I haven't tried CCC lately but when I tried a backup with CCC 3 not too long ago, it seemed slow so I checked the disk activity throughput and I/O operations per second with Activity Monitor, and there seemed to be longer periods of little activity with CCC 3 compared to SuperDuper! 2.5 which had better throughput. Has version 3.1.3 been upgraded so much that it is now competitive?
Not sure, I just know that on average a Time Machine recovery takes the better part of a day.
What many people are missing here is that this approach offers Apple a way to unbundle the power supply and lower the machines list price. This how one powers the Mini will be up to the purchaser when he makes the purchase. It also opens up the market to a wide range of power supplies.
Dave
Although I agree with many of the points you make, I do have a hard time believing that Apple of all companies would stock a computer on their shelves that could be purchased by some unwitting customer only to find that they arrive at home and have no way to turn it on.
Maybe this may save on component costs if Apple can eliminate the need to manufacture the existing power cable and use instead the MagSafe connector already in sumo-mass production, but I do not believe that Apple's goal is to list a lower price for its system by removing the power adapter from the box.
The current Mac Mini is a 110W AC Adapter, the MB and MBP Magsafe adapters are 65W.
Thanks. Can the new ADC push 110 or something lower than 110 that would be needed for an updated Mini? That would be telling if Apple planned the new ADC for the new Mini or not.
Mini DVI is a proprietary connector with no native display support: it requires an adapter to work with any monitor, Apple made or third party. Hmmm, what does that sounds like? Oh yeah, the new Mini DisplayPort connector. So why in Hell would Apple put their old proprietary connector on their brand new mini in place of their new one? You have to buy and use an adapter either way. Apple sells VGA and DVI mini DisplayPort adapters right now and there's nothing stopping them from including either with the new mini.
In other words, including the legacy Mini DVI port on the new Mac mini in no way increases display compatibility or eases the transition for switchers. It has ZERO advantages over the new mini DisplayPort.
If by some miracle Apple does include two video ports on the new Mac mini, they will both be MDSP. Mini DVI is dead.
Apple recently modified Target Disk Mode to work over Ethernet.
I thought the Ethernet inclusion was for Migration Assistant, which was previously only usable with FW. I've only read about talk of FW-over-Ethernet, but I have seen nothing that is shipping with the required HW, muchless the a finalized spec on how it will work.
Hopefully Apple will not only provide mini-dvi, otherwise I definitely won't consider any purchasing!
I'm not sure I understand the wording of your post, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Apple has been moving away from including extraneous adapters. I think the inclusion of a mDP-to-DVI adapter with the new Mac Mini will depend on the number crunching results. In other words, will Apple detemine that including the adapter increase net profits as people will be more readily buy the machine to connect to their old monitor, or will decide that by not including the adapter increase, their net profit be more benefited as enough people will buy the adapter without question and/or it will prompt more people to buy the new ACD, especially now that they have a mic, iSight, and potentially allow you to forgo the Mini's external PS.
I thought the Ethernet inclusion was for Migration Assistant, which was previously only usable with FW. I've only read about talk of FW-over-Ethernet, but I have seen nothing that is shipping with the required HW, muchless the a finalized spec on how it will work.
I thought it was Ethernet-over-FW? I'll have to look for FW-over-Ethernet, news to me.
Mini DVI is a proprietary connector with no native display support: it requires an adapter to work with any monitor, Apple made or third party. Hmmm, what does that sounds like? Oh yeah, the new Mini DisplayPort connector. So why in Hell would Apple put their old proprietary connector on their brand new mini in place of their new one? You have to buy and use an adapter either way. Apple sells VGA and DVI mini DisplayPort adapters right now and there's nothing stopping them from including either with the new mini.
In other words, including the legacy Mini DVI port on the new Mac mini in no way increases display compatibility or eases the transition for switchers. It has ZERO advantages over the new mini DisplayPort.
If by some miracle Apple does include two video ports on the new Mac mini, they will both be MDSP. Mini DVI is dead.
One advantage to Mini DVI is the lack of DRM. The Mini Display Port has DRM on it so it would make it very hard to use on a television to watch DVD movies and things on. Unless of course Apple bypasses this (which I doubt they'll do).
BTW...
