|
AzCoug posted:Does anyone have experience with connecting an external monitor to your MB through mini-display port/VGA adapter? The only catch is that I am trying to do this through Boot Camp running Windows 7?
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 11:13 |
|
|
I am considering getting a Seagate thunderbolt goflex adapter to attach a SSD to my 2011 Mini. Can I still use my current Dell displayport monitor as well? The HDMI port is taken by another screen. Ie: mini -> goflex -> dell screen I googled this and it says when daisy chaining the screen should go last in the chain but I can't tell if this means actual thunderbolt displays or just any standard screens can attach at the end.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 23:38
|
|
|
Doesn't the cheaper adapter only have one TB port? Can't daisy chain if there's nothing there to chain off of.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 23:52
|
|
|
Softcox posted:I am considering getting a Seagate thunderbolt goflex adapter to attach a SSD to my 2011 Mini. Can I still use my current Dell displayport monitor as well? The HDMI port is taken by another screen. I'm pretty sure the GoFlex adapter only has 1 thunderbolt connector.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2012 23:57
|
|
|
that's a pretty stupid oversight, especially for $100. People are saying that it's because it's bus powered. But I'm willing to bet that the necessary use case for many potential customers is Mac -> Drive -> DisplayPort monitor. If they can afford a thunderbolt display, why not drop the cash on a little big disk too? iMac users will be fine, I guess. also, is it for sure going to work well with non-seagate drives? brap fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Mar 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 00:19
|
|
|
Softcox posted:I am considering getting a Seagate thunderbolt goflex adapter to attach a SSD to my 2011 Mini. Can I still use my current Dell displayport monitor as well? The HDMI port is taken by another screen. A Mini-DisplayPort screen would effectively end the chain - it can't pass Thunderbolt data through, even if it had a second port to plug in another device.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
Thunderbolt is expensive and stupid. It'd be fine if they said 'hyper fast disk connections' but the had to gently caress around and add monitors to the mix. So unless you have a video card with multiple DisplayPorts on it, you're hosed when it comes to using your old Display Port monitors. It's fine if you have new, compatible displays and drives but sucks otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 01:46
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:So unless you have a video card with multiple DisplayPorts on it, you're hosed when it comes to using your old Display Port monitors. Can you explain what you mean here? I'm trying to figure out how this is Apple's/Thunderbolt's fault.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 03:18
|
|
|
fleshweasel posted:that's a pretty stupid oversight, especially for $100. People are saying that it's because it's bus powered. But I'm willing to bet that the necessary use case for many potential customers is Mac -> Drive -> DisplayPort monitor. If they can afford a thunderbolt display, why not drop the cash on a little big disk too? iMac users will be fine, I guess. mediaphage posted:Can you explain what you mean here? I'm trying to figure out how this is Apple's/Thunderbolt's fault.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 03:31
|
|
|
japtor posted:Alternatively you could blame the peripheral makers for making devices with only one port, or Intel for allowing that I guess, since the issue would also come up if you had two TB devices like that. Or blame them for being so exclusive because the Seagate adapter only works with Seagate drives with their weird proprietary connector.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 03:34
|
|
|
Binary Badger posted:Or blame them for being so exclusive because the Seagate adapter only works with Seagate drives with their weird proprietary connector.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 06:43
|
|
|
Are there still no Thunderbolt enclosures sold without a hard drive? The only thing I've seen is the Lacie Little Big Disk and I don't want to buy it with an empty drive. Edit: I'm looking for specifically 7200rpm (3.5" form factor) compatible. Milo Pollywalter fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Mar 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 07:08
|
|
|
Olivil posted:I'm getting issues with my Wifi on my 2011 27 inch iMac (the 3.1GHz i5 model). They released a software update to fix this last week.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 08:48
|
|
|
Milo Pollywalter posted:Are there still no Thunderbolt enclosures sold without a hard drive?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 08:59
|
|
|
