Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Can one boot from a copy of a backup?
91 views
Skip to first unread message
micky
Aug 2, 2012, 10:56:05 AM8/2/12
to
Can one boot from a copy of a backup?
Last night I lent my friend a USB SATA dock and a SATA drive, and he
bought SuperDuper and backed up his drive**. But he can't boot
from that. (He uses OS 10.4.11, upgraded from Panther) .
If his internal drive were to fail before I picked out a Firewire
drive, would it be possible to buy a Firewire drive then, borrow a Mac
with a Firewire port and USB2 port, and copy/clone his full backup of
his failed HD on the drive I had lent him TO the new Firewire drive
and then boot from that?
Or does the drive one boots from have to be an original backup, for
some reason.? (In the PC world, there is weird stuff like that.)
FTR, I don't think he can use the drive I lent him to replace his
internal drive if it fails, because my drive is SATA, and his computer
is 9 years old, an Imac (USB 2.0) and the internal drive was an 80GB
Ultra ATA/100; 7200 rpm drive. It may have been updated to a bigger
one by now, but it can't use SATA, can it?
Thanks a lot.
**(Only 19 gig, but too big for my 16G flashdrive.)
Last night I lent my friend a USB SATA dock and a SATA drive, and he
bought SuperDuper and backed up his drive**. But he can't boot
from that. (He uses OS 10.4.11, upgraded from Panther) .
If his internal drive were to fail before I picked out a Firewire
drive, would it be possible to buy a Firewire drive then, borrow a Mac
with a Firewire port and USB2 port, and copy/clone his full backup of
his failed HD on the drive I had lent him TO the new Firewire drive
and then boot from that?
Or does the drive one boots from have to be an original backup, for
some reason.? (In the PC world, there is weird stuff like that.)
FTR, I don't think he can use the drive I lent him to replace his
internal drive if it fails, because my drive is SATA, and his computer
is 9 years old, an Imac (USB 2.0) and the internal drive was an 80GB
Ultra ATA/100; 7200 rpm drive. It may have been updated to a bigger
one by now, but it can't use SATA, can it?
Thanks a lot.
**(Only 19 gig, but too big for my 16G flashdrive.)
nospam
Aug 2, 2012, 11:08:46 AM8/2/12
to
In article <vn3l18te9a540iau3...@4ax.com>, micky
if it's a bootable clone yes. not all backups are bootable.
> Last night I lent my friend a USB SATA dock and a SATA drive, and he
> bought SuperDuper and backed up his drive**. But he can't boot
> from that. (He uses OS 10.4.11, upgraded from Panther) .
what mac is it and how is the drive connected?
since the mac originally ran panther, it's a powerpc mac and based on
what you write below about needing a mac with usb and firewire, it
sounds like the drive is usb. with rare exception, powerpc macs can't
boot from usb, especially one that originally ran panther.
> If his internal drive were to fail before I picked out a Firewire
> drive, would it be possible to buy a Firewire drive then, borrow a Mac
> with a Firewire port and USB2 port, and copy/clone his full backup of
> his failed HD on the drive I had lent him TO the new Firewire drive
> and then boot from that?
that should work.
> FTR, I don't think he can use the drive I lent him to replace his
> internal drive if it fails, because my drive is SATA, and his computer
> is 9 years old, an Imac (USB 2.0) and the internal drive was an 80GB
> Ultra ATA/100; 7200 rpm drive. It may have been updated to a bigger
> one by now, but it can't use SATA, can it?
not without an adapter card.
> **(Only 19 gig, but too big for my 16G flashdrive.)
get a 32 gig one or delete stuff so that it fits.
if it's a bootable clone yes. not all backups are bootable.
> Last night I lent my friend a USB SATA dock and a SATA drive, and he
> bought SuperDuper and backed up his drive**. But he can't boot
> from that. (He uses OS 10.4.11, upgraded from Panther) .
since the mac originally ran panther, it's a powerpc mac and based on
what you write below about needing a mac with usb and firewire, it
sounds like the drive is usb. with rare exception, powerpc macs can't
boot from usb, especially one that originally ran panther.
> If his internal drive were to fail before I picked out a Firewire
> drive, would it be possible to buy a Firewire drive then, borrow a Mac
> with a Firewire port and USB2 port, and copy/clone his full backup of
> his failed HD on the drive I had lent him TO the new Firewire drive
> and then boot from that?
> FTR, I don't think he can use the drive I lent him to replace his
> internal drive if it fails, because my drive is SATA, and his computer
> is 9 years old, an Imac (USB 2.0) and the internal drive was an 80GB
> Ultra ATA/100; 7200 rpm drive. It may have been updated to a bigger
> one by now, but it can't use SATA, can it?
> **(Only 19 gig, but too big for my 16G flashdrive.)
AV3
Aug 2, 2012, 11:46:27 AM8/2/12
to
On Aug/2/2012 10:5605 AM, micky wrote:
> Can one boot from a copy of a backup?
>
> Last night I lent my friend a USB SATA dock and a SATA drive, and he
> bought SuperDuper and backed up his drive**. But he can't boot
> from that. (He uses OS 10.4.11, upgraded from Panther) .
>
SuperDuper! makes bootable backups even in its pay-free version and did
> Can one boot from a copy of a backup?
>
> Last night I lent my friend a USB SATA dock and a SATA drive, and he
> bought SuperDuper and backed up his drive**. But he can't boot
> from that. (He uses OS 10.4.11, upgraded from Panther) .
>
as far back as 10.4.11. Unfortunately I am overseas, unattached to my
backup drive, so I can't boot up SuperDuper! to check what settings are
necessary to obtain a bootable backup, and I don't have 10.4.x to check
out anyhow, but I think his best bet is to repeat his backup with
bootability enabled.
> ...
--
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvi...@Wearthlink.net> ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvi...@Wearthlink.net> ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ ||
|| Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
micky
Aug 2, 2012, 11:47:33 AM8/2/12
to
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 11:08:46 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <vn3l18te9a540iau3...@4ax.com>, micky wrote
And do you think, instead of using an external harddrive, or a docking
station and a SATA drive, my friend could just use a USB flashdrive?**
Or is there still a problem with writing to a flashdrive over and
over? As one would with backing up every day. Does it stop working a
lot faster than a harddrive?
Is there a problem witth READing a flash drive over and over?
Say Sandisk, for example
(I had an old, unbranded drive, fail before my very eyes. I was
watching and refreshing a file manager, and hundreds or thousands of
files and directories disappeard within 5 minutes.)
**Until he got Fireire.
wrote:
>In article <vn3l18te9a540iau3...@4ax.com>, micky wrote
>
>> **(Only 19 gig, but too big for my 16G flashdrive.)
>
>get a 32 gig one or delete stuff so that it fits.
Good idea. They're cheap enough now.
>> **(Only 19 gig, but too big for my 16G flashdrive.)
>
>get a 32 gig one or delete stuff so that it fits.
And do you think, instead of using an external harddrive, or a docking
station and a SATA drive, my friend could just use a USB flashdrive?**
Or is there still a problem with writing to a flashdrive over and
over? As one would with backing up every day. Does it stop working a
lot faster than a harddrive?
Is there a problem witth READing a flash drive over and over?
Say Sandisk, for example
(I had an old, unbranded drive, fail before my very eyes. I was
watching and refreshing a file manager, and hundreds or thousands of
files and directories disappeard within 5 minutes.)
**Until he got Fireire.
nospam
Aug 2, 2012, 1:10:45 PM8/2/12
to
In article <4m7l18p1ac6ntsmm6...@4ax.com>, micky
he can't boot from usb.
> Or is there still a problem with writing to a flashdrive over and
> over? As one would with backing up every day. Does it stop working a
> lot faster than a harddrive?
it's more reliable than a hard drive, but some cheap ones may fail
because they're crap.
> Is there a problem witth READing a flash drive over and over?
no.
<NONONO...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >> **(Only 19 gig, but too big for my 16G flashdrive.)
> >
> >get a 32 gig one or delete stuff so that it fits.
>
> Good idea. They're cheap enough now.