The new Mini Display port is NOT a proprietary port. Apple has developed this mini port, but they've made it fully open source. Currently Apple is the only company using it, but its not JUST for Apple products. Who knows what the future of this port will bring. Its very handy for small computers such as netbooks, laptops, and small form factor computers as the port itself doesn't take up very much room.
Yours does. There were earlier models that had ADC and DVI but the connectors were deliberately too close to each other so only one cable at a time could fit because the card was not dual-channel. The second port was only there for connectivity.
I have an earlier PPC G4 800 MHz and can use an ACD and a 3rd party monitor (mirrored or extended) at the same time:
I thought it was Ethernet-over-FW? I'll have to look for FW-over-Ethernet, news to me.
IEEE1394c-2006, according to Wikipedia has Bern speced for FW800 using RJ-45 ports with twisted-pair cables. It also states that no one is supporting controllers for it at this time. So without being in effect TDM over Ethernet is out of the question in its current iteration.
I would think that if Apple were going to support this they would have made it happen by now.
Right. It's not so much they are wanting it to support 2 displays, they want it to be compatible with existing displays and Apple's new displays. So, it will have both. We're due for a new 30" ACD LED BLU, a Mac Pro refresh, and a 17" MBP 4 core unibody. We're due, but that doesn't mean they'll all be at MacWorldExpo. I think the new iMacs will look like the MacBooks - glass all the way to the edge with a black bezel, but no aluminum there.
Again, the new iMacs aren't redesigns, they're refreshes: meaning they're keeping the external design while changing the internals. The biggest change will likely be the move to quad-core processors and possibly an update to LED backlighting. Speaking of that, by the way, we aren't gonna see a 30" display of that sort with LED backlighting for a while. Given the resolution of that monitor (2650 x 1600) and the internals required for that (as well as the video cards needed to run it), the price would almost double at least. We'll almost certainly see the 20" model move to the new design and feature set soon, but other than using a different manufacturer and matching the design, the 30" isn't changing backlighting anytime soon.
The only major changes I see happening with the Mac Pro are a move to Intel Core i7 processors (the soon to be released 8-core models) and an expansion of RAM to 64GB DDR3 SDRAM. Your prediction about the 17" MBP may actually be true. The stated reason for its later release was that the internals were still being worked out. I'm thereby assuming quad core was causing overheating and that they were trying to work out lightening the 17" model (I can't see the unibody and glass not making it heavier). The one thing I'm really interested in is which video cards Apple chooses for the Mac Pro and 17" MBP. If I could get a GTX 280 OR 4870 X2 as even an option on the Mac Pro, I would be eternally grateful.
I'm not sure I understand the wording of your post, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Apple has been moving away from including extraneous adapters. I think the inclusion of a mDP-to-DVI adapter with the new Mac Mini will depend on the number crunching results. In other words, will Apple detemine that including the adapter increase net profits as people will be more readily buy the machine to connect to their old monitor, or will decide that by not including the adapter increase, their net profit be more benefited as enough people will buy the adapter without question and/or it will prompt more people to buy the new ACD, especially now that they have a mic, iSight, and potentially allow you to forgo the Mini's external PS.
Maybe I didn't understand what you said either but...
Apple would have to include an adapter for one of the ports, whether its Mini DVI or the Mini Display Port in general. If not, it would mean you buy a new MacMini, and then also have to fork out cash to get video out? That would just just plain stupid on Apple's part. It would be like buying a car at the stealership (aka dealership) and then the dealer says..well you gotta buy wheels and tires in order to take it home.
Thats kind of funny. The other day I wrote up a long blog posting about the new Mac minis. My predictions of what I think we're going to get, followed by a wish list of things we'll likely never see. And I put dual displays in the 'wish list' category. I pray they keep firewire!
One advantage to Mini DVI is the lack of DRM. The Mini Display Port has DRM on it so it would make it very hard to use on a television to watch DVD movies and things on. Unless of course Apple bypasses this (which I doubt they'll do).
BTW...
The new Mini Display port is NOT a proprietary port. Apple has developed this mini port, but they've made it fully open source. Currently Apple is the only company using it, but its not JUST for Apple products. Who knows what the future of this port will bring. Its very handy for small computers such as netbooks, laptops, and small form factor computers as the port itself doesn't take up very much room.