Even when the cheaper stuff comes out (Q2 or Q3 I think) I figure they'll continue keeping their margins up until someone breaks from the pack and lowers pricing expectations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 10:21
|
|
|
It's like Firewire all over again: Nobody buys it because it's too expensive and it's expensive because nobody buys it. I really liked Firewire. My Sony laptop had it, my G4 Powerbook had it, my Dell laptop had it. I had a DVD-RW and external HD chained up to it. One plug for both devices and I could connect my camcorder without ruining that. Much better than USB 2.0. If Apple would at least give us USB 3.0 so we didn't have to deal with 25MB/s external hard drives... Sure, for the people who really -need- 2TB of fast storage can afford it because they can make the cost back in 1-2 jobs using the equipment. That seems like it's been standard forever. $2699 for a dual G4 tower? Sure I'll just pay for it by shooting 2 weddings. But for home users or the Average Joe, you're stuck with poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 14:18
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:It's like Firewire all over again: Nobody buys it because it's too expensive and it's expensive because nobody buys it. Don't write it off quite yet. If I've understood these crazy hardware sites correctly, Intel's Thunderbolt support starts on the new Ivy Bridge boards, so it really hasn't had a full industry-wide launch. Apple should also get USB 3.0 once they start using Ivy Bridge parts, since it's built into the chipset.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 19:24
|
|
|
Yeah Apple was basically over a year early with TB and the rest of the industry was stuck because of Intel taking their time with it. A decent number of ultrabooks have already been announced with it around CES along with whatever IB boards, so it's more or less launching for the rest of the industry just now...well "now" being a few months when IB starts shipping.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
Apogee and UA are both coming out with Thunderbolt audio interfaces this summer. I think we're close.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 22:56
|
|
|
Would now be a bad time for buying a MacBook Pro or an Air? If I got either one it would be a higher end machine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 23:32
|
|
|
Boner Wad posted:Would now be a bad time for buying a MacBook Pro or an Air? If I got either one it would be a higher end machine. The current machines are pretty drat good, even though you're now starting to get a decent way into their refresh cycle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 23:36
|
|
|
Question re: Air. Do you guys generally find yourself hating the 4GB limitation (2GB on lower end ones too)? I basically run more than 4GB active ram every day of the week, usually within minutes of booting my Mac. Hell, right now I have Safari + iTunes + Mail open in separate spaces and I'm at 2.95gb used. If I open a few more tabs I will hit 4GB easily. If I launch VMware Fusion then that all goes out the window and I'll be sitting at like 6-8gigs used within a short amount. Does the speed of the SSD negate huge problems with swapping, or do you guys generally feel boxed in? I get that the Air might not be a great desktop replacement or just used as a computer on the go, but even when I'm on the go I feel like I might need to do things that require more RAM. Sounds like I'm not the prime demographic for an Air in any event though. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Mar 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 23:51
|
|
|
I've never felt restricted by my 2011 Air's specs. Maybe it's the SSD mitigating the 4GB of RAM like you said or maybe it's just the way I use it. I really only use it for casually surfing, taking notes in class, small coding projects, streaming Netflix/Hulu, email, and messaging. I can imagine having content production or virtual machine issues on the Air, but even then it shouldn't be unusable. That said, I save the heavy lifting (Photoshop CS5, Aperture, iMovie, etc.) for my 27" iMac and that seems to be a pretty good solution for me. I want the larger screen for those tasks anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 23:57
|
|
|
Yeah, it's really an off the cuff question, but I'm thinking about getting the university to pay for a Mac for me, and while I am in love with the aesthetics of the Air I do tend to do a lot of VMware stuff, a lot of Photoshop, etc. Sounds like the MBP would be much more up my alley, even if it is a behemoth by comparison 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2012 23:59
|
|
|
I think you'd be fine if they refresh with an 8GB option this Summer, but I'm not sure how quickly you're looking to buy. I've used CS5, Parallels, and Fusion in the past on my Air, and the CPU and 256GB SSD didn't seem to have any issues. I found the form factor and screen real estate to actually be the biggest issue for those tasks. Your only real hardware limitation is RAM (unless you're doing simulation type stuff in the VM or something).