>
> And do you think, instead of using an external harddrive, or a docking
> station and a SATA drive, my friend could just use a USB flashdrive?**
sure, but just for backups, not booting from it. if it's a powerpc mac,
> >> **(Only 19 gig, but too big for my 16G flashdrive.)
> >
> >get a 32 gig one or delete stuff so that it fits.
>
> Good idea. They're cheap enough now.
>
> And do you think, instead of using an external harddrive, or a docking
> station and a SATA drive, my friend could just use a USB flashdrive?**
he can't boot from usb.
> Or is there still a problem with writing to a flashdrive over and
> over? As one would with backing up every day. Does it stop working a
> lot faster than a harddrive?
because they're crap.
> Is there a problem witth READing a flash drive over and over?
Kiraly
Aug 2, 2012, 2:03:01 PM8/2/12
to
On Aug 2, 8:56 am, micky <NONONOmis...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Last night I lent my friend a USB SATA dock and a SATA drive, and he
> bought SuperDuper and backed up his drive**. But he can't boot
> from that. (He uses OS 10.4.11, upgraded from Panther) .
He'll need a FireWire drive for that; a Mac that came with Panther
> Last night I lent my friend a USB SATA dock and a SATA drive, and he
> bought SuperDuper and backed up his drive**. But he can't boot
> from that. (He uses OS 10.4.11, upgraded from Panther) .
won't boot from USB.
> If his internal drive were to fail before I picked out a Firewire
> drive, would it be possible to buy a Firewire drive then, borrow a Mac
> with a Firewire port and USB2 port, and copy/clone his full backup of
> his failed HD on the drive I had lent him TO the new Firewire drive
> and then boot from that?
> my drive is SATA, and his computer
> is 9 years old, an Imac (USB 2.0) and the internal drive was an 80GB
> Ultra ATA/100; 7200 rpm drive. It may have been updated to a bigger
> one by now, but it can't use SATA, can it?
are adaptors available that will allow SATA drives to run with older
ATA/100 computers. But I'd just use FireWire if I were you.
--
K.
Lang may your lum reek.
micky
Aug 2, 2012, 4:32:27 PM8/2/12
to
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 11:03:01 -0700 (PDT), Kiraly <ggra...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Aug 2, 8:56 am, micky <NONONOmis...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> Last night I lent my friend a USB SATA dock and a SATA drive, and he
>> bought SuperDuper and backed up his drive**. But he can't boot
>> from that. (He uses OS 10.4.11, upgraded from Panther) .
>
>He'll need a FireWire drive for that; a Mac that came with Panther
>won't boot from USB.
>
>> If his internal drive were to fail before I picked out a Firewire
>> drive, would it be possible to buy a Firewire drive then, borrow a Mac
>> with a Firewire port and USB2 port, and copy/clone his full backup of
>> his failed HD on the drive I had lent him TO the new Firewire drive
>> and then boot from that?
>
>Should be no problem.
Well, you and nospam say the same thing, so I think that is the plan.
To look for a Firewire drive and if somehow the internal drive fails
before then, to do what I say above.
I talked to WD -- JR.com transferred me to them -- and he said it's
true, only their Thunderbolt drives can boot a computer. And I'll
check again, but I think they are much more expensive. So I'll find
another brand.
miles away.
Thanks, and thanks nospam and AV3.
wrote:
>On Aug 2, 8:56 am, micky <NONONOmis...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> Last night I lent my friend a USB SATA dock and a SATA drive, and he
>> bought SuperDuper and backed up his drive**. But he can't boot
>> from that. (He uses OS 10.4.11, upgraded from Panther) .
>
>He'll need a FireWire drive for that; a Mac that came with Panther
>won't boot from USB.
>
>> If his internal drive were to fail before I picked out a Firewire
>> drive, would it be possible to buy a Firewire drive then, borrow a Mac
>> with a Firewire port and USB2 port, and copy/clone his full backup of
>> his failed HD on the drive I had lent him TO the new Firewire drive
>> and then boot from that?
>
>Should be no problem.
To look for a Firewire drive and if somehow the internal drive fails
before then, to do what I say above.
I talked to WD -- JR.com transferred me to them -- and he said it's
true, only their Thunderbolt drives can boot a computer. And I'll
check again, but I think they are much more expensive. So I'll find
another brand.
>
>> my drive is SATA, and his computer
>> is 9 years old, an Imac (USB 2.0) and the internal drive was an 80GB
>> Ultra ATA/100; 7200 rpm drive. It may have been updated to a bigger
>> one by now, but it can't use SATA, can it?
>
>No; Macs of that vintage use ATA/100 for internal connections. There
>are adaptors available that will allow SATA drives to run with older
>ATA/100 computers. But I'd just use FireWire if I were you.
Yes, sounds like a lot of trouble, especially since the computer is 4
>> my drive is SATA, and his computer
>> is 9 years old, an Imac (USB 2.0) and the internal drive was an 80GB
>> Ultra ATA/100; 7200 rpm drive. It may have been updated to a bigger
>> one by now, but it can't use SATA, can it?
>
>No; Macs of that vintage use ATA/100 for internal connections. There
>are adaptors available that will allow SATA drives to run with older
>ATA/100 computers. But I'd just use FireWire if I were you.
miles away.
Thanks, and thanks nospam and AV3.
nospam
Aug 2, 2012, 4:56:03 PM8/2/12
to
In article <qmol18tc0472v8h50...@4ax.com>, micky
an intel mac will boot from firewire, usb, thunderbolt or sata hard
drives. they probably can boot from scsi if you add a scsi card but i
haven't tried that.
a powerpc mac will boot from firewire, pata or scsi. it won't boot from
usb and powerpc macs never had thunderbolt.
some old firewire enclosures have a firewire bridge that is not
bootable but those are old and it's unlikely you'll encounter one,
however, it's not impossible.
<NONONO...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> I talked to WD -- JR.com transferred me to them -- and he said it's
> true, only their Thunderbolt drives can boot a computer.
that's bullshit.
> I talked to WD -- JR.com transferred me to them -- and he said it's
> true, only their Thunderbolt drives can boot a computer.
an intel mac will boot from firewire, usb, thunderbolt or sata hard
drives. they probably can boot from scsi if you add a scsi card but i
haven't tried that.
a powerpc mac will boot from firewire, pata or scsi. it won't boot from
usb and powerpc macs never had thunderbolt.
some old firewire enclosures have a firewire bridge that is not
bootable but those are old and it's unlikely you'll encounter one,
however, it's not impossible.
David Empson
Aug 2, 2012, 8:13:36 PM8/2/12
to
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <vn3l18te9a540iau3...@4ax.com>, micky
> <NONONO...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> > Can one boot from a copy of a backup?
>
> if it's a bootable clone yes. not all backups are bootable.
>
> > Last night I lent my friend a USB SATA dock and a SATA drive, and he
> > bought SuperDuper and backed up his drive**. But he can't boot
> > from that. (He uses OS 10.4.11, upgraded from Panther) .
>
> what mac is it and how is the drive connected?
>
> since the mac originally ran panther, it's a powerpc mac and based on
> what you write below about needing a mac with usb and firewire, it
> sounds like the drive is usb. with rare exception, powerpc macs can't
> boot from usb, especially one that originally ran panther.
Just as a data point: my PowerMac G4 (QuickSilver 2002) originally
> In article <vn3l18te9a540iau3...@4ax.com>, micky
> <NONONO...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> > Can one boot from a copy of a backup?
>
> if it's a bootable clone yes. not all backups are bootable.
>
> > Last night I lent my friend a USB SATA dock and a SATA drive, and he
> > bought SuperDuper and backed up his drive**. But he can't boot
> > from that. (He uses OS 10.4.11, upgraded from Panther) .
>
> what mac is it and how is the drive connected?
>
> since the mac originally ran panther, it's a powerpc mac and based on
> what you write below about needing a mac with usb and firewire, it
> sounds like the drive is usb. with rare exception, powerpc macs can't
> boot from usb, especially one that originally ran panther.
shipped with Mac OS X 10.1 (Puma) and it can boot Mac OS X 10.5 from USB
at least with one of my drives (a USB/Firewire enclosure with an Oxford
chipset).
