It appears to be building 10.6.7 evan though Protogo is running from a 1.8.3 startup CPU.

If you use the Basic profile, the system software is copied from your installation of Mac OS X.

If you use the Intel or PowerPC profile, the system software comes from a file provided by Apple as part of a developer's kit for making bootable DVDs. That kit has not been revised in a long time and is not likely to be, as Apple no longer ships the system software on bootable DVDs.

Basic Boots far to slowly from a USB Chip. Longer than 8 Minutes when I tried the new setup.
I have been paying for Micromat software from version 1.
Your telling me apple did not update the developer app is passing the buck... especially since you are taking my money for the product.
Get off your butts and produce your own startup version.
Or be honest with your loyal clients and stop taking money for Protogo updates that are not being and not likely to be updated to current versions of the OS.

So it would appear my only choice is to use the full or basic from an SSD or thunder bolt when they finally
start producing external enclosures for thunderbolt.

The Basic profile may require more boot time than the Intel or PowerPC profiles, which have fewer frameworks and no Finder, but the main cause of slow boot times is the inefficient nature of USB, something over which we have no control.

You can make an eDrive using TechTool Pro, which comes with Protogo, on a USB memory stick of at least 32 GB capacity, formatted by Disk Utility to have a GUID partition map and a Mac OS Extended (journaled) volume.

The product description for Protogo explains exactly what the limitations of the included system software are.

So What do recommend for the questions asked?

What would boot at close to normal speeds using derive?

Use the Basic profile and a FireWire drive, formatted by Disk Utility to have a GUID partition map and a Mac OS Extended (journaled) volume. Use FireWire 800 if your computer supports it. No external device is as fast as an internal one, but FireWire is not painfully slow.

Tacit, the founder of the FineTuned Mac Forums, once posted this description of the difference between USB and FireWire, in the MacFixIt Forums:


******

Re: Why is Firewire faster than USB 2.0? [Re: alyciadad]

tacit
MacGuru

Registered: 10/14/99
Posts: 11990
Loc: Portland, Oregon, USA

Without going into technical reasons, the simple answer is that FireWire uses a more efficient command set and more efficient techniques for transmitting data that rely on less overhead.

Here's a quick and crude metaphor that might help illustrate ow USB can seem to have a higher data transmission rate but actually is slower in the real world. Imagine that we have two different types of connections. We'll call them ImaginaryA and ImaginaryB. ImaginaryA and ImaginaryB both are used to connect a computer to a hard drive. They use different "protocols," or techniques for sending information back and forth.

When a computer talks to a hard drive using ImaginaryA, it goes something like this:

computer: Hard drive, please give me your unit number
hard drive: Hard drive unit number is 1102
computer: Hard drive 1102, please give me your size
hard drive: Hard drive 1102 reports that the total size for hard drive 1102 is 150 GB
computer: Hard drive 1102, please locate block number 332.
hard drive: Hard drive 1102 reports that block number 332 has been located.
computer: hard drive 1102, please give me 10 bytes of data starting at block 332.
hard drive: Beginning the read. 23. 45. 22. 12. 55. 87. 76. 32. 99. 21. Read finished. Did you get that all OK?
computer: Hard drive 1102, I got all the data OK.

Now let's say that you attach a hard drive using the ImaginaryB port on your computer and read the exact same data. The "conversation" between the computer and the hard drive looks like this:

computer: ID
hard drive: 1102
computer: 1102 size
hard drive: 150g
computer: 1102 position 332
hard drive: 332 ok
computer: 1102 read 10 332
hard drive: 23 45 22 12 55 87 76 32 99 21 ok
computer: ok

Now, even if the computer "talks" to the hard drive at the same speed using ImaginaryA and ImaginaryB, it's clear to see that the computer will read data from the hard drive using ImaginaryB much, much faster, because the commands that go back and forth are shorter and simpler.


******