Star War Sex Parrot fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Mar 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 00:02
|
|
|
I have an Air with 4GB and I do find myself wishing I could get 8, specifically for vmware. I don't mind it so much because it's still enough to run a VM when I have to and I have a second machine that I can use for heavier tasks. I wouldn't personally trade it for the bigger laptop because it's fairly rare that I need/want more than 4GB and can't access a desktop. I agree with Star War Sex Parrot; if they add an 8GB option I think you'd probably be fine. The only other drawback I'd mention is that if you're maxing out the CPU/GPU for a significant amount of time the fans can get a little bit loud.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 00:34
|
|
|
My other issue is that I just left my old job that I had a 17" MBP. It was a 2010 model and it was plenty fast. I did upgrade it to 8gb though. I probably won't be running too many vms, since this will be personal use only. I do worry about screen res though, 1920x1600 to 1440x900 seems like quite the jump. How is the quality of the picture on the various MBA 13 and MBP 15 at 1440x900? It would seem that the 15" is way to big with that low of a resolution. Also what's up with the 11" MBA, are those for people with really small hands only?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 01:40
|
|
|
Boner Wad posted:How is the quality of the picture on the various MBA 13 and MBP 15 at 1440x900? It would seem that the 15" is way to big with that low of a resolution. Basically the PPI on all of Apple's computers seem fine to me, and certainly anything is better than the 1366x768 15" displays that most OEMs use by default. Boner Wad posted:Also what's up with the 11" MBA, are those for people with really small hands only?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
Hmm. I can hold off to see what Apple refreshes the line with. Though in all honesty I still think I will be aiming for an SSD equipped MBP. Thanks for the input, guys.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 02:24
|
|
|
japtor posted:If nothing else I think you might be able to get the flat rate repair ($250?) for it which covers anything they find wrong with it. It's working now, but thanks for the reply. I'll keep the flat rate repair in mind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 03:35
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Question re: Air. Do you guys generally find yourself hating the 4GB limitation (2GB on lower end ones too)? I basically run more than 4GB active ram every day of the week, usually within minutes of booting my Mac. Hell, right now I have Safari + iTunes + Mail open in separate spaces and I'm at 2.95gb used. If I open a few more tabs I will hit 4GB easily. If I launch VMware Fusion then that all goes out the window and I'll be sitting at like 6-8gigs used within a short amount. I think too many people sperg out about how OS X reports used memory. I have 8GB at work in my iMac, and with a million terminal editors, 3 web browsers, Passenger running Ruby, a Ruby webrick server (or whatever it is), and a 1GB Linux VM, buncha text editors, Word and Excel, iTunes, Xcode, I almost never go much over 5GB. I usually only reboot every 30 days (starts getting 'pausey'). I think if I had an SSD in it instead of the peice of crap 320GB or whatever HD it'd be even better, and that's only an i3 CPU. My 13" Air has 4GB and with just a browser and couple terminal windows open I'm at 1747MB used, but whenever I do the exact same stuff on my 11" with 2GB I barely go over 900MB.  As far as the display PPI, here you go:  Basically the 11" and 13" Air are very similar to the hi-res 15" and 17" Pros. The standard 13, 15, and 17" Pro and the iMacs are all about the same as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
The other thing I noticed with the 13" MBP is that it doesn't have a descrete video card, similar to the MBAs. Do you need the graphics card for average use? I'm thinking some coding, sshing into servers, web browsing, IM, YouTube/Netflix/Hulu watching. I think I'm leaning towards the 15" MBP with the 750gb 7200RPM and hi-res screen and I'll buy the 8gb dimms later. I think the drive is +50 and the high res is +100.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