I was also able to boot the same drive from USB on a circa 2004 iBook
G4, so it appears the USB boot capability may work fine if the OS on the
drive is 10.5 and/or the drive has the "right" chipset on its bridge
board.
I haven't got around to trying other drives as I don't have any other
bootable systems on PowerPC-compatible drives.
> > If his internal drive were to fail before I picked out a Firewire
> > drive, would it be possible to buy a Firewire drive then, borrow a Mac
> > with a Firewire port and USB2 port, and copy/clone his full backup of
> > his failed HD on the drive I had lent him TO the new Firewire drive
> > and then boot from that?
>
> that should work.
subsequently cloned back to bootable hard drives with the correct
partition scheme, and the resulting system boots.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
nospam
Aug 2, 2012, 8:20:38 PM8/2/12
to
In article <1ko90do.1f8cp001ka7d08N%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>, David
> I was also able to boot the same drive from USB on a circa 2004 iBook
> G4, so it appears the USB boot capability may work fine if the OS on the
> drive is 10.5 and/or the drive has the "right" chipset on its bridge
> board.
could be.
i'd love to be able to boot my ppc mini off usb, but it won't do it.
Empson <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> > since the mac originally ran panther, it's a powerpc mac and based on
> > what you write below about needing a mac with usb and firewire, it
> > sounds like the drive is usb. with rare exception, powerpc macs can't
> > boot from usb, especially one that originally ran panther.
>
> Just as a data point: my PowerMac G4 (QuickSilver 2002) originally
> shipped with Mac OS X 10.1 (Puma) and it can boot Mac OS X 10.5 from USB
> at least with one of my drives (a USB/Firewire enclosure with an Oxford
> chipset).
you're one of the only people for whom that is possible.
> > since the mac originally ran panther, it's a powerpc mac and based on
> > what you write below about needing a mac with usb and firewire, it
> > sounds like the drive is usb. with rare exception, powerpc macs can't
> > boot from usb, especially one that originally ran panther.
>
> Just as a data point: my PowerMac G4 (QuickSilver 2002) originally
> shipped with Mac OS X 10.1 (Puma) and it can boot Mac OS X 10.5 from USB
> at least with one of my drives (a USB/Firewire enclosure with an Oxford
> chipset).
> I was also able to boot the same drive from USB on a circa 2004 iBook
> G4, so it appears the USB boot capability may work fine if the OS on the
> drive is 10.5 and/or the drive has the "right" chipset on its bridge
> board.
i'd love to be able to boot my ppc mini off usb, but it won't do it.
Ed Light
Aug 2, 2012, 10:15:09 PM8/2/12
to
I can't see the original post, but to put a big image file on there
you'd need to format it NTFS - it comes in FAT 32. My experience is a
flash drive can get blown out, so I put stuff on external HD too.
This one is very reliable, judging from the user ratings. Also fast.
Just got one and portable apps open as if from a hard drive, in just a
USB 2.0 port.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226227
--
Ed Light
Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com
Iraq Veterans Against the War and Related:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org
http://antiwar.com
Send spam to the FTC at
sp...@uce.gov
Thanks, robots.
you'd need to format it NTFS - it comes in FAT 32. My experience is a
flash drive can get blown out, so I put stuff on external HD too.
This one is very reliable, judging from the user ratings. Also fast.
Just got one and portable apps open as if from a hard drive, in just a
USB 2.0 port.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226227
--
Ed Light
Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com
Iraq Veterans Against the War and Related:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org
http://antiwar.com
Send spam to the FTC at
sp...@uce.gov
Thanks, robots.
micky
Aug 3, 2012, 2:04:53 AM8/3/12
to
> I have had clones of Mac OS X systems in disk images, which I've
>subsequently cloned back to bootable hard drives with the correct
>partition scheme, and the resulting system boots.
mislead myself. . Does Superduper make clones or merely copies?
Is there a difference? Would the built-in copy function of the Mac
make a clone?
Or does he have to make a disk image (an .iso file, or is that
Microsoft?) and can that be copied to a disk of a different size, etc?
(As an aside, in the Microsoft world, in DOS, win3.1, 95, 98 and ME, a
file by file copy would make a bootable copy, but something was
different about Win2000 and XP, and the author of XXCOPY had to write
XXClone for 2000 and XP. Unlike other clone programs in the
Microsoft world, xxclone is file-by-file, but it still works! I
think it adds things after all the files are copied. I forget what
the difference beween win98 and winXP was. But that distinction is
why I'm asking. )
nospam
Aug 3, 2012, 2:44:00 AM8/3/12
to
In article <8upm189vq7smis10f...@4ax.com>, micky
i guess you could set superduper to not make the clone bootable but
that's not the default.
it also skips a few things that need not be copied, such as virtual
memory files, so it's not an exact clone. that almost never is a
problem.
> Would the built-in copy function of the Mac
> make a clone?
dragging the files from one disk to another using finder will *not*
work.
however, using apple's disk utility will, which is yet another way to
clone a hard drive.
> Or does he have to make a disk image (an .iso file, or is that
> Microsoft?)
not unless he likes to do things the hard way. it will work, however.
> and can that be copied to a disk of a different size, etc?
you can clone to a different size hard drive, as long as the contents
on the source drive will fit on the destination.
you said the drive in question has 19 gig, so as long as the
destination is that size or bigger, you're fine. you don't want to cut
it too tight, since there needs to be some free space for virtual
memory and other temp files, so figure 24 gig or so as the absolute
minimum.
<NONONO...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> I used copy/clone like the two were the same, but I don't want to
> mislead myself. . Does Superduper make clones or merely copies?
> Is there a difference?
there isn't a difference in this case.
> I used copy/clone like the two were the same, but I don't want to
> mislead myself. . Does Superduper make clones or merely copies?
> Is there a difference?
i guess you could set superduper to not make the clone bootable but
that's not the default.
it also skips a few things that need not be copied, such as virtual
memory files, so it's not an exact clone. that almost never is a
problem.
> Would the built-in copy function of the Mac
> make a clone?
work.
however, using apple's disk utility will, which is yet another way to
clone a hard drive.
> Or does he have to make a disk image (an .iso file, or is that
> Microsoft?)
> and can that be copied to a disk of a different size, etc?
on the source drive will fit on the destination.
you said the drive in question has 19 gig, so as long as the
destination is that size or bigger, you're fine. you don't want to cut
it too tight, since there needs to be some free space for virtual
memory and other temp files, so figure 24 gig or so as the absolute
minimum.
micky
Aug 3, 2012, 2:48:54 AM8/3/12
to
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 11:46:27 -0400, AV3 <arvi...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>On Aug/2/2012 10:5605 AM, micky wrote:
>> Can one boot from a copy of a backup?
>>
>> Last night I lent my friend a USB SATA dock and a SATA drive, and he
>> bought SuperDuper and backed up his drive**. But he can't boot
>> from that. (He uses OS 10.4.11, upgraded from Panther) .
>>
>
>
>SuperDuper! makes bootable backups even in its pay-free version and did
>as far back as 10.4.11. Unfortunately I am overseas, unattached to my
>backup drive, so I can't boot up SuperDuper! to check what settings are
>necessary to obtain a bootable backup, and I don't have 10.4.x to check
>out anyhow, but I think his best bet is to repeat his backup with
>bootability enabled.
Bootability must be enabled!?? It's not always enabled?
I looked at the options and t he advanced options, in t e little
backup screen, and I didn't see that.
Thanks.
>
>> ...
wrote:
>On Aug/2/2012 10:5605 AM, micky wrote:
>> Can one boot from a copy of a backup?
>>
>> Last night I lent my friend a USB SATA dock and a SATA drive, and he
>> bought SuperDuper and backed up his drive**. But he can't boot
>> from that. (He uses OS 10.4.11, upgraded from Panther) .
