The new Apple Thunderbolt Display is much more than just a monitor: It's a demonstration of what Thunderbolt technology is capable of!

It took a while, but Apple’s Thunderbolt technology is finally proving its worth. The new Thunderbolt Display is called “the ultimate docking station” on Apple’s website, and this may just be the case. With a single cable carrying power, display, and I/O from a thunderbolt equipped MacBook Pro or MacBook Air, the Thunderbolt Display really does transform what a laptop computer can be.

A Quiet Surprise

You might also want to read Thunderbolt = Light Peak = Mini DisplayPort + PCI Express

Apple introduced the latest version of their OS X operating system alongside the new MacBook Air, the cancellation of the old plastic MacBook, and a refresh of the Mac Mini this month. With so much news, it was easy to overlook another key product introduction: the Thunderbolt Display.

But far from being a simple monitor, the new Thunderbolt Display is really the first non-storage Thunderbolt peripheral as well as a demonstration of the power of this new interconnect. Taking a step forward from previous Cinema Displays, this new monitor includes a single cable for power and video signals and also leverages Thunderbolt technology to carry I/O traffic, turning the monitor into an extension of the attached MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, or Mac Mini.

The new Display uses Thunderbolt technology to expand the I/O capabilities of slim computers like the Mac Mini and MacBook Air

The Thunderbolt Display includes three full power USB 2.0 ports, a FireWire 800 port, a Gigabit Ethernet port, a “FaceTime” HD webcam and microphone. All of these signals are multiplexed over a single Thunderbolt connection along with the DisplayPort via signal. Attaching this display to a brand-new Thunderbolt equipped MacBook Air transforms it into an iMac equivalent, with the same I/O capabilities and performance.

Note that the Thunderbolt controller in the MacBook Pro is twice as powerful as the one found in the new MacBook Air, allowing the Pro computers to use to Thunderbolt Displays at once. This “LightRidge” chip is also found in the Mac Mini and iMac, so all are capable of dual displays.

Changing the Shape of Computers

This is the real power of Thunderbolt technology in action. By extending the PCI bus outside a computer’s chassis, advanced peripherals like the Thunderbolt Display can add full speed I/O ports without sacrificing a thin, portable form factor. The previous generation MacBook Air was seriously compromised in terms of performance, with just two slow USB 2.0 ports and no Ethernet. The new Thunderbolt MacBook Air is an entirely different league, boasting 10 Gb of external I/O that can be used for full speed Ethernet, FireWire, and (hopefully) USB 3.0 in the future.

Thunderbolt allows a slim portable computer to have the same massive I/O capability as a desktop, and it has implications for nonportable devices as well. Consider the new Mac Mini, which has slimmed down to the size of the old Apple TV. Although it lacks an internal optical drive or any other expansion capability, equipping the Mac Mini with Thunderbolt enables it to challenge the tower desktops in the future. Already, companies like Village Instruments are promising to introduce PCIe expansion chassis for Thunderbolt, allowing computers like the Mac Mini and MacBook Air to use full-size PCIe cards.

Stephen’s Stance

Thunderbolt is important not because it is fast but because it extends the PCI bus outside the computer chassis. The next iteration of the Mac Pro could be as tiny as the Mac Mini, as long as it has two or more Thunderbolt ports and an expansion chassis for video and I/O cards.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | Apple’s Thunderbolt Display Shows the Future
This post was categorized as Apple, Terabyte home. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

Apple boasts that their AirPort Extreme base station is "5x faster" but which devices can connect?

Apple is not always quick to support new technologies, but they threw their weight behind 802.11n Wi-Fi as soon as hardware was available. They upgraded their access points, laptop and desktop computers beginning in 2006, though support importable devices lagged. But the capabilities of 802.11n devices varies widely, and today’s Apple devices are no exception.

802.11n Capability Refresh

Routers like this Cisco E4200 can hit 450 Mb/s data rate!

As I discussed in detail last week, there are four main technology enhancements to 802.11n: MIMO and multi-streaming, 40 MHz channels, 5 GHz radio spectrum, and various packet enhancements. Each of these is optional for 802.11n devices, and Apple has picked a subset to support.

Basic 802.11n devices operate in the same 2.4 GHz radio channels as earlier Wi-Fi technologies. Many also lack the multiple radios and amplifiers required for multi-stream performance, and Apple only supports 40 MHz channels in the 5 GHz range. This means that simple devices are limited to a data rate of 72.2 Mb per second. These compromises are often made to conserve power or due to physical space constraints, so portable devices like the iPhone lack the performance of full-fledged computers.

Most desktop and laptop implementations of 802.11n include radios capable of either 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz operation, and many offer two or three antennas for MIMO and multi-streaming. From 2006, Apple has offered 802.11 draft-n wireless cards in their laptop and desktop line, and all of these boast dual stream, dual frequency radios. Beginning in 2011, Apple has introduced ultra high-performance Wi-Fi offering three spatial streams and up to 450 Mb per second data rate.

When it comes to access points, Apple has aggressively moved toward 802.11n but lacks many of the features found on competitive products. The Apple AirPort line of Wi-Fi access points currently includes both the AirPort Express, with selectable frequency and dual stream support, as well as the AirPort Extreme, which supports both frequencies concurrently as well as triple stream performance. But Apple does not allow multi-streaming or 40 MHz channels in the 2.4 GHz frequency range on any device in their AirPort line.