Boner Wad posted:The other thing I noticed with the 13" MBP is that it doesn't have a descrete video card, similar to the MBAs. Do you need the graphics card for average use? I'm thinking some coding, sshing into servers, web browsing, IM, YouTube/Netflix/Hulu watching. You only need it for games. The worst part is the ATI card on the 15" and 17" Pros gets activated all the drat time, eating all your battery.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 04:07
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:I think too many people sperg out about how OS X reports used memory. I have 8GB at work in my iMac, and with a million terminal editors, 3 web browsers, Passenger running Ruby, a Ruby webrick server (or whatever it is), and a 1GB Linux VM, buncha text editors, Word and Excel, iTunes, Xcode, I almost never go much over 5GB. I usually only reboot every 30 days (starts getting 'pausey'). I think if I had an SSD in it instead of the peice of crap 320GB or whatever HD it'd be even better, and that's only an i3 CPU. I don't disagree, but I'm talking actual memory used. I routinely run 2-3 VMs, a buttload of Safari tabs, Mail.app, iTunes, and Reeder (which loves to leak memory) and I don't hit 8GB but I run close sometimes. I just upgraded it to 8 this past month because with 4 I was constantly hitting swap and I could go read a magazine on the shitter with how slow the swapping to 7200RPM disk can be. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Mar 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 04:11
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I don't disagree, but I'm talking actual memory used. I routinely run 2-3 VMs, a buttload of Safari tabs, Mail.app, iTunes, and Reeder (which loves to leak memory) and I don't hit 8GB but I run close sometimes. I just upgraded it to 8 this past month because with 4 I was constantly hitting swap and I could go read a magazine on the lovely with how slow the swapping to 7200RPM disk can be. I was swapping like crazy with 4GB. I don't come close to using all 8GB but it was basically a free upgrade after I upgraded my old MBP to 8GB, what else was I going to do with the old RAM? I just opened Chrome, Safari, iTunes, Xcode, SublimeEdit, gVim, and LibreOffce, and my reported RAM usage only went up 300MB. Seems more like most apps are leaky and it's stuff like having Firefox open for 3 days which sucks up all my RAM.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 04:15
|
|
|
I have a mid 2009 MB Pro 13" which still covered under AppleCare. I have noticed today that the screen has a small patch of backlight bleed in one corner when there are light colours shown in that corner. On dark colours the bleed doesn't show. Is this an issue with the screen or are there any utilities I should run on it first before sending it the local fruit stand? I have rebooted the Mac, but it still has a small patch (like a couple of millimetre in size) bleed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 04:45
|
|
|
Any rumblings about a new iMac in the near future?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 00:41
|
|
|
So 2 weeks ago I bought a new Mac Mini, which has been great. I upgraded to 8GB RAM and it flies. Anyway I'm trying to set up Skype, and my microphone headset doesn't seem to be working. I've got this thing from like 4 years ago: http://www.amazon.com/Creative-HS-800-Fatal1ty-Gaming-Headset/dp/B002DS4HTM/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1330905149&sr=1-1 My gaming days are gone, but I still Skype with people and use the headset as a microphone. It's not USB, it has the 2 3.5mm jacks. I've plugged them into the back of the Mini, but the microphone does not work. Has anyone else had issues with using analog headsets? Google tells me it might be having problems because it wasn't outputting the signal with enough power for the computer to detect it(?) I've checked the sound settings and everything looks okay (nothing is muted, etc), but it hears nothing 
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 00:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 11:13 |
|
|
chupacabraTERROR posted:microphone headset AFAIK, Macs have a different type of sound input port than most Windows machines which gives better sound quality but requires you to have a powered microphone. Getting a USB headset is probably your best bet. Edit: Macs have 'line in', PCs have 'mic in': http://www.timescapemedia.com/forums/topic.php?id=4 http://forum.audacityteam.org/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=9571 chimz fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Mar 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 01:18
|
|