The mini display port has DRM only for HD content. As for being proprietary, it is for now and can you recall in the almost 25 years of the Mac where any other company adopted one of the Mac unique connectors? I'll bet you are thinking FireWire which Apple helped invent and you see FW400 on some other brands. I was thinking of the Apple monitor connector before they adopted VGA, 2 row 15 pins or the ADB bus used for keyboards and mice.
Bingo. I need a Mini to power an analog projector. If these new mini's only had DisplayPort, I wouldn't (couldn't) buy one. Having mini-DVI integrated means that I can gladly buy a handful of them for my application. This is a huge huge deal for a lot of people who use Mini's.
Where are you getting this notion that a Mac mini that only has Mini DisplayPort can't output to DVI?It can. Apple sells Mini DisplayPort-to-DVI (and one for VGA and one for Dual-Link DVI).
Where are you getting this notion that a Mac mini that only has Mini DisplayPort can't output to DVI?It can. Apple sells Mini DisplayPort-to-DVI (and one for VGA and one for Dual-Link DVI).
Exactly. What is wrong with people?
Mini DVI provides ZERO backwards compatibility with any Apple or 3rd party display, TV or projector. Never has, never will. You must purchase and use an adapter to make Mini DVI work with anything. Therefor adding Mini DVI to the Mac mini, either in addition to or instead of the new Mini DisplayPort is completely pointless.
One more time, slowly: Mini DisplayPort does everything Mini DVI does (and more). Mini DVI was taken off the MacBooks because Apple has killed it in favor of Mini DisplayPort. The last thing they are going to do is add it back into the Mac mini for no reason.
One more time, slowly: Mini DisplayPort does everything Mini DVI does (and more). Mini DVI was taken off the MacBooks because Apple has killed it in favor of Mini DisplayPort. The last thing they are going to do is add it back into the Mac mini for no reason.
Excuse me, but doesn't mini DVI (with an adaptor) allow one to connect to many HDTVs. My HDTV will allow me to use DVI to connect to a computer. The mini-DVI should allow for mac mini to act as a media pc. Seems reasonable to me.
Mini-displayport seems like the toad in the room to me.
Comments
How much power does the current Mac Mini draw?
The current Mac Mini is a 110W AC Adapter, the MB and MBP Magsafe adapters are 65W.
I haven't tried CCC lately but when I tried a backup with CCC 3 not too long ago, it seemed slow so I checked the disk activity throughput and I/O operations per second with Activity Monitor, and there seemed to be longer periods of little activity with CCC 3 compared to SuperDuper! 2.5 which had better throughput. Has version 3.1.3 been upgraded so much that it is now competitive?
Not sure, I just know that on average a Time Machine recovery takes the better part of a day.
What many people are missing here is that this approach offers Apple a way to unbundle the power supply and lower the machines list price. This how one powers the Mini will be up to the purchaser when he makes the purchase. It also opens up the market to a wide range of power supplies.
Dave
Although I agree with many of the points you make, I do have a hard time believing that Apple of all companies would stock a computer on their shelves that could be purchased by some unwitting customer only to find that they arrive at home and have no way to turn it on.
Maybe this may save on component costs if Apple can eliminate the need to manufacture the existing power cable and use instead the MagSafe connector already in sumo-mass production, but I do not believe that Apple's goal is to list a lower price for its system by removing the power adapter from the box.
The current Mac Mini is a 110W AC Adapter, the MB and MBP Magsafe adapters are 65W.
Thanks. Can the new ADC push 110 or something lower than 110 that would be needed for an updated Mini? That would be telling if Apple planned the new ADC for the new Mini or not.
Mini DVI is a proprietary connector with no native display support: it requires an adapter to work with any monitor, Apple made or third party. Hmmm, what does that sounds like? Oh yeah, the new Mini DisplayPort connector. So why in Hell would Apple put their old proprietary connector on their brand new mini in place of their new one? You have to buy and use an adapter either way. Apple sells VGA and DVI mini DisplayPort adapters right now and there's nothing stopping them from including either with the new mini.
In other words, including the legacy Mini DVI port on the new Mac mini in no way increases display compatibility or eases the transition for switchers. It has ZERO advantages over the new mini DisplayPort.
If by some miracle Apple does include two video ports on the new Mac mini, they will both be MDSP. Mini DVI is dead.
