3 ms·
The problem is really simple. Lots of people, myself included, need a computer with accessible drives to be replaced, and it would be really nice to have a PCI
by droithomme 15y ago
The problem is really simple. Lots of people, myself included, need a computer with accessible drives to be replaced, and it would be really nice to have a PCI bus. Apple offers this, but only at an outrageous cost that includes 6, 8 or 12 processors, which we don't need, and also the PCI-e bus has extremely few normal cards available, because Apple sells so few Pros, because they are massively overpriced. The alternatives are iMac, MacBook and MacMini, none of which have the current industry standard USB3 ports, all of which instead have a weird nonstandard Thunderbolt connector that requires $50 intelligent cables and for which no virtually no peripherals are available now, or ever will be available, except at extravagant cost.
It's a serious problem that affects my work, and the work of many, all due to mismanagement of their computer line by Apple.
I have around 4TB of files I regularly access, including video archives of tutorial and marketing films.
On a Mac Pro, I can drop 2x2TB drives in and be ready to go, and even have a couple more for mirroring, but the price of the chassis to hold the drives (the Pro) is outlandish.
With the iMac, you can't upgrade to that capacity at all, and even upgrading the internal drive to 2TB is trouble because Apple puts custom chips on their drives that prevent the temperature sensor from reporting right so that for many people upgrading the drive makes the fans run at full speed. Putting the drives into Firewire enclosures means I have to buy rare and expensive FW800 external housings, daisy chain them, and have multiple wall warts, transformers, enclosures and wires all over the place, just like back in the Commodore 64 days, and if something gets snagged on one of these cables mid drive write, the whole system becomes hosed.
For a platform historically known for suitability for multimedia work which has always required fair amounts of storage, the situation is abominable.
- mc32 15y agoFor expanded storage, you could look into iSCSI (not the best support on the mac) CIFS or NFS supporting subsystems like those from Synology. Not sure your thruput reqs, but in most cases one of those will suffice. YMMV.
- barrkel 15y agoHave you considered using iSCSI? The storage server need not be a Mac. I'm using Nexenta running ZFS to supply iSCSI volumes to some of the machines on my home network.
- droithomme 15y agoThanks, my current solution is similar to that - storage drives in a PC server originally bought for that purpose and accessed through ethernet. (Interestingly, I have a hell of a time getting 2 Macs to network, but Macs network fine from PCs.) This was not as fast as I would like though and I usually had to copy files locally for editing. I migrated most of my video and photo work to the PC just because the speed was much faster having the drives local. It seems strange to me that I have to have two computers to do basic things. I greatly prefer the Unix on the Apple, but it's getting to where I might just switch back to the PC since the Mac has become an impediment to my workflow. This after using Macs since the 1980s for work at home. It makes no sense. Why shouldn't all Macs have easy access to reasonable amounts of storage. They should. Not having a reasonable solution here is really boneheaded of Apple.
- w1ntermute 15y ago> For a platform historically known for suitability for multimedia work That's its history, which Apple has moved away from (with great success). You're not they're target customer anymore. Their average customer in 2011 wants a ultra-thin laptop, not a super-powered (from their POV) desktop. If you're not willing to pony up the cash, your best hope is to build a Hack Pro.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]