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.

Light Peak could share a plug with a full USB 3.0 port for power and compatibility!

Yesterday I talked about Light Peak, the new optical interconnect being developed by Apple, Intel, and others. Today I’m continuing that theme, suggesting a possible productization that would really take Light Peak to the next level: Integrating it with USB 3.0.

Light Peak Background

As discussed yesterday, Light Peak is a cable, not a protocol. It’s a mechanism to carry data from one point to another at high speed but lacks a schema for that data. Instead, Light Peak will carry existing data types like USB, DVI/HDMI video, Ethernet, and perhaps even PCI.

But one major element is lacking at this point: Power. Most existing interconnects carry data as well as low-voltage DC to power connected devices. USB is the poster child, with many USB devices powered by the port rather than an external “power brick”, but other interconnects feature power as well: Power over Ethernet is in wide corporate use, especially for voice-over-IP (VoIP) telephone systems, and the HDMI includes DC power as well, though just 5 volts and 50 mA.

Being an optical medium, Light Peak cannot easily carry power, since the plastic fibers used are non-conductive. Although Apple and Intel have hinted at a bundled copper wire for electrical power, one thin and flexible enough would experience an unacceptable voltage drop over the long runs possible with optical fiber. Therefore, we are likely to see a number of permutations of Light Peak:

1. Native optical-only Light Peak for long distances or devices not needing power
2. Light Peak bundled with a power cable, as hinted in this Apple patent
3. Light Peak bundled with a data cable, likely USB

It is this last permutation that interests me the most.

How Light Peak Will Be Used

Imagine a new MacBook Air with a single I/O port. Unlike the old one (which used slow USB 2.0), this new device could connect at high speed to just about anything through a simple converter or docking station. And images suggest daisy-chained devices reminiscent of today’s rarely-used FireWire connection.

It seems very likely that the eventual Light Peak products will carry USB, DVI or DisplayPort, SATA, and Ethernet data over a single cable. Since it has so much bandwidth, Light Peak will probably support both conventional and higher-speed variants of those protocols: This means that USB 2.0 and 3.0 will coexist, as will 1.5, 3, and 6 Gbps SATA and Gigabit Ethernet. We will probably even see PCI Express extended over Light Peak!

Apple has long championed thinner form factors and reduced cable clutter, and it’s worth noting that they’re the driving force behind Light Peak. This makes the concept of a single-port MacBook that much more likely. But what will that port look like?

Light Peak = USB 3.0?

Despite the over-used graphics representing a surface-mount 4-fiber Light Peak connector, the end-user plug-and-cable form factor hasn’t been decided. One serious drawback of optical connections is that they can’t transmit power, putting a crimp in the “one wire” vision. So the safe money says that final Light Peak spec will include both copper (for power and perhaps additional data) as well as optical channels bonded together into a single cable.

I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that a common variant of Light Peak will in fact use a fully-functional USB 3.0 port with one or two optical connections embedded in the center. Just as the headphone jack used in many Macintosh computers today includes a Mini-TOSLINK optical cable in the center, these Light Peak-enabled USB connectors will be compatible with current USB devices, from thumb drives to coffee warmers.

But connect a Light Peak-capable device (using a plain-looking but optical-enabled USB-type cable) and a whole new world will open up. The copper wires will carry an amp or two of power, allowing a monitor, hard disk drive, or printer to come to life, and these will include additional Light Peak ports for more device connectivity. I imagine we will see Light Peak USB hubs contained in monitors which will act as a docking station to this future MacBook.

Connectors like this USB 3.0 mini plug meet the tight tolerances of an optical interconnect

One issue for this USB-centric vision is the connector itself. Being an optical media using extremely thin fibers, Light Peak connections will need precise mating of connector and jack. But conventional USB is much more tolerant of misalignment, and this connector might be unsuitable for optical usage. The slimmer mini USB variant used by some USB 3.0 devices is more appropriate for this use, but this may not be an issue after all: Intel’s videos show what appears to be a conventional USB plug carrying Light Peak already!

Stephen’s Stance

But What If Light Peak Was Electrical Rather Than Optical?