Apple 802.11n Wi-Fi Device Capabilities

You might also want to read Which iPad is the Best Choice? and Decision Point: Comparing the 2011 MacBook Pro Models

To try to alleviate the confusion around which devices support what 802.11n features, I created the following table. Generally speaking, any Apple access point, laptop or desktop built since 2006 includes selectable 2.4 or 5 GHz support and at least dual stream capabilities. Every Apple TV also includes 802.11n Wi-Fi right out of the box. On the portable device side, both iPad generations, the iPhone 4, and the latest iPod Touch support 802.11n, though performance is limited.

Apple Devices with Limited 802.11n Support

I love my AirPort Express, but it's limited to two streams and either 2.4 or 5 GHz

Apple’s portable devices sacrifice performance for efficiency when it comes to Wi-Fi. The iPhone 4, 3rd generation iPod Touch, iPad, and Apple TV each have just one Wi-Fi antenna, so they are limited to single stream performance. The iPhone 4, iPod Touch, and first-generation iPad also lack 5 GHz radio compatibility, though the second-generation iPad and Apple TV do include it. This means that households with these popular devices cannot use 5 GHz-only networks, making the dual-band AirPort Extreme more attractive as a base station than the switchable AirPort Express.

Unsupported Apple Devices

Many readers will find that they own devices that do not support 802.11n at all, forcing them to maintain backward compatibility when deploying new Wi-Fi routers. Some very recent devices, including the iPhone 3G S and previous and the first three generations of iPod Touch, require 802.11g to connect. On the computer side of things, pre-2006 MacBook, MacBook Pro, and iMac computers lack 802.11n compatibility. But the Mac Mini is the real standout: It didn’t include 802.11n until the Core 2 Duo refresh in early 2009.

Stephen’s Stance

Apple's 5th-generation AirPort Extreme can hit 450 Mb/s data rate in combination with the 2011 MacBook Pro and iMac

It is nice to see Apple out in front with a technology like 802.11n, considering their reluctance to support Blu-Ray and USB 3.0. Although expensive, the AirPort Extreme and 2011 MacBook Pro and iMac sport top-of-the-line specs and high performance Wi-Fi. But the lack of 5 GHz support across the board means many users will stick to the crowded 2.4 GHz spectrum, limiting performance. And I’m sure owners of recent but unsupported devices (the older iPhone, iPod Touch, and Mac Mini) will be disappointed to have to stick to 802.11g.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | Which Apple Devices Support 802.11n Wi-Fi?
This post was categorized as Apple, Everything, Personal, Terabyte home. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

SANLink is a Fibre Channel interface for the MacBook Pro, and that's no joke!

Thunderbolt was everywhere at the NAB Show, including many new products previewed or unveiled just last week. Beyond the two previously-known storage devices, the Promise Pegasus and LaCie Little Big Disk, a number of interfaces were also on display. Since this was the NAB Show, much of the focus was on the audio and video interfaces from Blackmagic and AJA, but Promise had a surprise in store: Their SANLink is a Fibre Channel interface for Thunderbolt.

SANLink: Connecting MacBook Pros to the SAN?

The SANLink is a compact portable device that allows a Thunderbolt-equipped computer (currently the 2011 MacBook Pro line) to Fibre Channel SAN. Featuring two 4 Gbps Fibre Channel ports, the SANLink demonstrates the kind of high performance that we can expect from future Thunderbolt peripherals.

I have to admit, the SANLink left me scratching my head at first. Why would a MacBook Pro user want to connect to a Fibre Channel SAN? Is this even a good idea? Considering that the slim Thunderbolt connector is not firmly fixed in place, a sudden disconnect is likely and would prove highly disruptive to the SAN, not just the laptop. And what laptop user wants to connect to a Fibre Channel SAN anyway?

I talked to the product manager from Promise, who suggested a use case for this device: Mobile video production systems sometimes use Fibre Channel for high-performance storage connectivity, and a MacBook Pro user could use theSANLink to access these storage devices as well. I will concede that a few people at the NAB Show were probably intrigued by this possibility, but I’m betting that the SANLink will be much more useful in an entirely different market segment.

The SANLink promises massive I/O performance, even on a laptop!

Considering that Apple is set to update the iMac line this month, it seems likely that the SANLink will allow these gorgeous desktop computers finally to meet their destiny as audiovisual workstations. Running Final Cut Pro X on a new Sandy Bridge iMac with high-performance Fibre Channel storage will be a revelation, and will likely cause a raft of Mac Pro users to “switch”. Promise is certainly barred from talking about future Apple products, even if they have inside information, but this is a much more logical use case than the SAN-on-the-go.

SANLink suggests that we may soon see a variety of high-performance interfaces developed for the Thunderbolt ports soon to be found across Apple’s product line. I would not be at all surprised to see 10 Gb Ethernet adapters, P2 and ExpressCard readers, docking stations, and perhaps even a PCI Express expansion bay.

Stephen’s Stance

Although the SANLink appears to be something of an oddball, it indicates the shape of things to come. Thunderbolt will transform the use cases for portable and all-in-one computers, likely spelling the end of the empty boxes for desktop use. In fact, I would not be at all surprised if Apple soon canceled the Mac Pro line entirely in favor of a beefed up Mac Mini and iMac stable. And the dozen or so MacBook Pro users wanting to connect to a Fibre Channel SAN will finally have the opportunity to do so sometime later this year.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | Promise SANLink Thunderbolt Preview
This post was categorized as Apple, Enterprise storage, Terabyte home. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

The new MacBook Pro impresses with its performance

As I mentioned in my previous article, I decided to buy the 13″ Core i5 (base model) MacBook Pro. It meets my needs as a travel workstation, but how does it perform? I decided to benchmark it against my other Macs to see how it stands up.