Apple recently modified Target Disk Mode to work over Ethernet.
I thought the Ethernet inclusion was for Migration Assistant, which was previously only usable with FW. I've only read about talk of FW-over-Ethernet, but I have seen nothing that is shipping with the required HW, muchless the a finalized spec on how it will work.
Hopefully Apple will not only provide mini-dvi, otherwise I definitely won't consider any purchasing!
I'm not sure I understand the wording of your post, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Apple has been moving away from including extraneous adapters. I think the inclusion of a mDP-to-DVI adapter with the new Mac Mini will depend on the number crunching results. In other words, will Apple detemine that including the adapter increase net profits as people will be more readily buy the machine to connect to their old monitor, or will decide that by not including the adapter increase, their net profit be more benefited as enough people will buy the adapter without question and/or it will prompt more people to buy the new ACD, especially now that they have a mic, iSight, and potentially allow you to forgo the Mini's external PS.
I thought the Ethernet inclusion was for Migration Assistant, which was previously only usable with FW. I've only read about talk of FW-over-Ethernet, but I have seen nothing that is shipping with the required HW, muchless the a finalized spec on how it will work.
I thought it was Ethernet-over-FW? I'll have to look for FW-over-Ethernet, news to me.
People, do any of you even think before posting?
Mini DVI is a proprietary connector with no native display support: it requires an adapter to work with any monitor, Apple made or third party. Hmmm, what does that sounds like? Oh yeah, the new Mini DisplayPort connector. So why in Hell would Apple put their old proprietary connector on their brand new mini in place of their new one? You have to buy and use an adapter either way. Apple sells VGA and DVI mini DisplayPort adapters right now and there's nothing stopping them from including either with the new mini.
In other words, including the legacy Mini DVI port on the new Mac mini in no way increases display compatibility or eases the transition for switchers. It has ZERO advantages over the new mini DisplayPort.
If by some miracle Apple does include two video ports on the new Mac mini, they will both be MDSP. Mini DVI is dead.
One advantage to Mini DVI is the lack of DRM. The Mini Display Port has DRM on it so it would make it very hard to use on a television to watch DVD movies and things on. Unless of course Apple bypasses this (which I doubt they'll do).
BTW...
The new Mini Display port is NOT a proprietary port. Apple has developed this mini port, but they've made it fully open source. Currently Apple is the only company using it, but its not JUST for Apple products. Who knows what the future of this port will bring. Its very handy for small computers such as netbooks, laptops, and small form factor computers as the port itself doesn't take up very much room.
Yours does. There were earlier models that had ADC and DVI but the connectors were deliberately too close to each other so only one cable at a time could fit because the card was not dual-channel. The second port was only there for connectivity.
I have an earlier PPC G4 800 MHz and can use an ACD and a 3rd party monitor (mirrored or extended) at the same time:
ATI Radeon 7500:
Chipset Model
Type
Bus
Slot
VRAM (Total)
Vendor
Device ID
Revision ID
ROM Revision
Displays:
Apple Cinema Display:
Display Type
Resolution
Depth
Core Image
Main Display
Mirror
Online
Quartz Extreme
VX2025wm:
Resolution
Depth
Core Image
Mirror
Online
Quartz Extreme
I thought it was Ethernet-over-FW? I'll have to look for FW-over-Ethernet, news to me.
It's more commonly referred to as Firewire over CAT-5.
I thought it was Ethernet-over-FW? I'll have to look for FW-over-Ethernet, news to me.
IEEE1394c-2006, according to Wikipedia has Bern speced for FW800 using RJ-45 ports with twisted-pair cables. It also states that no one is supporting controllers for it at this time. So without being in effect TDM over Ethernet is out of the question in its current iteration.
I would think that if Apple were going to support this they would have made it happen by now.
Right. It's not so much they are wanting it to support 2 displays, they want it to be compatible with existing displays and Apple's new displays. So, it will have both.
Again, the new iMacs aren't redesigns, they're refreshes: meaning they're keeping the external design while changing the internals. The biggest change will likely be the move to quad-core processors and possibly an update to LED backlighting. Speaking of that, by the way, we aren't gonna see a 30" display of that sort with LED backlighting for a while. Given the resolution of that monitor (2650 x 1600) and the internals required for that (as well as the video cards needed to run it), the price would almost double at least. We'll almost certainly see the 20" model move to the new design and feature set soon, but other than using a different manufacturer and matching the design, the 30" isn't changing backlighting anytime soon.