My theory is simple: Light Peak will be a superior and enhanced version of USB 3.0 rather than a competitor or replacement. Apple is holding off on the USB upgrade so they can deliver this new world, not so they can scuttle it. They have learned the lesson of compatibility but want a superior one-wire experience for users. They’ve even delivered a prototype with the optical-capable audio jacks found on every current Macintosh computer!

I expect to see such devices hit the market in late 2011, and hope this backwards/forwards compatibility vision is realized. Without the USB/Light Peak connection, we could be witnessing FireWire and DisplayPort all over again, with Light Peak pushed aside as a proprietary Apple-only connection for high-end devices. A combination of Light Peak and USB is an ideal way to prevent this kind of marginalization!

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2010. | Light Peak + USB 3.0 = Awesome!
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 Snow Leopard kernel refuses to boot in 64-bit mode on most Macs. Should you care?

There is clearly a ton of interest in Mac OS X 10.6, Snow Leopard: My Snow Leopard features hardware compatibility chart had over 20,000 visitors in just three days! But one chart element is generating an inordinate amount of interest: Whether or not Snow Leopard can boot in 64-bit mode.

Snow Leopard is a solid but visually unremarkable update to Apple’s OS X family. Although there are many new technical features, it’s not loaded with flash. In fact, even experienced Mac users would be hard-pressed to notice that their system had even been updated!

As I mentioned in that post, I was most-interested in the potential to use Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL to accelerate my system’s performance. Both features are supported on most Macs built over the last year or two, and they create a great foundation for future development. QuickTime X is interesting as well, though only Nvidia 9400M-based Macs (like my 2009 Mini) support it’s hardware-accelerated H.264 capabilities. The fact that so much of the operating system has been re-written using these modern capabilities is probably the biggest Snow Leopard feature.

Snow Leopard Does Not Boot 64-Bit…

I wasn’t all that concerned about whether the OS X kernel booted in 32-bit or 64-bit mode, but was intrigued to find that Snow Leopard boots with a 32-bit kernel on every Mac other than the rack-mount Xserve.

Much pre-launch discussion revolved around whether or not a given system was even capable of booting in 64-bit mode. There are three critical elements that determine whether a given machine will boot a 64-bit Snow Leopard kernel:

1. All system hardware must have 64-bit drivers, including the CPU, chipset, and peripheral chips. The 64-bit kernel exclusively uses 64-bit kexts (drivers), and these are rarer than the 32-bit ones used by Leopard.
2. It must use 64-bit EFI (firmware). Even though EFI32 can technically boot a 64-bit operating system just fine, Apple will not allow this. Only Macs made over the last few years include EFI64.
3. Apple must allow the system to boot in 64-bit mode. This is the most confusing. Many Macs will not boot Snow Leopard in 64-bit mode even though they are brand new, have no unusual hardware, and include EFI64. This includes all non-Pro MacBooks and Mac Minis.

So there you have it. No matter what you do, Snow Leopard will not boot with a 64-bit kernel and kexts on the majority of Macs. One could understand if there was a lack of drivers or some other technical limitation, as is the case with older Macs, the but this is not the case for the latest MacBook and Mac Mini systems. They won’t boot with a 64-bit kernel because the kernel refuses to boot.

The only Mac model that boots with a 64-bit kernel by default is the 2008 and 2009 Xserve (Xserve2,1 and Xserve3,1) running Snow Leopard Server. The following Macs can boot in 64-bit mode in non-server Snow Leopard if you hold down the 6 and 4 keys on boot or if you modify your “/Library/Preferences/SystemConfiguration/com.apple.Boot.plist” file as described at Netkas:

If your Mac is not included in this list, you will not be able to boot Snow Leopard in 64-bit mode. MacBook and Mac Mini models definitely will not boot into 64-bit Snow Leopard. The later Unibody MacBook Pros (5,3 and 5,4) are not listed, and it is not known if they work or not.

…But Why Do You Care?

Why do enthusiasts care so much about the “bitness” of their hardware and software? Geeks have been arguing over the merits of “bigger-bits” for decades. I remember Mac users claiming PCs were inferior because Macs used true 16-bit Motorola CPUs while PCs were stuck with an 8-bit bus. The gaming world did much to foster 64-bit mania, with Atari claiming their Jaguar was the first 64-bit console, and Nintendo even naming theirs the “N64″. But does it really matter?