Benchmark Details

The following benchmarks were performed using Xbench and Geekbench, running on a freshly-booted machine. Xbench is outdated but solid and universally-accepted as the standard Mac benchmark. Plus, I had historical data from all of my machines. Geekbench is a great cross-platform CPU test, but it doesn’t measure as wide a variety of system parameters as Xbench.

Each Xbench test was normalized against the new MacBook Pro, which always shows as “100%” in these charts. This should help get a feel for how much slower or faster it is than the other machines.

The test subjects are as follows:

This probably seems like an odd and motley assortment, but they all have one thing in common: I own them. Although everyone’s performance baseline will be different, I was interested in how the new MacBook Pro compares to my other machines, and my 15″ machine in particular. So there you have it!

The CPU, graphics, and memory tests were performed running the latest version of Mac OS X “Snow Leopard”, version 10.6.6.

The disk tests, however, were run under either 10.6.6 (in the case of the 13″ MacBook Pro and iMac) or the version of Mac OS X that came with the machine originally (in the case of the 15″ Santa Rosa MacBook Pro and the Mac Mini). Since I am a storage guy, I have long-since upgraded the hard disk drives in both machines, and felt it was unfair to compare the OEM drive in the new MacBook Pro to these upgraded drives. So I used the original Xbench tests I performed when the machines were new.

Performance Overview

The new 13" MacBook Pro performance admirably

As others have reported, overall performance is solid. Even though it is the absolute base model in the line, the new MacBook Pro matches or bests my old machine in every respect. It clobbers the Santa Rosa MacBook pro in CPU, Thread, Memory, Quartz, UI, and disk tests, and ties in OpenGL performance. It even matches the high-end desktop in most tests, only falling behind when it comes to Disk, Thread and OpenGL graphics performance.

The fact that it achieves all this with a base price $600 less than my old MacBook Pro and runs for almost 7 hours on a charge is simply amazing. Moore’s law ought to allow new machines to outperform old ones, but one is still surprised to see it so flamboyantly displayed.

Performance Details

Now let’s dig a little deeper into these performance numbers!

CPU Performance Details

The base-model 13″ MacBook Pro uses a 2.3 GHz dual-core CPU, which hardly sounds better than the 2.2 GHz Core 2 Duo chip used in my old MacBook Pro. And it shouldn’t hold a candle to the mighty 2.66 GHz quad-core “Nehalem” Core i5 in my iMac.

The "Sandy Bridge" Core i5 performs very well - it's nearly twice as fast as the old Core 2 Duo!

The detailed CPU tests tell a different tale, however. The architectural improvements made between Merom/Penryn and Sandy Bridge are evident, with the new chip almost doubling the old in floating point math and (thanks to hyperthreading) solidly throttling it in thread tests.

The most impressive feat is its performance relative to the quad-core Nehalem Core i5 in the iMac, however. Looking past the thread tests, which are greatly helped by two more full cores, we see nearly equal performance between laptop and desktop. This suggests that the Sandy Bridge architecture does a solid job of reducing electrical demands without sacrificing performance. The quad-core desktop CPUs in this family are shockingly strong, as we will see in a moment!

Geekbench Results

Since it is a cross-platform benchmark, I was able to add a ringer to the Geekbench test: My new lab workstation. Built around a Sandy Bridge Core i5-2400, Asus P8H67-M PRO motherboard, and speedy OCZ memory, this is a seriously-fast desktop for very little money. All in, we’re talking about under $500 for this guy!

The Core i5 and i7 processors walk all over the old Core 2 Duos

The two Sandy Bridge Core i5 CPUs are neck and neck in most of the tests, which is really shocking given that the desktop has two more cores, can ramp to 95 Watts, and runs at 3.1 GHz. It is also impressive that the older Nehalem Core i5-750 can keep up in Geekbench tests. Unsurprisingly, the old Core 2 Duo machines aren’t in the same league, not managing even half the performance of these three.

I previously talked about the performance-per-dollar ratio of the various MacBook Pro machines, noting that the base models were much more attractive by this metric. Although it’s definitely not an apples-to-apples comparison (for starters, my desktop is harder to use on a plane…) I will admit that one can get roughly three times the Geekbench score by building a Sandy Bridge system at home. With a score of 7350, my desktop delivers almost 15 Geekbench points per dollar, compared to 3.5 to 5 points from the new MacBook Pro line.

Memory Performance Details

Both the MacBook pros sport 4 GB of RAM, while the Mini still has just 2 GB and the iMac has been upgraded with 8 GB. The old MacBook Pro uses 667 MHz PC-5300 RAM, while the Mac Mini and iMac use 1066 MHz PC-8500 SODIMMs. The new machine steps up to 1333 MHz PC-10600 memory.

The "Sandy Bridge" platform really shines when it comes to memory performance

The Nehalem series integrated the memory controller with the CPU, and this is continued in Sandy Bridge. This allows really amazing memory performance across the board – the old CPUs are stuck with 30% to 40% of the new machine’s memory access capabilities.

