Main Fan Turn On(tm)

[garote]

So I finally maxed out the CPUs on my Macbook Pro without deliberately trying. It happened this evening, while I was doing the following all at once:

• Chatting via iChat
• Reading email
• 4 downloads at 250kB/sec each
• Browsing the web in six tabs
• Converting losslessly compressed CDs between formats over the network
• Installing Windows XP SP2 in an emulator on a dynamically-sized partition from an image of the install CDROM
• A 46-gigabyte file copy over the network, via Windows filesharing
• Locating pictures in an archive of over 14,000 in Aperture, and exporting them in groups.

Well bust my buttons; I guess this makes me a "power user". :D

Comments

[lutin.livejournal.com]

:p!

[shutupassbutt.livejournal.com]

alkjhssflhsdf


jeepers

[graue.livejournal.com]

What do you mean "maxed out the CPUs"? Are you saying your computer stopped working because you were doing those things? Or just that it hit 100% CPU usage, in which case, shouldn't any one CPU-bound background task do that?

[garote]

Your first question: Are you honestly unaware of the convention I am using here?
To answer your second question, no. OS X has very well-thought-out processor scheduling, and even with both CPU cores under full load I was still able to move windows, browse around, switch between apps, et cetera.
To answer your third question, technically, no - though that depends on what you mean by "task". The CPU usage actually goes to 200%. It's a dual-core system. ;)

[graue.livejournal.com]

Okay, 200% -- shouldn't running any two CPU-bound tasks do that?

I'm not clear on what you're saying and why it's remarkable.

[garote]

Certainly! And of course I have brought both cores to 100% momentarily in the past. Usually the bottleneck has been disk I/O. This time I was particularly impressed because it had been pegged at 100% for a good while.

Now, if Adobe released a full implementation of Adobe Audition for the Mac, that would be a regular occurrence. :)