In theory, a 64-bit operating system should make most-effective use of 64-bit CPUs, increasing performance and maximum addressable RAM. In the case of Intel CPUs, there are many improvements when running the 64-bit (x64) instruction set instead of legacy 32-bit (IA-32) mode. So, from a hardware perspective, 64 bits is definitely superior.

But Mac OS X can run 64-bit applications regardless of the bitness of the kernel. I am writing this post in 64-bit Safari running on a 32-bit Snow Leopard kernel. Many of the applications I normally run are 64-bit in Snow Leopard, including Safari, Mail, and the Finder. This last is important: All Snow Leopard users get a speedy 64-bit ground-up rewrite of Finder, which is their main operating system experience.

32-bit Snow Leopard runs 64-bit versions of many applications, including Safari, QuickTime X, iCal, Mail, and the Finder itself. Notable 32-bit apps include Microsoft Office, iTunes, and iPhoto.

Therefore, regardless of which kernel mode you have booted into, many of your daily activities will use full 64-bit applications. 64-bit versions of iTunes, iPhoto, and Microsoft Office might be nice, but they’re the exception not the rule, and I expect to see these move up to 64-bit soon.

Why do so many Macs not use the 64-bit version of Snow Leopard? One reason is compatibility: The 64-bit kernel requires a full set of 64-bit drivers, and these may have been lacking at launch. Another reason might be that these systems would not see much benefit from running a 64-bit operating system since they are limited to 4 GB of RAM. I would not be at all surprised if later point-revisions of OS X 10.6 enable booting in 64-bit mode by default, at least for the machines listed above and newer models. Those of us with older machines (like this MacBookPro3,1) might never see it, though.

I should note that there are a few 64-bit features lacking in 32-bit Snow Leopard. But some applications, including VMware Fusion, will not run at all under a 64-bit Snow Leopard kernel. And there is the question of driver compatibility. I am not an Apple apologist or fanboy, but I do use Macs 100% of the time for business and pleasure. I think it stinks that Apple now lags behind Microsoft in the race to provide a 64-bit desktop operating system. But the decision is understandable and it has little impact on the daily lives of end users.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2009. | No 64-Bit Snow Leopard Kernel For You!
This post was categorized as Apple, Computer History. 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.

This post is part of my series focused on the MacBook Pro.

• Don’t Be Jealous Of The New MacBook Pros!
• Upgraded! 320 GB in a MacBook Pro!
• SanDisk ExpressCard Flash Media Adapter: Nifty MacBook Pro Accessory!
• How I Get 7 Hours of MacBook Pro Battery Life
• Panic! Green Light and MacBook Pro Keyboard is Half Dead!
• Low-Power USB Ports Haunt My MacBook Pro

Card Slot In Card Slot

Apple has equipped the MacBook Pro line with an integrated ExpressCard slot since the very first post-PowerBook model back in 2006. This new expansion card form factor has never been as popular as PCMCIA/CardBus was on the laptops of the early part of the decade. So, for mid-2009, Apple decided to drop the slot altogether for all models but the massive 17″ MacBook Pro. In its place is an SD card slot, popular with the digital camera set.

Part of the blame lies in the increasing integration of features in modern machines: Users no longer need the slot to add a network adapter, Wi-Fi, audio, or optical drive since they’re all built in! Another huge factor is USB 2.0: It’s fast enough for just about any remaining peripheral.

There are only three urgent uses for an ExpressCard slot in a modern laptop:

1. Adding 3G wireless networking capability to systems (like Apple’s) that lack built-in 3G cards. Of course, many folks choose a USB 3G modem, and I’m in love with my Cradlepoint 3G wireless router.
2. Adding a second video adapter and external monitor. Modern MacBooks work great out of the box with two monitors, though, if you count the built-in LCD! And the new USB video adapters seem to work fairly well, too.
3. Adding more high-speed ports like e-SATA or FireWire 800. Although the MacBook Pro has two USB 2.0 ports, both are compromised in terms of speed or power. All of the new Pro models (even the new 13″) now include FireWire 800, but e-SATA is still AWOL.

The ExpressCard flash media adapter snaps in place and is flush with the edge of the MacBook Pro - very clean!