The new chipset even manages to beat the iMac in many tests, with only the thread-sensitive System Copy test showing a real loss.

Graphics Performance Details

Graphics performance is the one area I was most concerned about. All three older machines use discrete graphics controllers of various sorts, from the wimpy Nvidia GeForce 9400M in the Mac Mini to the Nvidia 8600M GT in the Santa Rosa MacBook Pro to the more-impressive ATI Radeon HD 4850 in the iMac.

Intel's integrated HD 3000 graphics do a fine job, generally keeping up with the discrete GPUs found in the other machines

As expected, the discrete graphics cards are much more competitive with the new HD 3000 engine integrated into the Sandy Bridge Core i5. Yet once again, the new machine is able to match or beat the old machines in nearly every test.

OpenGL performance seems to be an issue for Intel’s new chip. Perhaps a driver update might improve the situation? But it’s still solid – matching the older machines and only throttled by the big desktop. Most of the Quartz graphics tests show the iMac and new MacBook Pro tied with the old machines trailing far behind. Perhaps they are CPU-bound?

Hard Disk Performance Details

Finally we turn our attention to the question of storage. Hard disk drive performance depends on many factors, and Apple’s machines have historically varied quite a bit. Every one of the new MacBook Pros come standard with a mundane 5400 rpm Hitachi hard disk drive, so one cannot expect it to match the performance of the full-size 7200 rpm desktop drive in the iMac.

Although it's nothing to write home about, the 320 GB Hitachi drive performs adequately

Density improvements should give the new MacBook Pro a leg up on the old Mini and ‘Pro and, our tests bear this out. None of the disks are really all that impressive (sequential reads and writes in the 65 MB/s range aren’t impressive) but it’s not bad.

Stephen’s Stance

The Sandy Bridge MacBook pro really shines in terms of performance. It soundly beats my old laptop in nearly every test, and even gives the desktop a run in some tests. In all, I’d say the hard disk drive ought to be the first thing to get an upgrade. Throw in a speedy SSD and we’ll be looking at some really earth-shattering performance and battery life. And yet, we’d still be looking at a sub-$2000 machine!

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2011. | Benchmarking the 2011 13″ Core i5 MacBook Pro
This post was categorized as Apple, Everything, Personal. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

Why SDXC?

You might also want to read my  Introduction To exFAT

SDXC is all about performance and capacity. The SDcard Association SD 2.0 specification limits SDHC cards to 32 GB of capacity, and the FAT32 filesystem they use limits each file they contain to 4 GB. And the fastest (class 10) SDHC cards peak at 30 MB/s.

Although fine for casual photographers, professionals, especially videographers, require more space and speed, explaining their continued use of formats like CompactFlash and Panasonic P2. These formats boast 90-100 MB/s performance and 64 GB to 128 GB capacity, respectively.

SDXC promises to change the landscape with a universal card format boasting improved performance and capacity at a lower price point thanks to widespread adoption. The “UHS-1″ SDXC spec promises 104 MB/s performance, and some expect faster performance in the future. Although exFAT is good for 64 ZB of capacity, SDXC cards use MBR partitioning, limiting them to a theoretical 2 TB. Note that today’s early SDXC cards boast “just” 64 GB and poke along at 15 to 20 MB/s.

Mid-2010 iMac and Mac Mini adds SDXC/exFAT Support?

Surprise! Mac OS X 10.6.4 in the mid-2010 iMac adds exFAT support!

Apple isn’t always quick to embrace emerging standards (where’s my USB 3.0 and Blu-Ray?), but they are rapidly adding SDXC. They’re moving so rapidly that they apparently have no idea which new models support SDXC and which do not! Since a Mac needs both updated reader hardware and the exFAT-capable software, it’s a gamble whether a given machine supports the new cards as of Fall 2010.

The iMac models introduced in July 2010 are supposed to include SDXC slots rather than the USB-connected SDHC readers included on earlier models, and SDXC support is listed prominently on Apple’s iMac Tech Specs page. The Mac Mini Tech Specs don’t list anything about SDXC, but their motherboard-mounted SD slot is a new PCI device and does appear to be SDXC-capable.

Apple sneakily added exFAT support to the version of Snow Leopard 10.6.4 shipping with the latest iMacs, but not all Macs are getting this software. Frustratingly, some mid-2010 iMacs appear to have the old SDHC reader, no matter what the box says! Apple responded that this is a software identification error, and the jury is still out on whether this is true.

This 2010 Mac Mini appears to have SDXC-capable hardware

Any SD reader listed under the USB tab in System Profiler ought to not support SDXC, while any one listed in the main list as “Card Reader” has a better chance. The SDHC reader in my late-2009 iMac is definitely USB-connected and lists “Product ID 0×8403″ just like some of the newer supposedly SDXC-capable iMacs. A verified SDXC reader on a 2010 Mac Mini has “Device ID 0x16bc” instead.

exFAT in Mac OS X 10.6.5

Update: Yes! 10.6.5 includes exFAT!

Although the software situation is dreadfully confusing currently, it just got a lot easier. Mac OS X 10.6.5 has exFAT support just like the post-July iMac builds of 10.6.4. After installing the 10.6.5 upgrade, every Mac user should have exFAT support in Disk Utility.