>>
>
>
>SuperDuper! makes bootable backups even in its pay-free version and did
>as far back as 10.4.11. Unfortunately I am overseas, unattached to my
>backup drive, so I can't boot up SuperDuper! to check what settings are
>necessary to obtain a bootable backup, and I don't have 10.4.x to check
>out anyhow, but I think his best bet is to repeat his backup with
>bootability enabled.
I looked at the options and t he advanced options, in t e little
backup screen, and I didn't see that.
Thanks.
>
>> ...
micky
Aug 3, 2012, 2:51:35 AM8/3/12
to
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 19:15:09 -0700, Ed Light <nob...@nobody.there>
wrote:
>I can't see the original post, but to put a big image file on there
>you'd need to format it NTFS - it comes in FAT 32. My experience is a
>flash drive can get blown out,
Ugh.
>so I put stuff on external HD too.
Okay.
>This one is very reliable, judging from the user ratings. Also fast.
>Just got one and portable apps open as if from a hard drive, in just a
>USB 2.0 port.
>
>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226227
Thanks.
wrote:
>I can't see the original post, but to put a big image file on there
>you'd need to format it NTFS - it comes in FAT 32. My experience is a
>flash drive can get blown out,
>so I put stuff on external HD too.
>This one is very reliable, judging from the user ratings. Also fast.
>Just got one and portable apps open as if from a hard drive, in just a
>USB 2.0 port.
>
>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226227
micky
Aug 3, 2012, 2:55:39 AM8/3/12
to
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:56:03 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <qmol18tc0472v8h50...@4ax.com>, micky
><NONONO...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> I talked to WD -- JR.com transferred me to them -- and he said it's
>> true, only their Thunderbolt drives can boot a computer.
>
>that's bullshit.
>
>an intel mac will boot from firewire, usb, thunderbolt or sata hard
>drives.
I knew part of that, but I forgot. And I did raise one objection to
what he said, and he ignored me.
So I could call again, but then maybe I should go for best 2 out of 3,
or 3 out of 5. You're right, how can I trust them at all if this guy
is wrong about this and he even disagreed with the half of WD's own
page that said what would work?.
> they probably can boot from scsi if you add a scsi card but i
>haven't tried that.
>
>a powerpc mac will boot from firewire, pata or scsi. it won't boot from
>usb and powerpc macs never had thunderbolt.
>
>some old firewire enclosures have a firewire bridge that is not
>bootable but those are old and it's unlikely you'll encounter one,
>however, it's not impossible.
So you think this WD drive will actually boot, even though the WD page
I posted
http://wdc.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1787
said WD had tested it (probalby only once) and it "shouldn't"?
wrote:
>In article <qmol18tc0472v8h50...@4ax.com>, micky
><NONONO...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> I talked to WD -- JR.com transferred me to them -- and he said it's
>> true, only their Thunderbolt drives can boot a computer.
>
>that's bullshit.
>
>an intel mac will boot from firewire, usb, thunderbolt or sata hard
>drives.
what he said, and he ignored me.
So I could call again, but then maybe I should go for best 2 out of 3,
or 3 out of 5. You're right, how can I trust them at all if this guy
is wrong about this and he even disagreed with the half of WD's own
page that said what would work?.
> they probably can boot from scsi if you add a scsi card but i
>haven't tried that.
>
>a powerpc mac will boot from firewire, pata or scsi. it won't boot from
>usb and powerpc macs never had thunderbolt.
>
>some old firewire enclosures have a firewire bridge that is not
>bootable but those are old and it's unlikely you'll encounter one,
>however, it's not impossible.
I posted
http://wdc.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1787
said WD had tested it (probalby only once) and it "shouldn't"?
AV3
Aug 3, 2012, 7:59:33 AM8/3/12
to
want to lose my default link to my backup disk at home. But nospam, who
is quite knowledgeable, says it is default. I have been using
bootability for so long through successive OS's that I may be wrong
about choosing it. It is certainly default for me now.
Your problem with an old OS 10.4.x is that it may have booting problems
with links by way of USB vs. Firewire. Sorry I forgot about that. The
last element in my backup procedure states that it is making the backup
bootable. If you are backing up through a USB connection, you may not
get bootability. I would still advise redoing the backup with a Firewire
connection to get bootability, which should be pre-announced. But you
can boot from an adequate clone.
nospam
Aug 3, 2012, 10:00:14 AM8/3/12
to
In article <rhqm18l91lac7h89e...@4ax.com>, micky
> So you think this WD drive will actually boot, even though the WD page
> I posted
>
> http://wdc.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1787
>
> said WD had tested it (probalby only once) and it "shouldn't"?
i can't say for sure unless i test it. maybe it won't, since they list
it there. maybe someone else has one and can comment.
however, as i said, there are firewire bridges that won't boot no
matter what hard drive is used. maybe western digital uses one of those
bridges. i haven't seen such a bridge in about a decade but maybe wd
got a good deal on cheap bridges and that's the problem.
since there is some doubt, buy something else if you need to be
absolutely sure, or buy it from a place where you can return it for a
full refund if it doesn't work.
<NONONO...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >> I talked to WD -- JR.com transferred me to them -- and he said it's
> >> true, only their Thunderbolt drives can boot a computer.
> >
> >that's bullshit.
> >
> >an intel mac will boot from firewire, usb, thunderbolt or sata hard
> >drives.
>
> I knew part of that, but I forgot. And I did raise one objection to
> what he said, and he ignored me.
>
> So I could call again, but then maybe I should go for best 2 out of 3,
> or 3 out of 5. You're right, how can I trust them at all if this guy
> is wrong about this and he even disagreed with the half of WD's own
> page that said what would work?.
like a lot of companies, you get a different answer every time you call.
> >> I talked to WD -- JR.com transferred me to them -- and he said it's
> >> true, only their Thunderbolt drives can boot a computer.
> >
> >that's bullshit.
> >
> >an intel mac will boot from firewire, usb, thunderbolt or sata hard
> >drives.
>
> I knew part of that, but I forgot. And I did raise one objection to
> what he said, and he ignored me.
>
> So I could call again, but then maybe I should go for best 2 out of 3,
> or 3 out of 5. You're right, how can I trust them at all if this guy
> is wrong about this and he even disagreed with the half of WD's own
> page that said what would work?.
> So you think this WD drive will actually boot, even though the WD page
> I posted
>
> http://wdc.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1787
>
> said WD had tested it (probalby only once) and it "shouldn't"?
it there. maybe someone else has one and can comment.
however, as i said, there are firewire bridges that won't boot no
matter what hard drive is used. maybe western digital uses one of those
bridges. i haven't seen such a bridge in about a decade but maybe wd
got a good deal on cheap bridges and that's the problem.
since there is some doubt, buy something else if you need to be
absolutely sure, or buy it from a place where you can return it for a
full refund if it doesn't work.
nospam
Aug 3, 2012, 10:00:15 AM8/3/12
to
In article <jvgef7$1fg$1...@news.albasani.net>, AV3
there isn't. maybe an older version had it.
the last step (or maybe second to last) is 'making the system bootable'
or words to that effect.
a superduper clone *is* bootable (assuming the source was, obviously),
but not all macs can boot from a given system or hard drive.
> Your problem with an old OS 10.4.x is that it may have booting problems
> with links by way of USB vs. Firewire. Sorry I forgot about that. The
> last element in my backup procedure states that it is making the backup
> bootable. If you are backing up through a USB connection, you may not
> get bootability. I would still advise redoing the backup with a Firewire
> connection to get bootability, which should be pre-announced. But you
> can boot from an adequate clone.
his problem is that it's a powerpc mac which won't boot from usb.
<arvi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> As I said, I can't boot up SuperDuper! while on a trip, because I don't
> want to lose my default link to my backup disk at home. But nospam, who
> is quite knowledgeable, says it is default. I have been using
> bootability for so long through successive OS's that I may be wrong
> about choosing it. It is certainly default for me now.
i seem to remember there was a setting for it but i just checked and
> As I said, I can't boot up SuperDuper! while on a trip, because I don't
> want to lose my default link to my backup disk at home. But nospam, who
> is quite knowledgeable, says it is default. I have been using
> bootability for so long through successive OS's that I may be wrong
> about choosing it. It is certainly default for me now.
there isn't. maybe an older version had it.
the last step (or maybe second to last) is 'making the system bootable'
or words to that effect.
a superduper clone *is* bootable (assuming the source was, obviously),
but not all macs can boot from a given system or hard drive.