I didn’t need any of these features with my MacBook Pro: My Sprint 3G card is connected to the Cradlepoint router, I am happy to use the built-in LCD for multi-monitor desktop use, and I don’t need more FireWire or e-SATA storage. But, as I noted back in October, I did find a great use for the ExpressCard slot: An SD media card reader! That’s right: My now-old Mac features the exact same function that Apple just added!

I love having the convenience of an SD slot when it comes to importing photos from my Canon PowerShot cameras: It’s quick, the cards open right up in iPhoto, and I don’t have to carry any cables with me. Adding an SD card reader was cheap and easy, too! Amazon sells the exact same Sandisk SDAD109A11 adapter I bought for around $40. They’ve also got a Sonnet SD adapter (which I haven’t tried) for under $30!

I Have The Power!

Massive battery life is another solid addition to the mid-2009 MacBook Pro line. Apple integrates a huge battery right into the laptop, and reports indicate it really does deliver 7 or 8 hours of runtime. This is the first laptop I can think of without an easily replaceable battery, and follows Apple’s similar moves with the iPod and iPhone lines. Expect this to be copied by other manufacturers in the future!

My secret to long (battery) life and happiness!

Although my MacBook Pro lasts three to four hours on a charge, I purchased a second battery from the Apple store to help me work on the go. This has proven an excellent investment, and I have come to rely on battery power more than I thought I would. I have spent entire trans-Atlantic flights with the computer up and running, and have touched 8 hours of run time with two fully-charged batteries. Although extra batteries are not cheap (Amazon lists mine at $120), they’re much less expensive than they used to be!

If you do decide to get an extra battery for your older MacBook, here are some tips:

1. Get the original equipment Apple battery, not a third-party workalike. I’ve always had bad luck with off-brand batteries, and they’re not that much cheaper.
2. Download a copy of SmartSleep, the awesome and free sleep/hibernate utility. I have mine set to hibernate below 5% charge so I can swap batteries without losing data.
3. If you don’t want to wait for hibernation, just leave the Mac plugged in when you swap batteries. You can do this while it’s running or while it’s plugged in but asleep.

Sure, the cool unibody case and faster performance is tempting. But I’m still pretty happy with my good old MacBook Pro!

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. | Don’t Be Jealous Of The New MacBook Pros!
This post was categorized as Apple. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

After a very, very long wait, Apple has finally updated the Mac Mini, their entry-level “bridge” Mac. It’s amazing that, after 19 months without an update, Apple’s new Mini looks exactly the same as the old Mini. But what’s under the hood matters, and Apple delivered a mixed bag there. The new Mini is an excellent home server, which is how mine will be used, but some poor choices limit its abilities out of the box.

You might also be interested in my initial Mac Mini review, or my post on upgrading the RAM and hard disk drive in my Mac Mini!

Out With the Old

Apple completely redesigned the innards of the Mini for 2009. It has always been a laptop in a box, so we were not surprised to see the updated MacBook’s specs duplicated here. The Mini includes that machine’s efficient and current Intel Core 2 Duo mobile CPUs, Nvidia chipset and graphics, 1066 MHz RAM, 802.11n and gigabit Ethernet networking, DVD SuperDrive, and 2.5″ hard drive.

A few welcome additions were made relative to the MacBook’s specs. The new Mini features five USB ports. It also brings joy to the hearts of the Apple faithful in the form of a FireWire port, albeit sporting the square 9-pin S800 socket rather than the old familiar 6-pin 400 spec. But the most interesting addition on the little Apple desktop is its two independent video ports: A Mini-DVI and a Mini DisplayPort. Each of these additions squarely focuses the Mac Mini at the desktop market, and each is welcome.

USB Madness

When the array of five USB ports was spotted in pre-release spy photos, Mac fans went nuts. Why would the new Mini add yet another port? And who needs five USB ports anyway? I, for one, was very glad to see this change. I’ve lamented the reduction in the number of USB ports found in laptops lately, and I think most end users would agree that more USB ports are needed. Witness two consumer phenomena to support this proliferation of USB ports:

1. One of the hottest-selling peripherals for the old Mac Mini was the Mini-shaped USB hub, and many of the other accessories targeted at the Mini included built-in hubs
2. Despite Seagate’s sagging numbers, USB hard drives continue selling like hotcakes, with an insider recently telling me that they’ve reached a 2:1 attach rate (meaning most computers have two of them!)