The only major changes I see happening with the Mac Pro are a move to Intel Core i7 processors (the soon to be released 8-core models) and an expansion of RAM to 64GB DDR3 SDRAM. Your prediction about the 17" MBP may actually be true. The stated reason for its later release was that the internals were still being worked out. I'm thereby assuming quad core was causing overheating and that they were trying to work out lightening the 17" model (I can't see the unibody and glass not making it heavier). The one thing I'm really interested in is which video cards Apple chooses for the Mac Pro and 17" MBP. If I could get a GTX 280 OR 4870 X2 as even an option on the Mac Pro, I would be eternally grateful.
I'm not sure I understand the wording of your post, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Apple has been moving away from including extraneous adapters. I think the inclusion of a mDP-to-DVI adapter with the new Mac Mini will depend on the number crunching results. In other words, will Apple detemine that including the adapter increase net profits as people will be more readily buy the machine to connect to their old monitor, or will decide that by not including the adapter increase, their net profit be more benefited as enough people will buy the adapter without question and/or it will prompt more people to buy the new ACD, especially now that they have a mic, iSight, and potentially allow you to forgo the Mini's external PS.
Maybe I didn't understand what you said either but...
Apple would have to include an adapter for one of the ports, whether its Mini DVI or the Mini Display Port in general. If not, it would mean you buy a new MacMini, and then also have to fork out cash to get video out? That would just just plain stupid on Apple's part. It would be like buying a car at the stealership (aka dealership) and then the dealer says..well you gotta buy wheels and tires in order to take it home.
You can see my post here: www.macfixer.net
One advantage to Mini DVI is the lack of DRM. The Mini Display Port has DRM on it so it would make it very hard to use on a television to watch DVD movies and things on. Unless of course Apple bypasses this (which I doubt they'll do).
BTW...
The new Mini Display port is NOT a proprietary port. Apple has developed this mini port, but they've made it fully open source. Currently Apple is the only company using it, but its not JUST for Apple products. Who knows what the future of this port will bring. Its very handy for small computers such as netbooks, laptops, and small form factor computers as the port itself doesn't take up very much room.
The mini display port has DRM only for HD content. As for being proprietary, it is for now and can you recall in the almost 25 years of the Mac where any other company adopted one of the Mac unique connectors? I'll bet you are thinking FireWire which Apple helped invent and you see FW400 on some other brands. I was thinking of the Apple monitor connector before they adopted VGA, 2 row 15 pins or the ADB bus used for keyboards and mice.
Bingo. I need a Mini to power an analog projector. If these new mini's only had DisplayPort, I wouldn't (couldn't) buy one. Having mini-DVI integrated means that I can gladly buy a handful of them for my application. This is a huge huge deal for a lot of people who use Mini's.
Where are you getting this notion that a Mac mini that only has Mini DisplayPort can't output to DVI?
Where are you getting this notion that a Mac mini that only has Mini DisplayPort can't output to DVI?
Exactly. What is wrong with people?
Mini DVI provides ZERO backwards compatibility with any Apple or 3rd party display, TV or projector. Never has, never will. You must purchase and use an adapter to make Mini DVI work with anything. Therefor adding Mini DVI to the Mac mini, either in addition to or instead of the new Mini DisplayPort is completely pointless.
One more time, slowly: Mini DisplayPort does everything Mini DVI does (and more). Mini DVI was taken off the MacBooks because Apple has killed it in favor of Mini DisplayPort. The last thing they are going to do is add it back into the Mac mini for no reason.
Exactly. What is wrong with people?
One more time, slowly: Mini DisplayPort does everything Mini DVI does (and more). Mini DVI was taken off the MacBooks because Apple has killed it in favor of Mini DisplayPort. The last thing they are going to do is add it back into the Mac mini for no reason.
Excuse me, but doesn't mini DVI (with an adaptor) allow one to connect to many HDTVs. My HDTV will allow me to use DVI to connect to a computer. The mini-DVI should allow for mac mini to act as a media pc. Seems reasonable to me.
Mini-displayport seems like the toad in the room to me.