SDXC Card Readers

Although any Mac with 10.6.5 will be capable of reading the exFAT filesystem found on SDXC cards, they will also need an SDXC-capable card reader. Apple appears to be rapidly transitioning to these readers on new Macs (see above), but older systems will need an add-on device.

USB SDXC readers are appearing, including this SGT122 81-In-One SDXC Reader I spotted over at Amazon, and should be Mac-compatible. Although USB will limit performance somewhat, it should match the 22 MB/s that Panasonic, the current SDXC speed champion, boasts. Eventually, PCI Express-based readers will appear, blowing this performance out of the water.

Note that, although SDXC readers are backward-compatible, they are not forward-compatible. This means that SD and SDHC media will work in an SDXC card reader or camera but SDXC cards will only work in an SDXC reader.

Stephen’s Stance

It’s great to see Apple in the lead on a new technology. Since I recently purchased an SDXC-capable camera, I’m looking forward to trying out the new format. Although none of my Macs has an SDXC reader today, it’s nice to know that they will soon support the exFAT format. Once OS X 10.6.5 arrives, I will be able to use the internal SDXC card reader on my Sony NEX-5 camera via USB on any Mac!

Note: Some of these links include affiliate codes that help pay for this blog. For example, buying an Amazon Kindle with this link sends a few bucks my way! But I don't write this blog to make money, and am happy to link to sites and stores that don't pay anything. I like Amazon and buy tons from them, but you're free to buy whatever and wherever you want.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2010. | Introducing SDXC and exFAT in Apple Mac OS X
This post was categorized as Apple, Terabyte home. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

The Mini DisplayPort connector can turn a 27" iMac into an expensive monitor

I didn’t intend to buy a new iMac. I was happy with my Mac Mini desktop system and my MacBook Pro was a fine portable (now that the video has been repaired). I simply wanted more display real estate so I could do some video editing. But my shopping trip took a detour at the Apple store: The 27″ iMac is simply the best computer monitor you can buy, and it happens to have a great computer embedded in it too! The gorgeous LED IPS panel and massive 2560 x 1440 resolution really shines in intensive applications.

There is another secret lurking inside, though: The Mini DisplayPort connector on the back is bi-directional, so you can connect another computer, turning that new 27″ iMac into a gorgeous monitor! I was eager to try this out, and sure enough my 2009 Mac Mini had no trouble taking over the iMac’s display using a $30 Belkin cable. But actually using the iMac in this configuration has not been pleasant.

The Basics

First, only “late 2009″ 27″ iMacs have this display input capability. Although the ports on the back of the 21.5″ iMac and others look identical, none can do this trick.

Get your hands on a 27″ iMac, a Mini DisplayPort cable (I used this $30 Belkin cable), and a recent Mac Mini, MacBook, or other computer with a Mini DisplayPort video output. Plug one end into the iMac and the other into your other Mac. As soon as the two Macs are running, the display will blank out and switch from the iMac to the external one.

You can switch inputs by pressing Command-BrightnessUp (usually Command-F2 or Command-Fn-F2) on the iMac’s keyboard. It will also automatically switch when it detects a signal, such as when a computer is connected or wakes up from sleep.

While the external source is displayed, the iMac will ignore most keyboard and mouse movements. Some special function key commands appear to continue working, however, including brightness (F1/F2), rewind (F7), play/pause (F8), fast forward (F9), and mute/volume (F10/F11/F12).

The Limitations

Sound good? Well, there are some serious limitations that make this not so great in practice.

1. I can’t get any USB keyboard to trigger the display switch no matter what I try. Only the original Apple BlueTooth keyboard that came with the iMac will trigger a switch. This annoys me, since I’m a dedicated IBM Model M user…
2. There is no KVM capability in OS X, so the keyboard and mouse are useless when you connect an external computer. I use an IOGear USB KVM and was able to get this working with my Mac Mini and iMac, but switching required the otherwise unused BlueTooth keyboard (see above).
3. The iMac has to be on and running OS X for the Mini DisplayPort input to function.
4. Switching sources takes a second or two, and the iMac switches displays whenever the connected computer wakes from sleep. This leads to some surprising work pauses if you leave it connected.
5. Only native DisplayPort video is usable. Although there are many cheap Mini DisplayPort adapters, these are normally for output only and will not work. So computers with VGA, DVI, or HDMI ports won’t work. without a converter.

I tried all sorts of tricks to send the proper key sequence from my USB keyboards and using AppleScript, but nothing worked. I’d love for Apple to deliver a KVM solution in OS X, but barring that an enterprising programmer ought to be able to figure out a software solution.

Can It Be Used With Other Computers?

The short and easy answer is no, the iMac’s Mini DisplayPort input is very unlikely to work with anything but a Mac, since most non-Macs don’t use DisplayPort. And since DisplayPort is a computer (rather than entertainment) standard, it’s unlikely that your Blu-Ray player, game machine, or DVR will work either.

The medium answer is yes, it might very well work just fine with some PCs equipped with a DisplayPort video card.

The longer answer is yes, a variety of companies are working on adapters to allow other devices to use the iMac’s display. Apogee has promised a special converter box just for this exact purpose, and folks have had varying success with the Gefen and Atlona converters.