A disturbing trend in parallel with the disappearance of USB ports is the hobbling of those that remain. My MacBook Pro has just two ports and both are limited: One is low on electrical power and the other is shared with internal peripherals.

I assumed that the Mini merely included an internal hub, limiting the value of those five ports. I am pleased to report that this is not the case! The Mini actually has four separate internal USB busses and the five ports are spread among three of these:

So if you’re adding high(er)-performance devices to your New Mini, let me suggest this strategy:

1. Connect your most-important device to port 2 and it will have a bus all to itself (except when you use an IR remote, which isn’t often)
2. If you have only one other high-performance USB device, connect it to port 1 or 5 and connect your keyboard and mouse to ports 3 and 4, or vice-versa
3. If you have two more high-performance USB devices, don’t connect them to ports 1 and 5 or ports 3 and 4 – spread them out on 1 and 3 or 4 and 5!

The new Mac Mini's five USB ports share three USB busses

Or just use the handy FireWire port and grin smugly as only a Mac user can!

Square Pegs

We’ve heard a hundred times that the Mac Mini was designed to a philosophy of “bring your own keyboard, mouse, and display”. In other words, it’s optimized for what people already have rather than being bundled with a keyboard, mouse, and display like the iMac or forcing people to buy all new peripherals. But Apple’s relentless push to move their hardware platform forward has gotten in the way of this goal when it comes to the new Mini.

Although the inclusion of a FireWire port alongside the multitude of standard USB ports is welcome, Apple chose to use the 9-pin S800 port style rather than the more-familiar 6-pin port. FireWire peripherals aren’t common as it is, and S800 devices and cables are far less familiar. Although it is backward-compatible, thus the “bilingual” name often used by Apple, the much-faster S800 port requires the purchase of adapter cables to use older 400 Mb FireWire devices. Although I’m a storage geek and do own a few FireWire peripherals, none are compatible with the port on my new Mini. I have a “bilingual cable” in the mail to me as we speak, and there is a port adapter dongle, but this port stands in the way of the “bring your own” ethos.

The same can be said of Apple’s choice of video ports. It’s nice that Apple’s Mini DisplayPort is offered royalty-free, but this hasn’t made adapters any more common. Their VGA and DVI adapters are priced at $29 each, and third-party cables haven’t appeared yet, though Monoprice promises them this month. So one of the two video ports is of limited use, unless you dropped over $800 on the gorgeous Apple 24-inch LED Cinema Display. Let’s not even mention the troublesome $99 dual DVI adapter!

Then there’s the Mini-DVI port. Apple bundles a Mini-DVI to DVI-I adapter with the Mac Mini, so those of you who own a DVI monitor (and cable!) are all set. But this adapter lacks the VGA pins, so you can’t use a DVI to VGA adapter to hook up to your older VGA monitor or KVM. For that, you need to order a special Mini-DVI to VGA adapter (also in the mail).

So let’s get this straight: If you want to actually hook your pre-existing peripherals to the new Mac Mini, you had better hope they’re USB or DVI-I. Otherwise, you’re looking at spending $20 to $30 each for FireWire, Mini-DVI, and Mini DisplayPort adapters. The lack of a VGA solution is especially annoying, since it would have been simple for Apple just to include the VGA pins in their Mini-DVI adapter, allowing folks to use the DVI-to-VGA adapter they probably already own.

Inner Weakness

Although the new Mini is solidly engineered and built, Apple made two major sacrifices in internal specs in the interests of profit margins: The base Mini ships with too little RAM and a too-slow and too-small internal hard drive. I knew this going in, and was happy to buy the base model anyway, since I intended to upgrade it rather than spend $200 extra for a little more RAM and drive space or wait for a build-to-order custom Mini.