> Your problem with an old OS 10.4.x is that it may have booting problems
> with links by way of USB vs. Firewire. Sorry I forgot about that. The
> last element in my backup procedure states that it is making the backup
> bootable. If you are backing up through a USB connection, you may not
> get bootability. I would still advise redoing the backup with a Firewire
> connection to get bootability, which should be pre-announced. But you
> can boot from an adequate clone.
nospam
Aug 3, 2012, 10:00:16 AM8/3/12
to
In article <d1tm185k57jm5693t...@4ax.com>, micky
> I looked at the options and t he advanced options, in t e little
> backup screen, and I didn't see that.
i thought there was a setting for it but there isn't currently. maybe
there was in an older version.
<NONONO...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >> Last night I lent my friend a USB SATA dock and a SATA drive, and he
> >> bought SuperDuper and backed up his drive**. But he can't boot
> >> from that. (He uses OS 10.4.11, upgraded from Panther) .
> >
> >SuperDuper! makes bootable backups even in its pay-free version and did
> >as far back as 10.4.11. Unfortunately I am overseas, unattached to my
> >backup drive, so I can't boot up SuperDuper! to check what settings are
> >necessary to obtain a bootable backup, and I don't have 10.4.x to check
> >out anyhow, but I think his best bet is to repeat his backup with
> >bootability enabled.
>
> Bootability must be enabled!?? It's not always enabled?
it is.
> >> Last night I lent my friend a USB SATA dock and a SATA drive, and he
> >> bought SuperDuper and backed up his drive**. But he can't boot
> >> from that. (He uses OS 10.4.11, upgraded from Panther) .
> >
> >SuperDuper! makes bootable backups even in its pay-free version and did
> >as far back as 10.4.11. Unfortunately I am overseas, unattached to my
> >backup drive, so I can't boot up SuperDuper! to check what settings are
> >necessary to obtain a bootable backup, and I don't have 10.4.x to check
> >out anyhow, but I think his best bet is to repeat his backup with
> >bootability enabled.
>
> Bootability must be enabled!?? It's not always enabled?
> I looked at the options and t he advanced options, in t e little
> backup screen, and I didn't see that.
there was in an older version.
micky
Aug 3, 2012, 12:21:38 PM8/3/12
to
On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 02:44:00 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <8upm189vq7smis10f...@4ax.com>, micky
><NONONO...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> I used copy/clone like the two were the same, but I don't want to
>> mislead myself. . Does Superduper make clones or merely copies?
>> Is there a difference?
>
>there isn't a difference in this case.
>
>i guess you could set superduper to not make the clone bootable but
>that's not the default.
>
>it also skips a few things that need not be copied, such as virtual
>memory files, so it's not an exact clone. that almost never is a
>problem.
That's fine. That's good.
>> Would the built-in copy function of the Mac
>> make a clone?
>
>dragging the files from one disk to another using finder will *not*
>work.
Good to know!!
>however, using apple's disk utility will, which is yet another way to
>clone a hard drive.
Good to know too, but since SuperDuper does it, I'll let him stick
with that. Although he has a Mac laptop too which he stopped using
when he got an iPad. It doesn't have SuperD yet, so maybe this will
come up.
Do iPads have hardrives that have to be backed up? I think he uses
it only when he travels (not much), not when he works, so it doesn't
have much on it, but.....
>> Or does he have to make a disk image (an .iso file, or is that
>> Microsoft?)
>
>not unless he likes to do things the hard way. it will work, however.
LOL. Good to know. His primary Mac advisor has moved out of
town, I think, so I may be next in line.
>> and can that be copied to a disk of a different size, etc?
>
>you can clone to a different size hard drive, as long as the contents
>on the source drive will fit on the destination.
>
>you said the drive in question has 19 gig, so as long as the
>destination is that size or bigger, you're fine. you don't want to cut
>it too tight, since there needs to be some free space for virtual
>memory and other temp files, so figure 24 gig or so as the absolute
>minimum.
Okay. Good.
Thanks.
wrote:
>In article <8upm189vq7smis10f...@4ax.com>, micky
><NONONO...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> I used copy/clone like the two were the same, but I don't want to
>> mislead myself. . Does Superduper make clones or merely copies?
>> Is there a difference?
>
>there isn't a difference in this case.
>
>i guess you could set superduper to not make the clone bootable but
>that's not the default.
>
>it also skips a few things that need not be copied, such as virtual
>memory files, so it's not an exact clone. that almost never is a
>problem.
>> Would the built-in copy function of the Mac
>> make a clone?
>
>dragging the files from one disk to another using finder will *not*
>work.
>however, using apple's disk utility will, which is yet another way to
>clone a hard drive.
with that. Although he has a Mac laptop too which he stopped using
when he got an iPad. It doesn't have SuperD yet, so maybe this will
come up.
Do iPads have hardrives that have to be backed up? I think he uses
it only when he travels (not much), not when he works, so it doesn't
have much on it, but.....
>> Or does he have to make a disk image (an .iso file, or is that
>> Microsoft?)
>
>not unless he likes to do things the hard way. it will work, however.
town, I think, so I may be next in line.
>> and can that be copied to a disk of a different size, etc?
>
>you can clone to a different size hard drive, as long as the contents
>on the source drive will fit on the destination.
>
>you said the drive in question has 19 gig, so as long as the
>destination is that size or bigger, you're fine. you don't want to cut
>it too tight, since there needs to be some free space for virtual
>memory and other temp files, so figure 24 gig or so as the absolute
>minimum.
Thanks.
nospam
Aug 3, 2012, 12:27:43 PM8/3/12
to
In article <36un18t0vt7o76n8d...@4ax.com>, micky
use icloud.
some apps may manage their own data themselves by syncing to their own
cloud storage, such as those that use dropbox.
however, since there aren't any moving parts in an ipad, it's less
likely to fail than a laptop.
<NONONO...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Do iPads have hardrives that have to be backed up? I think he uses
> it only when he travels (not much), not when he works, so it doesn't
> have much on it, but.....
they have flash memory which is backed up when you sync with itunes or
> Do iPads have hardrives that have to be backed up? I think he uses
> it only when he travels (not much), not when he works, so it doesn't
> have much on it, but.....
use icloud.
some apps may manage their own data themselves by syncing to their own
cloud storage, such as those that use dropbox.
however, since there aren't any moving parts in an ipad, it's less
likely to fail than a laptop.
micky
Aug 3, 2012, 1:35:46 PM8/3/12
to
On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 12:27:43 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <36un18t0vt7o76n8d...@4ax.com>, micky
><NONONO...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> Do iPads have hardrives that have to be backed up? I think he uses
>> it only when he travels (not much), not when he works, so it doesn't
>> have much on it, but.....
>
>they have flash memory which is backed up when you sync with itunes or
>use icloud.
I wonder if my friend knows that. He might. He's not nearly as dumb
as my questions make him sound. But I'll tell him what you said.
Thanks.
aren't very common, and certrainly not second-hand. I was going to
use a flashdrive to hold data that won't fit into 16gig.
wrote:
>In article <36un18t0vt7o76n8d...@4ax.com>, micky
><NONONO...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> Do iPads have hardrives that have to be backed up? I think he uses
>> it only when he travels (not much), not when he works, so it doesn't
>> have much on it, but.....
>
>they have flash memory which is backed up when you sync with itunes or
>use icloud.
as my questions make him sound. But I'll tell him what you said.
Thanks.
>
>some apps may manage their own data themselves by syncing to their own
>cloud storage, such as those that use dropbox.
>
>however, since there aren't any moving parts in an ipad, it's less
>likely to fail than a laptop.