The very long answer is that you can force just about anything to work with the iMac’s Mini DisplayPort input but it’ll be very hard and probably not worth it. There are three things to consider when trying to send video from one device to another:

1. The physical/electrical connection must be compatible. The iMac only accepts Mini DisplayPort cables, so any connected device must terminate with a male Mini DisplayPort connector. Most basic (read cheap) DVI or HDMI adapters can not convert formats, and merely connect appropriate pins from one format to another. There are plenty of cable and adapter options for regular DisplayPort, however. But DisplayPort 1.1 fiber optic cables are right out.
2. The data format (including DRM) must be compatible. Simply using a DVI-to-Mini DisplayPort adapter is insufficient. The DVI device will send DVI signals that the iMac won’t be able to interpret, or they might not be connected at all. Even if the data format is converted correctly, it appears that the iMac does not support HDCP input, although HDCP is enforced for signals output to HDTVs. This means that a DVI Blu-Ray player might not display correctly on the iMac even if the DVI signal is correctly converted!
3. Display resolution is less of a concern, but must be considered as well. My iMac was happy with a variety of input resolutions from my Mac Mini, but the native 2650×1440 resolution is way beyond the DVI spec. So full resolution will require a dual-link DVI connection (expensive and rare) or a scaler (even more expensive).

What does this mean? Here’s the answer for various devices:

1. Apple computers with Mini DisplayPort connectors just need a cable, including the 2009 MacBook, MacBook Pro, Mac Mini, and iMac.
2. Other computers might work, provided they have MiniDisplayPort or plain large DisplayPort, though the latter requires a physical adapter.
3. Computers with DVI connectors (including older Macs) will probably need an expensive adapter like the Gefen, Atlona, or Apogee boxes and won’t be able to use the full resolution of the iMac without an expensive scaler box like this one from Atlona. We’re talking $100 to $500 to get things connected, and it might not work.
4. Entertainment devices like Blu-Ray players, Xboxes, and PlayStations likely require HDCP enforcement so they probably won’t work without some special anti-DRM voodoo. This is exactly what Apogee is talking about delivering, but I’ll believe it when I see it. And it’ll likely cost at least $200. Note that this is spelled explicitly out in the DisplayPort FAQ!

Conclusion

Finally there is the issue of sound and control. The iMac’s Mini DisplayPort input only supports video, so audio and USB connectivity requires an alternative path. You can use a KVM like my IOGear to switch your keyboard and mouse, but no audio will be sent. Probably the best compromise would be to use external speakers for both the iMac and connected device.

So there you have it. The iMac’s awesome display can be used by external devices. But it’s not really satisfying to use without some extra devices: A KVM and speakers at least, and some expensive video voodoo at most. Sorry to ruin your day!

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2010. | Turn Your 27″ iMac Into An Awesome Monitor
This post was categorized as Apple, Personal. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

Here’s the scoop: Apple’s Mac mini EFI Firmware Update 1.2, released back at the end of August, claimed to improve “compatibility with the latest Apple memory kits on Mac mini computers”, but in typical Apple fashion, no one quite knew what that meant. Some brave soul must have tried installing two 4 GB PC3-8500 SO-DIMM modules in the Mini’s two RAM slots, and must have been awfully happy when they did, because it works! All 2009 Mac Minis are supported, including the recently-released Mac Mini Server and the earlier March-era machine.

This is now confirmed by Mac Mini Colo, a more reliable source than Macrumors forum posters, so I’m finally confident in posting this. Being a cheapskate, I’m not going to run out and spend $510.98 at Amazon on two Crucial SO-DIMMs for my $599 computer. But I’m eager to hear from you if you have the inclination, and will be watching as prices fall in the box at right. An 8 GB Mac Mini ought to perform amazingly when running VMware Fusion or VirtualBox!

Note: Some of these links include affiliate codes that help pay for this blog. For example, buying an Amazon Kindle with this link sends a few bucks my way! But I don't write this blog to make money, and am happy to link to sites and stores that don't pay anything. I like Amazon and buy tons from them, but you're free to buy whatever and wherever you want.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2009. | Got Excess Money? Upgrade Your 2009 Mac Mini RAM To 8 GB!
This post was categorized as Apple, Terabyte home. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

Apple's newest server is a dual-hard disk Mac Mini!

Apple today revised their desktop computer lineup, including a quick refresh of the already updated Mac Mini. The new Mini lineup sports faster CPUs, larger hard drives, and an interesting twist on the hacks we’ve all already been performing: A dual-hard disk drive Mac Mini Server with no optical drive! Maybe we won’t need to upgrade the Mini right out of the box anymore…

Mini Bump

Update: The 2009 Mac Minis can now accept 8 GB of RAM!

Killer Storage

First, note that the Mac Mini generally remains the same. The case is unchanged and the logic board still sports the nVidia GeForce 9400M with integrated graphics. The unit still sports five USB ports, FireWire 800, dual graphics ports (Mini DisplayPort and Mini-DVI), Gigabit Ethernet, and 802.11n AirPort wireless. What’s new then?

The base model $599 Mac Mini (like my MB463LL/A) has been replaced by a new model (MC238LL/A) with welcome spec updates. The old 2.0 GHz P7350 CPU has been replaced by the previously-optional 2.26 GHz P8500 Core 2 Duo. The 120 GB hard disk drive has been upped to 160 GB, hopefully with better performance. Thankfully, the Mini now comes with 2 GB of RAM, but it’s two 1 GB sticks so upgrading requires a complete swap-out. Build-to-order customers can specify the 320 GB or 500 GB hard disk drive and up to 4 GB of RAM.