There is simply no excuse for Apple to ship the base mini with 1 GB of RAM. OS X Leopard is a full-featured 64-bit operating system, and 1 GB is too little to do much of anything with these days. RAM prices keep falling fast, so even the fancy DDR3-8500 SO-DIMMs used by the Mini cost just a few dollars. At least the company used a single 1 GB stick instead of two useless 512 MB units like the old Mini! I was lucky enough to find a fellow buyer who upgraded his RAM and is sending me his leftovers, but I may spend $50 in the next few months for a matched pair of 2 GB sticks.

Then there is the hard drive. The Mac Mini uses Hitachi’s base-model TravelStar 5K320 (HTS543212L9SA02) drive unit, easily the slowest hard drive I’ve used recently. It’s limited to 1.5 Gb SATA, and its single platter may help in the power and heat department but it gives a poor performance show. Xbench (not the best measure to be sure) shows this little drive  trailing the 120 GB Fujitsu MH2120BH drive that came in my (late 2007) MacBook Pro by about 30%, and almost 50% slower than the 320 GB Western Digital Scorpio Blue WD3200BEVT that I now use! Note that Apple apparently uses larger-capacity versions of this same drive in the bigger Minis and MacBooks. I wonder if the performance is any better?

The Mac Mini's internal 120 GB Hitachi hard disk drive lags its contemporaries and drags overall system performance way down, especially with just 1 GB of RAM

Although I was surprised by just how slow the hard drive was, especially when the limited RAM leads to swapping, I always planned to upgrade both. As I mentioned, there’s a second 1 GB stick on the way, and I ordered a blazing 320 GB 7200 rpm Hitachi TravelStar 7K320 at ZipZoomFly for $59 (after rebate). These should turn the Mini’s performance around!

Despite the shortcomings of the base Mac Mini, I would not recommend buying the upscale or build-to-order models if you’re open to upgrading it on your own. You can upgrade a Mini to 2 GB and 320 GB/7200 rpm for under $100 instead of spending $200 from Apple for the same RAM and a slower drive. However, if you’re hesitant to open the case, do not buy the base Mac Mini! Get at least the 2 GB model from Apple – 1 GB just isn’t enough!

I’ll be documenting my evolving home server environment, based around this little Mac, here on the site. Subscribe to my Apple feed (or stick with Everything) to keep up to date!

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. | New Mac Mini Is A Diamond In The Rough
This post was categorized as Apple, Everything, Terabyte home. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

Mac Mini (Early 2009) unboxed at last

I’ve been waiting on a Mac Mini to replace my sluggish and crash-prone Firefly/NSLU2 home music and file server, and Apple finally delivered the goods today, after leaving us in the lurch at Macworld 2009! I’ve placed my order for a base-model Mac Mini, and look forward to using Apple’s iPhone Remote with the Airport Express AirTunes as my primary home music playing system.

What’s new with the Mac Mini? And was it worth waiting for? I think so!

• Faster CPUs – The old 1.83 and 2.0 GHz Core 2 has been replaced by a choice of 2.0 or 2.26 GHz chips, both with a much-faster 1066 MHz front-side bus. And these are the new Penryn (probably 3M 45 nm mobile) chips, replacing the old Merom units of the previous Mini, so they run faster clock-for-clock and cooler.
• Upgraded graphics – Where the old Mini relied on Intel’s tortoise-like GMA 950 integrated graphics, the new Mini has the new NVIDIA 9400M platform, also found on the new MacBook. This means the Mini is not only a capable game machine, but can make use of Apple’s Grand Central/OpenCL technology in Snow Leopard, when it’s delivered.
• Dual-monitor support – The Mini has both a Mini DisplayPort and Micro-DVI port, so you can use two monitors at once. It comes with a DVI cable, but if you want to use VGA you have to buy an adapter (unless your monitor is Apple’s massive-dollar LED Cinema Display!)
• FireWire remains – Despite all the rumors, the Mini retains a FireWire port, and adds an extra USB port to boot! But like the display port, the FireWire is an S800 port, so you need an adapter to hook up the older, and much more common, S400 devices.

You might also be interested in my more detailed Mac Mini review, or my post on upgrading the RAM and hard disk drive in my Mac Mini!

But the best reason to use a Mac Mini as a home server is Apple’s software. OS X remains a solid platform, with excellent network file service support, and Snow Leopard should make it even better. The combination of ZFS and two hard drives in a Mac Mini will be killer! Plus, Apple’s AirTunes/iTunes/Remote ecosystem makes a very snazzy home music service. Maybe I’ll add an Apple TV, too?