That's why I want to get a netbook with solid state memory. But they
>some apps may manage their own data themselves by syncing to their own
>cloud storage, such as those that use dropbox.
>
>however, since there aren't any moving parts in an ipad, it's less
>likely to fail than a laptop.
aren't very common, and certrainly not second-hand. I was going to
use a flashdrive to hold data that won't fit into 16gig.
Timothy Daniels
Aug 5, 2012, 4:22:50 PM8/5/12
to
"Ed Light" <nob...@nobody.there> wrote:
> I can't see the original post, but to put a big image file on there
> you'd need to format it NTFS - it comes in FAT 32. My experience is a
> flash drive can get blown out, so I put stuff on external HD too.
>
> This one is very reliable, judging from the user ratings. Also fast.
> Just got one and portable apps open as if from a hard drive, in just a
> USB 2.0 port.
>
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226227
I just checked with Dell, and my machine can boot using USB, so this
> I can't see the original post, but to put a big image file on there
> you'd need to format it NTFS - it comes in FAT 32. My experience is a
> flash drive can get blown out, so I put stuff on external HD too.
>
> This one is very reliable, judging from the user ratings. Also fast.
> Just got one and portable apps open as if from a hard drive, in just a
> USB 2.0 port.
>
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820226227
item is very interesting. Regarding formatting for NTFS - I hear that
there are alignment issues for quickest transfers using solid state media.
Is there a "Last Word" website on that and what free utilities (or non-free
utilities) are best/easiest to use to do that alignment?
*TimDaniels*
Erik Richard Sørensen
Aug 6, 2012, 6:54:17 AM8/6/12
to
nospam wrote:
> David Empson <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>>> since the mac originally ran panther, it's a powerpc mac and based on
>>> what you write below about needing a mac with usb and firewire, it
>>> sounds like the drive is usb. with rare exception, powerpc macs can't
>>> boot from usb, especially one that originally ran panther.
>> Just as a data point: my PowerMac G4 (QuickSilver 2002) originally
>> shipped with Mac OS X 10.1 (Puma) and it can boot Mac OS X 10.5 from USB
>> at least with one of my drives (a USB/Firewire enclosure with an Oxford
>> chipset).
>
> you're one of the only people for whom that is possible.
but USB is more slow than a snail.:-)
>> I was also able to boot the same drive from USB on a circa 2004 iBook
>> G4, so it appears the USB boot capability may work fine if the OS on the
>> drive is 10.5 and/or the drive has the "right" chipset on its bridge
>> board.
>
> could be.
>
> i'd love to be able to boot my ppc mini off usb, but it won't do it.
won't, but why this misbehavior I'm not sure. My guess is that it might
be because of differences in the USB chip used...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC, <mac-m...@Mstofanet.dk>
NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Text Processing - www.nisus.com
OpenOffice.org - The Modern Productivity Solution - www.openoffice.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Erik Richard Sørensen
Aug 6, 2012, 7:47:18 AM8/6/12
to
micky wrote:
> Well, you and nospam say the same thing, so I think that is the plan.
> To look for a Firewire drive and if somehow the internal drive fails
> before then, to do what I say above.
>
> I talked to WD -- JR.com transferred me to them -- and he said it's
> true, only their Thunderbolt drives can boot a computer. And I'll
> check again, but I think they are much more expensive. So I'll find
> another brand.
(or OS 8.6+) based Mac! - Of course the disk must be initialized the
correct way - APM (Apple Partiætion Map) for PowerPC based Macs and GUID
for Intel based Macs.
Most Firewire harddisks*) come as MBR (Master Boot Record = Windows)
formatted disks, so the disk has to be re-initialized with 'DiskUtility'.
Open DiskUtility, mark the Firewire disk in the left window, select the
pane 'partition', Set partition table to '1' (one), click 'Options',
select 'Apple Partition Map' for use with PowerPC Macs / GUID for Intel
Macs, click OK, click 'Apply' + 'OK'.
Such a Firewire disk will now boot _any_ Mac corresponding to the type
and selected partition table as above.
NOTE. If you have an USB drive, it MUST bne initialized the exact same
way to boot a Mac - APM for PowerPC, GUID for Intel Macs. MBR willnot
boot any Mac!
NOTE2. Any partition table can be used for storage along with a Mac, but
only the two mentioned will be able to boot a Mac
*) All WD Firewire disks are MBR formatted if it isn't explicitely named
as 'Mac Edition'.
I'll recommend you to buy a separate combo enclosure with both Firewire
and USB + a separate harddisk - such as the Mercury Elite Pro or Mercury
Elite AL Pro from Otherworld Computing and either a WD Black or WD Green
1-2tb disk.
Mercury Elite Pro, Firewire400 + USB 2.0/1.1
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other%20World%20Computing/MEFW934FWU2K/
Mercury Elite Pro Quad, Firewire400, Firewire800, eSATA, USB2.0/1.1<
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other%20World%20Computing/MEP944FW8EU2/
1.0tb WD Caviar Blue 7200rpm/32MB Cache, SATA-III/II (3gn/1.5gn
compatible) 3.5" harddisk. This disk is extremely fast and reliable!
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Western%20Digital/WD10EALX/
This should solve the problems...
cheers, Erik Richard
Robert Peirce
Aug 6, 2012, 10:52:01 AM8/6/12
to
In article <501faec6$0$293$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,
Drobo S. I can't boot over eSATA but I can over Firewire 800. I might
be able to boot over USB as well but I never tried it. At some point in
the software development cycle I may be able to boot over eSATA but not
the last time I tried.
Erik Richard Sørensen <tu...@tulle.dk> wrote:
> micky wrote:
> > Well, you and nospam say the same thing, so I think that is the plan.
> > To look for a Firewire drive and if somehow the internal drive fails
> > before then, to do what I say above.
> >
> > I talked to WD -- JR.com transferred me to them -- and he said it's
> > true, only their Thunderbolt drives can boot a computer. And I'll
> > check again, but I think they are much more expensive. So I'll find
> > another brand.
>
> Argh.:-( - That's not true! - ANY Firewire harddisk will boot ANY OS X
> (or OS 8.6+) based Mac! - Of course the disk must be initialized the
> correct way - APM (Apple Partiætion Map) for PowerPC based Macs and GUID
> for Intel based Macs.
That's true. I use SuperDuper! to write to bootable partitions on a
> micky wrote:
> > Well, you and nospam say the same thing, so I think that is the plan.
> > To look for a Firewire drive and if somehow the internal drive fails
> > before then, to do what I say above.
> >
> > I talked to WD -- JR.com transferred me to them -- and he said it's
> > true, only their Thunderbolt drives can boot a computer. And I'll
> > check again, but I think they are much more expensive. So I'll find
> > another brand.
>
> Argh.:-( - That's not true! - ANY Firewire harddisk will boot ANY OS X
> (or OS 8.6+) based Mac! - Of course the disk must be initialized the
> correct way - APM (Apple Partiætion Map) for PowerPC based Macs and GUID
> for Intel based Macs.
Drobo S. I can't boot over eSATA but I can over Firewire 800. I might
be able to boot over USB as well but I never tried it. At some point in
the software development cycle I may be able to boot over eSATA but not
the last time I tried.
Erik Richard Sørensen
Aug 6, 2012, 11:20:33 AM8/6/12
to
connected. Some Macs will boot, some won't.
To be sure to be able to boot from an external eSATA drive enclosure,
you must have an eSATA connection with fully bootable support such as
this PCIe card from Sonnet...
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Sonnet%20Technologies/TSATA6PROE4/
Some cards from both Firmtek and NewerTech are also bootable, but
haven't read which ones will boot which won't...
Chers, Erik Richard
nospam
Aug 6, 2012, 11:38:41 AM8/6/12
to
In article <501fa259$0$294$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>, Erik Richard
powerpc macs can't boot off usb, except for one or two models and
possibly even a specific revision of those models.
S�rensen <tu...@tulle.dk> wrote:
> > i'd love to be able to boot my ppc mini off usb, but it won't do it.