The upper-class $799 Mac Mini (MB464LL/A) has been replaced by the MC239LL/A, which finally includes worthy upgrades to justify its higher price. The CPU is no longer the same, now boasting a 2.53 GHz P8700, and it comes with 4 GB of RAM right out of the box. The 320 GB hard disk drive remains the same, though built-to-order Macs can have a 500 GB drive instead. A 2.66 GHz P8800 CPU is also optional for custom Minis.

Behold, the Terabyte Mac Mini Server!

A new upscale dual-drive $999 Mac Mini Server (MC408LL/A) is the real news here. Sporting the top-of-the-line 2.53 GHz P8700 CPU and 4 GB of RAM, this bad boy also deletes the SuperDrive (and its slot) in favor to two 500 GB hard disk drives! This beast is only available with Snow Leopard Server pre-installed, however. Since so many folks are using these systems as home or small office servers already, this is nice,

What about price? $999 would easily be enough to build a dual-500 GB drive Mini from one of the lesser “desktop” models, but the server OS costs $499 from Apple, making an unofficial Mac Mini Server impractical. The cheapest Apple Xserve starts at $2,999, which is out of reach for the smallest offices. So a $999 Apple server with all the same software functionality sounds awfully nice! 1 TB of hard disk drive space is amazing in such a small package, and the fast CPU and full 4 GB of RAM means there is no need to self-upgrade. Add in a Drobo, DroboPro, or the Promise RAID offered by Apple and you’ve got a very nice server indeed!

Hopefully the dual-drive server will use OS X’s RAID capability to mirror the two drives for reliability. Otherwise, make sure you use Time Machine to back up your data! You’ve got about a 6% chance of losing a drive in the first year. Although AppleCare will replace the hardware, your data is irreplaceable!

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2009. | Mac Mini: Apple’s Inexpensive Server
This post was categorized as Apple, Terabyte home. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

Mac OS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard" deliveries begin on August 28!

Although Apple’s web site clearly states that Snow Leopard “Delivers on August 28th,” it is unclear if other sources will be so punctual. We definitely expect Apple Stores to have plenty of stock on Friday morning, but what of Amazon.com pre-orders? Will they also deliver on Friday, or will those of us who pre-ordered there have to wait a few days for this undercover upgrade?

Who Gets What

Snow Leopard is really a major jump forward in terms of advanced hardware and software integration. It brings Grand Central, OpenCL, full 64-bit mode, and QuickTime X along with Exchange support and many tweaks. But many of these features are highly hardware-dependent, so not all Mac users will get everything.

Here’s a cheat sheet I put together based on Apple’s documentation:

This table is based on the following facts:

1. Snow Leopard only supports Intel-based Macs. PowerPC Macs need not apply.
2. Booting Snow Leopard in 64-bit mode requires 64-bit EFI, and many pre-2007 Macs have only a 32-bit EFI. You can check your Mac (and help me fix my table) by typing “ioreg -l -p IODeviceTree | grep firmware-abi” in a Terminal window. If it says “EFI64″, your system is capable of running 64-bit Snow Leopard (though it can still run 64-bit apps). But Snow Leopard defaults to 32-bit mode on ALL Macs other than the Xserve at this point, and no one is sure why!
3. Grand Central Dispatch requires a multi-core CPU. This eliminates the original base-model 2006 Mac Mini, since it used a single-core CPU.
4. OpenCL requires newer Nvidia or the ATI graphics chips. This leaves out many pre-2008 models and some iMac and Mac Pro configurations. Check Apple’s list if you’re not sure.
5. QuickTime H.264 Hardware Acceleration only works with the Nvidia 9400M chipset. This leaves out many pre-2008 machines and even the latest Mac Pros, though they probably have enough horsepower on their own.

Finally, if you’re excited about the new Microsoft Exchange support in Mail.app, iCal, and the Address Book be warned! In order for any of this to work, your server must be running Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Service Pack 1 Update Rollup 4. And most companies still aren’t updated that far!

Update: Check my follow-up post on 64-bit Snow Leopard for more about this controversial aspect!

I’m Updating!

I held off on Amazon and placed my own order this morning with Apple. I’m with Mark Twomey:Upgrading to Snow Leopard is a safe day-1 activity. Most of the updates amount to new under-the-hood features and the OS has been through round after round of testing. Unlike the massive shift from Tiger to Leopard (which I missed, being a late switcher), Snow Leopard ought to be a lesser upgrade.

Why make the update at all? Here are a few of my reasons:

1. It’s cheap: Just $29 to update a single Mac, or $49 for up to five. Compared to Microsoft’s (expired) “limited-time-only” (and incredibly complicated) Windows 7 upgrade, Apple sets out a red velvet carpet.
2. It’s easy: There’s just one version of Mac OS X, and any system running OS X 10.5 “Leopard” can update to full-on Snow Leopard. There are no editions and no conflicts updating from 32-bit to 64-bit (like Windows 7).
3. It future-proofs your (Intel) Mac: Mac developers have a long history of quickly leveraging new OS X features since Mac users have a long history of quickly upgrading. Snow Leopard adds cool stuff like Grand Central and OpenCL that my Intel- and Nvidia-based Macs ought to be able to leverage. See below if your Mac can use these, too!

Sure, there aren’t any amazing features like Time Machine to set the world on fire. But the Snow Leopard update is still a slam-dunk for any Intel-based Mac user! My Late-2007 MacBook Pro will get everything but H.264 acceleration and my 2009 Mac Mini is all set to go!