All considered, this is a solid if uninspiring upgrade. It’s a MacBook in a little box with a FireWire port and half the price tag. Nothing amazing, but a solid choice for a home server, which is what I plan to use it for. As for the configurations, I wonder who Apple is kidding. The $200-extra high-end model adds an extra GB of RAM and a 320 GB hard disk over the 1 GB/120 GB base model. If you want the faster 2.26 GHz CPU, you have to build to order and shell out an extra $150. So the base model is the most compelling choice, since upgrading RAM and disk is straightforward. I’ll use the extra 1 GB  module left over from my MacBook Pro upgrade.

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2009. | The New Mac Mini is Finally Here!
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.

That green light just means that Num Lock is on

A brief moment of panic today: I open up my MacBook Pro and can’t log in. The left half of the keyboard doesn’t seem to work, and there’s an odd green light on under the function keys.

Turns out, it’s just Num Lock, which I’ve never used.

Thanks, Apple, for making an entirely inscrutable Num Lock indicator and darkening an otherwise bright day of travel!

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2008. | Panic! Green Light and MacBook Pro Keyboard is Half Dead!
This post was categorized as Apple. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.

Apfelteiler by Frank C. Müller

Apple just introduced their new MacBook and MacBook Pro, so far amping up the chic-meter that only Jony “Dramatic Stutter and Pause” Ive could do the product justice in their promo video. Yet, despite the company’s environmentally-friendly pronouncements, I’m unconvinced. They continue to pull a time-honored sleight-of-hand, touting their products as recyclable while ignoring the massive waste of energy and materials that goes into their production.

Let’s cut right to the heart of the matter: Apple talks about environmentalism and has made some real strides (as noted by TUAW and CNET) in reducing packaging, eliminating toxic chemicals, and improving the energy efficiency of their products. This much is true. I don’t doubt that they would like to be an environmentally-friendly company, and one might assume that the manufacturing process meets this description. But although producing computer products will always be extremely environmentally-unfriendly, Apple’s new “brick” unibody process is probably much less green than previous processes (as noted by TreeHugger).

Think about it:

• Apple takes a 2.5 lb aluminum slab and cuts out 80% of the metal! These tailings are very difficult to recycle, and Apple proudly says they’re leaving 2 lbs on the floor for every machine they make.
• The amount of time and energy required to create that unibody must be incredible! Just watch the video. Milling machines? High-powered industrial lasers? Wow!

Compare this to a conventional process, which stamps out individual pieces from sheet metal. Very little is wasted, the scrap remains uncontaminated and can more easily be recycled, and the entire process takes a little energy and less than a second.

The fact that Apple doesn’t go into detail about the environmental impact of this new manufacturing process probably says a lot. They change the subject – talking about how recyclable the aluminum chassis is and how it saves on transportation. This is a classic trick – focus on the positives and hope no one notices that you’re ignoring the negatives. In fact, even though Apple never says the manufacturing process is environmentally friendly, a reasonable person might make this assumption, as did TidBITS.

It’s hard to figure out just how energy-intensive this process is from Apple’s data, however.  They just introduced a new environmental status report format with these new machines. Although it’s light on details, it does include some amazing metrics if you look hard enough. The company only lists production on their “greenhouse gas emissions” chart, but this can help us deduce the energy required to produce the products, at least, since this is likely directly proportional.

This table, filled with information from Apple’s status reports, shows that production of the new MacBook and MacBook Pro creates far more greenhouse gases (and thus, take much more energy) than the MacBook Air. In fact, production takes even more energy than consumer use of the machines over a four year period! Wow!

Don’t get me wrong. I love my MacBook Pro, and I would love one of the new ones. And Apple is probably more environmentally-friendly than most companies. But this new manufacturing process is not a highlight of efficiency.

(And, seriously, could Jony Ive sound any more like Jeremy Clarkson?!?)

© sfoskett for Stephen Foskett, Pack Rat, 2008. | Buy Apple For Chic, Not Green
This post was categorized as Apple. Each of my categories has its own feed if you'd like to filter out or focus on posts like this.