>
> The Mini should be able to boot from USB, but I'm also aware that some
> won't, but why this misbehavior I'm not sure. My guess is that it might
> be because of differences in the USB chip used...
it has nothing to do with the usb chip.
> > i'd love to be able to boot my ppc mini off usb, but it won't do it.
>
> The Mini should be able to boot from USB, but I'm also aware that some
> won't, but why this misbehavior I'm not sure. My guess is that it might
> be because of differences in the USB chip used...
powerpc macs can't boot off usb, except for one or two models and
possibly even a specific revision of those models.
nospam
Aug 6, 2012, 11:38:44 AM8/6/12
to
In article <501faec6$0$293$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>, Erik Richard
Sørensen <tu...@tulle.dk> wrote:
> > Well, you and nospam say the same thing, so I think that is the plan.
> > To look for a Firewire drive and if somehow the internal drive fails
> > before then, to do what I say above.
> >
> > I talked to WD -- JR.com transferred me to them -- and he said it's
> > true, only their Thunderbolt drives can boot a computer. And I'll
> > check again, but I think they are much more expensive. So I'll find
> > another brand.
>
> Argh.:-( - That's not true! - ANY Firewire harddisk will boot ANY OS X
> (or OS 8.6+) based Mac
completely false.
> > Well, you and nospam say the same thing, so I think that is the plan.
> > To look for a Firewire drive and if somehow the internal drive fails
> > before then, to do what I say above.
> >
> > I talked to WD -- JR.com transferred me to them -- and he said it's
> > true, only their Thunderbolt drives can boot a computer. And I'll
> > check again, but I think they are much more expensive. So I'll find
> > another brand.
>
> Argh.:-( - That's not true! - ANY Firewire harddisk will boot ANY OS X
> (or OS 8.6+) based Mac
some firewire bridges do not allow booting, no matter what you do.
> ! - Of course the disk must be initialized the
> correct way - APM (Apple Partiætion Map) for PowerPC based Macs and GUID
> for Intel based Macs.
map.
only powerpc requires apm.
> Most Firewire harddisks*) come as MBR (Master Boot Record = Windows)
> formatted disks, so the disk has to be re-initialized with 'DiskUtility'.
nospam
Aug 6, 2012, 11:38:45 AM8/6/12
to
In article <bob-2AF4C1.1...@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>, Robert
do.
> I use SuperDuper! to write to bootable partitions on a
> Drobo S. I can't boot over eSATA but I can over Firewire 800.
since macs don't have esata built-in, you have esata via an add-on
card, which is what is preventing the booting.
> I might
> be able to boot over USB as well but I never tried it.
intel macs can boot from usb. powerpc macs normally do not.
Peirce <b...@peirce-family.com> wrote:
> > > Well, you and nospam say the same thing, so I think that is the plan.
> > > To look for a Firewire drive and if somehow the internal drive fails
> > > before then, to do what I say above.
> > >
> > > I talked to WD -- JR.com transferred me to them -- and he said it's
> > > true, only their Thunderbolt drives can boot a computer. And I'll
> > > check again, but I think they are much more expensive. So I'll find
> > > another brand.
> >
> > Argh.:-( - That's not true! - ANY Firewire harddisk will boot ANY OS X
> > (or OS 8.6+) based Mac! - Of course the disk must be initialized the
> > correct way - APM (Apple Parti�tion Map) for PowerPC based Macs and GUID
> > > Well, you and nospam say the same thing, so I think that is the plan.
> > > To look for a Firewire drive and if somehow the internal drive fails
> > > before then, to do what I say above.
> > >
> > > I talked to WD -- JR.com transferred me to them -- and he said it's
> > > true, only their Thunderbolt drives can boot a computer. And I'll
> > > check again, but I think they are much more expensive. So I'll find
> > > another brand.
> >
> > Argh.:-( - That's not true! - ANY Firewire harddisk will boot ANY OS X
> > (or OS 8.6+) based Mac! - Of course the disk must be initialized the
> > for Intel based Macs.
>
> That's true.
it's not true. some firewire drives are not bootable no matter what you
>
> That's true.
do.
> I use SuperDuper! to write to bootable partitions on a
> Drobo S. I can't boot over eSATA but I can over Firewire 800.
card, which is what is preventing the booting.
> I might
> be able to boot over USB as well but I never tried it.
Erik Richard Sørensen
Aug 6, 2012, 1:04:33 PM8/6/12
to
>> The Mini should be able to boot from USB, but I'm also aware that some
>> won't, but why this misbehavior I'm not sure. My guess is that it might
>> be because of differences in the USB chip used...
>
> it has nothing to do with the usb chip.
>
> powerpc macs can't boot off usb, except for one or two models and
> possibly even a specific revision of those models.
I have booted both a Swatooth 400mhz, DigitalAudio 533mhz as well as all
>> won't, but why this misbehavior I'm not sure. My guess is that it might
>> be because of differences in the USB chip used...
>
> it has nothing to do with the usb chip.
>
> powerpc macs can't boot off usb, except for one or two models and
> possibly even a specific revision of those models.
QS's and MDDs that I've had among hands. I've also booted a B&W G3 CPU
upgraded to 1133mhz from an external USB drive and even my PM 9600/350
with a PowerLogix Combo USB2.0/FW card. - But common for all running USB
1.1 onboard is that they are extremely slow. - The fastest was infact
the PM 9600 with the Combo card.
Cheers, Erik Richard
nospam
Aug 6, 2012, 2:32:11 PM8/6/12
to
In article <501ff921$0$290$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>, Erik Richard
S�rensen <tu...@tulle.dk> wrote:
> I have booted both a Swatooth 400mhz, DigitalAudio 533mhz as well as all
> QS's and MDDs that I've had among hands. I've also booted a B&W G3 CPU
> upgraded to 1133mhz from an external USB drive and even my PM 9600/350
> with a PowerLogix Combo USB2.0/FW card. - But common for all running USB
> 1.1 onboard is that they are extremely slow. - The fastest was infact
> the PM 9600 with the Combo card.
on what planet was this?
> I have booted both a Swatooth 400mhz, DigitalAudio 533mhz as well as all
> QS's and MDDs that I've had among hands. I've also booted a B&W G3 CPU
> upgraded to 1133mhz from an external USB drive and even my PM 9600/350
> with a PowerLogix Combo USB2.0/FW card. - But common for all running USB
> 1.1 onboard is that they are extremely slow. - The fastest was infact
> the PM 9600 with the Combo card.
Erik Richard Sørensen
Aug 6, 2012, 2:52:33 PM8/6/12
to
nospam wrote:
> Erik Richard Sørensen <tu...@tulle.dk> wrote:
>> I have booted both a Swatooth 400mhz, DigitalAudio 533mhz as well as all
>> QS's and MDDs that I've had among hands. I've also booted a B&W G3 CPU
>> upgraded to 1133mhz from an external USB drive and even my PM 9600/350
>> with a PowerLogix Combo USB2.0/FW card. - But common for all running USB
>> 1.1 onboard is that they are extremely slow. - The fastest was infact
>> the PM 9600 with the Combo card.
>
> on what planet was this?
...Not on the red planet called Mars, but certainly on the blue planet
>> I have booted both a Swatooth 400mhz, DigitalAudio 533mhz as well as all
>> QS's and MDDs that I've had among hands. I've also booted a B&W G3 CPU
>> upgraded to 1133mhz from an external USB drive and even my PM 9600/350
>> with a PowerLogix Combo USB2.0/FW card. - But common for all running USB
>> 1.1 onboard is that they are extremely slow. - The fastest was infact
>> the PM 9600 with the Combo card.
>
> on what planet was this?
called Earth. - But you seem to live somewhere quite else, since you
don't know that booting these machines from USB is possible.
nospam
Aug 6, 2012, 4:20:48 PM8/6/12
to
In article <50201271$0$282$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>, Erik Richard
either interface. it also has an ata card and it won't boot off of that
either. it only boots off of either scsi bus.