Updated with Mac Mini and Xserve information. Keep the suggestions coming and test that EFI! Picked up, colorized, and reused (with permission) by the excellent Ed Bott in his ZDNet column!

Note: Some of these links include affiliate codes that help pay for this blog. For example, buying an Amazon Kindle with this link sends a few bucks my way! But I don't write this blog to make money, and am happy to link to sites and stores that don't pay anything. I like Amazon and buy tons from them, but you're free to buy whatever and wherever you want.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2009. | Mac OS X 10.6 “Snow Leopard”: In Our Hands August 28!
This post was categorized as Apple, Personal. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

This last point has always been debatable as well. Apple tends to select higher-end x86 parts for their Macs and has led the way with innovative chassis, screen, and trackpad technology. But PC makers have quickly followed, offering part-for-part Apple clones at 80% of the cost. This week, however, I stumbled onto a concrete difference between Mac and PC hardware that has real-world impact: Across the board, Apple uses exclusive Intel CPUs with enhanced capabilities to support virtualization of 64-bit operating systems, including Windows 7′s special XP compatibility mode.

Virtualization-Ready

Virtualization hypervisors have become very widespread and popular, especially in the Apple world. Mac users regularly list Parallels Desktop and VMware Fusion among their favorite applications, since they open up the wide world of Windows applications running in a virtual machine. Although most daily tasks can be performed with native OS X applications, some apps just aren’t available.

Personally, I use Fusion on OS X with Windows Vista to occasionally run Microsoft’s Visio and Outlook, both of which aren’t available as native applications. I also use a 2009 Mac Mini as a server and virtual computer lab, mainly relying on Sun’s lightweight and free VirtualBox hypervisor. Although it isn’t impressive as the physical lab Dennis Martin described to me last week, I am able to run a variety of servers (Linux, Windows, and OS X) and other virtual gear (Windows Storage Server and FreeNAS) to simulate enterprise IT environments.

Windows users have less need to run virtualization applications: When your operating system commands over 90% of the market, a whole world of applications is at your fingertips! But enthusiasts and corporate IT types love virtualization, and VMware Server and Microsoft Hyper-V are commonly found on their Windows machines.

64-Bit Road Block

These popular virtualization packages support a wide range of modern hardware, but not everything works perfectly. Hypervisors had trouble with many tasks, particularly running 64-bit operating systems, until Intel and AMD introduced special hardware-assisted virtualization capabilities in their CPUs. The latest hypervisors and CPUs can now even virtualize 64-bit operating systems on top of 32-bit hosts!

But not all CPUs include this technology. Intel has a long history of artificially segmenting their product line by disabling certain features in low-end parts. For their Core 2 Duo “Merom” and “Penryn” lines, Intel decided that their VT virtualization technology would be the differentiator. Therefore, a lack of VT support is one of the main differences between low-end and high-end Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs.

Many of the latest portable and compact desktop systems use Intel’s Penryn-3M line, including Apple’s MacBook, MacBook Pro, and Mac Mini systems. See the issue here? Intel’s lower-end 2.0 GHz and 2.133 GHz CPUs (P7350 and P7450, respectively) don’t support VT, which means that systems using them don’t have the latest VT hardware virtualization capability and thus can’t run 64-bit virtual machines!

This is an issue for users of popular Sony Vaio, Dell Inspiron, and HP Pavilion PCs, and is likely to become much more important soon. See, Windows 7 includes a special XP compatibility mode, which is really just a virtual machine running XP under 7. But XP mode will not work without Intel VT or AMD-V. This means that XP mode in Windows 7 won’t work on the very mass-market machines that would benefit most from it!

Apple’s Different

This sounds terrible: The latest machines won’t run increasingly-popular virtualization software. But there is a very good reason that buyers of the latest Apple machines aren’t up in arms. It seems that Apple made a deal with Intel to get a special version of the Penryn-3M Core 2 Duo CPUs that do support Intel VT!

Apple’s latest Mac Mini, MacBook, and MacBook Pro all sport P7350 and P7450 CPUs, just like competing Dell, Sony, and HP machines. But the Apple CPUs have VT and the PCs lack it. The VT support is gone, and cannot be enabled in the PC BIOS.

So even a PC and Mac sporting the exact same CPU part numbers aren’t equal: Every recent Mac will run 64-bit Windows and XP mode in Windows 7 and many PCs won’t. And I can run anything I want on my Mac Mini virtual lab!

Update - Let me be very, very clear on the facts here:

• Most hypervisors now require Intel VT or AMD-V in order to virtualize 64-bit operating systems
• Microsoft requires this technology to use XP mode in Windows 7
• All current Apple Macs (including those that use P7350 and P7450 CPUs) have Intel VT support in their CPUs regardless of what Intel says on the model spec sheets
• Many PCs use high-end Intel and AMD CPUs that support VT or AMD-V, though some have this turned off in the BIOS
• No PC with an Intel P7350 or P7450 CPU has Intel VT support at all. It cannot be enabled in the BIOS because it does not exist.

I am not an Apple fanboy. I am a virtualization fanboy who is glad I bought a Mac Mini instead of a Dell Studio, HP TouchSmart, or Sony Vaio.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2009. | A Concrete Reason Macs Beat PCs: Intel VT
This post was categorized as Apple, Computer History, Terabyte home, Virtual Storage. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.