searching, this guy has a really good article about how to resolve problems with software update on the App Store so I recommend you to have a look at his great post, rather than groping around in forums yourself.

app store stuck stopped waiting ? use this guide to sort it out

imac GPU die too high idling at 80 deg ? fan control solution

I suggest you use

imac fan control

it enables you to set a fan speed slope profile min speed max speed and min and max temps etc for all three imac fans, CPU, optical hard drive, it also set the cpu and hard fans to 1200rpm minimum which now means my GPU die is operating at 68deg then playing 720p youtube video on a second screen.

donate to the guy if you like and use it

It works for me on an imac 27″ mid 2011 running mountain lion

Haswell Quad core stagnation

intel’s subconsciously projected view of their users needs is “our quad core power is all you’ve needed for the last 5 years” which is why its stayed roughly in the same range for 5 years. most of their “designed in power increases” are subsumed and overtaken by overclocking the right CPU harder.

at same clocks haswell is proving 5-15% more than ivy … at most, the majority of the transistor count increase has gone into the iGPU which doesn’t much interest LGA socket users with discrete cards. quad core processor power hasn’t improved massively over the last 5 years, unless your OC’ing to 5ghz on an i5 2500k. Haswell & Ivy due to IHS issues won’t reach the speeds of an i5 2500k & have high core temp variability when OCed hard. little epeen to be had from haswell except energy savings.

Moores Law is a load of shit – Calculate this for yourself >

“Moore’s law is the observation that, over the history of computing hardware, the number of transistors on integrated circuits doubles approximately every two years”

from wikipedia

in 1971 the intel 4004 processor was released with a cpu die area of 12mm square and 2300 transistors

lets assume for our calculation that the die area remains the same size just the transistor count doubles every 2 years ? due to a halving of fab process once every four years.

2013 – 1971 = 42 years double very 2 would mean 21 doublings of transistors since the intel 4004 in 1971

this would mean

2300 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2

= 4,823,449,600 transistors or 4.8 billion in the same cpu die area 12mm square as the original 4004 ? actually i think I got it wrong 21 doublings is double this figure so 4.8 billion is being generous.

which is 13 times smaller than the CPU die of the average quad core today ?

meaning if you were to use the same cpu die area of an average quad core today 160mm squared

the number of transistors should be in the region of 64,151,879,680 transistors in todays processors by moores laws prediction ?

which means were missing about 62,751,879,680 transistors from moores law projections ?

a current quad core 4670k has 1,400,000,000 transistors ie 1.4 billion transistors sadly in a cpu die area of 160mm square,

if we were using 300mm wafers to produce 4004 processors using the original 10um transistor scale you could get 5282 cpus per wafer at 10um, if you were using the 22nm scale of todays process you could get 228,869,565 ie 222.8 million 4004 processors from one 300mm wafer, thats if you could theoretically cut them out with zero width cutting of the wafer ;)

literal scientifically accurate moores law has not occurred.

This can be explained easily because fab nm process halving changes I presume must have not occurred every 4 years, were missing about 5 and a bit doublings which is about 98% off from the number of transistors, easily done with square area transistor reduction doubling.

looking through this page I calculate the number of doublings achieved by halving of fab process scale that has actually occured

it took intel from 1971 till 1976 to third the fab process from 10um to 3um in the 8085 cpu
then 1976 to 1982 to get to 1.5um 286
then from 1982 to 1993 to halve the fab process and get to 0.8um as was used in the pentium etc

this was practically 11 years for not even a full a halving of the fab process size ? and thereby not even a full doubling of the transistor count. if fab transistor scale was halved every four years we would now be at 5nm to 2.5nm features in lithography, moores law is a marketing tool used by intel, not a guarantee-able law. Nor could it ever be, since its dependant on scientific breakthroughs that are not a given, Intel have done an amazing job, but moores law is not a scientific law.

as you can see the halving of process nm scale is not occuring every 4 years which would quadruple the transistor count with the square area, leading to moores law and the doubling of transistor counts every 2 years, if once every four years fab processes did half this would stand, but since were still behind on that projection we can see that moores law does not stand true, because of fab process not halving every four years, the other element to take into account is wafer size increase and cpu die size increase which goes some way to explaining why transistor count has not been much worse in relation to moores law.



Intel have deliberately dumbed down their new “package specifications” on their website, so as to no longer highlight die size or transistor count compared to spec listings for older processors

all so as to avoid the concept theyre not keeping pace with moores law nor have matched it over the years.

mobile parts is what theyre bent towards now in haswell ? well whose left making parts for desktop then !? not every maker can focus on mobile, dont follow amd, the cpu transistor count has not significantly gone up, i had my i7 920 at 4.2ghz, i5 2500k could easily get 4.8ghz, haswell slightly worse due to the IHS issues unless its delidded core temp variation is too high, so the desktop CPU is getting worse every year, this is not moores law, this is not progress, haswell is a pathetic increase in power over Ivy, no excuses, quad core cpus have stagnated, your argument doesnt stack for the desktop user.

I pay for a new CPU and motherboard when there is a significant transistor and speed increase on offer, theyre seeing desktop cpu sales dropping because we dont have significant enough power increases to justify it, and theyre bending they’re whole platform toward mobile to compete with AMD and more power saving states and giving us smaller CPU die size chips from the wafer, with integrated graphics we didnt ask for, at the same speed and price as last years chip, there is no point in paying for this ?

8 cores next chip or I’ll wait for an affordable 8 core amd jaguar setup once the consoles have had their fill, hyper threading is weaksauce compared to higher clock frequency. and how about a little big core scenario so It can be my always on low power home server until I decide to crank it up to full bore mode.

there are now phones with more cores than your average i5 desktop chip, samsungs octacore arm 4 big 4 little seems intriguing and innovative at least in comparison.

EULA’s Agreements egregious, revision needed

Software and digital service EULA’s are completely out of whack in favour of the companies, at some point were going to have to tackle this.

The app store development agreement I assume rephrased ? agreed … I assume apple must be getting all developers at least 40-50% more sales, otherwise how could they justify this being beneficial to developers or consumers at all? surely in a digital system the take should be allot lower under 10% at most I would have thought ? I Dont understand why digital distribution and sales seems to cost as much as physical, its the same with ebay auctions taking the same percentage as physical auctions ? The other day the app store wouldn’t let me download a piece of software whose only distribution method is the app store! because mistakenly the app store thought I already had it. And censorship in the distribution chain becomes a very big issue, when the only way of being realistically noticed is in that said same chain.