S�rensen <tu...@tulle.dk> wrote:
> >> I have booted both a Swatooth 400mhz, DigitalAudio 533mhz as well as all
> >> QS's and MDDs that I've had among hands. I've also booted a B&W G3 CPU
> >> upgraded to 1133mhz from an external USB drive and even my PM 9600/350
> >> with a PowerLogix Combo USB2.0/FW card. - But common for all running USB
> >> 1.1 onboard is that they are extremely slow. - The fastest was infact
> >> the PM 9600 with the Combo card.
> >
> > on what planet was this?
>
> ...Not on the red planet called Mars, but certainly on the blue planet
> called Earth. - But you seem to live somewhere quite else, since you
> don't know that booting these machines from USB is possible.
my old 8600 has a combo fw/usb card and it does *not* boot off of
> >> I have booted both a Swatooth 400mhz, DigitalAudio 533mhz as well as all
> >> QS's and MDDs that I've had among hands. I've also booted a B&W G3 CPU
> >> upgraded to 1133mhz from an external USB drive and even my PM 9600/350
> >> with a PowerLogix Combo USB2.0/FW card. - But common for all running USB
> >> 1.1 onboard is that they are extremely slow. - The fastest was infact
> >> the PM 9600 with the Combo card.
> >
> > on what planet was this?
>
> ...Not on the red planet called Mars, but certainly on the blue planet
> called Earth. - But you seem to live somewhere quite else, since you
> don't know that booting these machines from USB is possible.
either interface. it also has an ata card and it won't boot off of that
either. it only boots off of either scsi bus.
Erik Richard Sørensen
Aug 6, 2012, 7:03:03 PM8/6/12
to
nospam wrote:
unit, if this is running with either a NEC, Intel or Oxford chipset. USB
boot on a 8600 is more questionable...
Here you must remember that the 9600/350 has quite another mobo than any
of the other in the 86/9600 series. - My other 9600/250 would not boot
from an USB drive though it had the same type of Combo card from PowerLogix.
Both my 250mhz and 350mhz 9600 had an Acard ATA-133 dual channel fully
bootalbe PCI card with OS 9.1 and later. My main bootdisk in the
9600/350 was a 40gb Seagate Barracuda IV.
I replaced the ATA card in the 9600/350 with a Ultra SCSI card (Acard
UL-4), because I was lucky to get 2x 18gb 10K Atlas IV disks. -
Unfortunately I forgot that the 9600 isn't hot pluggable and just
unmounted the monitor when a friend came with his G4 that wouldn't boot,
- that burned the motherboard.:-(
...Sad - It else had 1,0gb RAM, FW+USB2.0, USB1.1, 2x18gb 10k disks,
Matrox Millenium 2/400 32mb gfx, Ultra320 ext./int., M-Audio 1814 sound
card. I mostly used it for SoundEdit 16/II for master recording with
lots of special VST plug-ins. Unfortunately most of these plug-ins won't
work with a G3 or G4, so I can't use them along with my 1,25ghz MDD
booted in OS 9.2.2. - I moved the UL-4 and M-Audio cards to my one QS
Dual 1,8ghz machine and tried all the questionable plug-ins with
SoundEdit, but no luck... those were the days....
David Empson
Aug 6, 2012, 8:44:44 PM8/6/12
to
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> only powerpc requires apm.
There is one exception: the last generation of PowerMac G5 can also boot
from GUID Partition Table. (A friend of mine had one and proved this.)
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
> only powerpc requires apm.
There is one exception: the last generation of PowerMac G5 can also boot
from GUID Partition Table. (A friend of mine had one and proved this.)
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
micky
Aug 6, 2012, 9:51:57 PM8/6/12
to
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 10:52:01 -0400, Robert Peirce
<b...@peirce-family.com> wrote:
>In article <501faec6$0$293$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,
<b...@peirce-family.com> wrote:
>In article <501faec6$0$293$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,
> Erik Richard S�rensen <tu...@tulle.dk> wrote:
>
>> micky wrote:
>> > Well, you and nospam say the same thing, so I think that is the plan.
>> > To look for a Firewire drive and if somehow the internal drive fails
>> > before then, to do what I say above.
>> >
>> > I talked to WD -- JR.com transferred me to them -- and he said it's
>> > true, only their Thunderbolt drives can boot a computer. And I'll
>> > check again, but I think they are much more expensive. So I'll find
>> > another brand.
>>
>> Argh.:-( - That's not true! - ANY Firewire harddisk will boot ANY OS X
>> (or OS 8.6+) based Mac! - Of course the disk must be initialized the
>> correct way - APM (Apple Parti�tion Map) for PowerPC based Macs and GUID
>
>> micky wrote:
>> > Well, you and nospam say the same thing, so I think that is the plan.
>> > To look for a Firewire drive and if somehow the internal drive fails
>> > before then, to do what I say above.
>> >
>> > I talked to WD -- JR.com transferred me to them -- and he said it's
>> > true, only their Thunderbolt drives can boot a computer. And I'll
>> > check again, but I think they are much more expensive. So I'll find
>> > another brand.
>>
>> Argh.:-( - That's not true! - ANY Firewire harddisk will boot ANY OS X
>> (or OS 8.6+) based Mac! - Of course the disk must be initialized the
>> for Intel based Macs.
Thanks. Yes, he must be talking through his hat. What a shame they
let him answer the phone.
micky
Aug 6, 2012, 9:56:41 PM8/6/12
to
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 21:51:57 -0400, micky <NONONO...@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 10:52:01 -0400, Robert Peirce
><b...@peirce-family.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <501faec6$0$293$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,
>> Erik Richard S�rensen <tu...@tulle.dk> wrote:
>>
>>> micky wrote:
>>> > Well, you and nospam say the same thing, so I think that is the plan.
>>> > To look for a Firewire drive and if somehow the internal drive fails
>>> > before then, to do what I say above.
>>> >
>>> > I talked to WD -- JR.com transferred me to them -- and he said it's
>>> > true, only their Thunderbolt drives can boot a computer. And I'll
>>> > check again, but I think they are much more expensive. So I'll find
>>> > another brand.
>>>
>>> Argh.:-( - That's not true! - ANY Firewire harddisk will boot ANY OS X
>>> (or OS 8.6+) based Mac! - Of course the disk must be initialized the
>>> correct way - APM (Apple Parti�tion Map) for PowerPC based Macs and GUID
>>> for Intel based Macs.
>
>Thanks. Yes, he must be talking through his hat. What a shame they
>let him answer the phone.
OOops. I meant he was wrong when he said no drive but Thunderbolt
would boot a Mac. Because their own webpage and people here have
said that Firewire will usually boot an intel based processor.
But most WD Firewire drives won't boot powerPc processors. And some
are the reverse and can't boot intel. I read webpages about that, and
WD's own webpage says so. It's url is earlier in the thread.
I'm going to buy something from G-Technology.
wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 10:52:01 -0400, Robert Peirce
><b...@peirce-family.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <501faec6$0$293$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,
>> Erik Richard S�rensen <tu...@tulle.dk> wrote:
>>
>>> micky wrote:
>>> > Well, you and nospam say the same thing, so I think that is the plan.
>>> > To look for a Firewire drive and if somehow the internal drive fails
>>> > before then, to do what I say above.
>>> >
>>> > I talked to WD -- JR.com transferred me to them -- and he said it's
>>> > true, only their Thunderbolt drives can boot a computer. And I'll
>>> > check again, but I think they are much more expensive. So I'll find
>>> > another brand.
>>>
>>> Argh.:-( - That's not true! - ANY Firewire harddisk will boot ANY OS X
>>> (or OS 8.6+) based Mac! - Of course the disk must be initialized the
>>> correct way - APM (Apple Parti�tion Map) for PowerPC based Macs and GUID
>>> for Intel based Macs.
>
>Thanks. Yes, he must be talking through his hat. What a shame they
>let him answer the phone.
would boot a Mac. Because their own webpage and people here have
said that Firewire will usually boot an intel based processor.
But most WD Firewire drives won't boot powerPc processors. And some
are the reverse and can't boot intel. I read webpages about that, and
WD's own webpage says so. It's url is earlier in the thread.
I'm going to buy something from G-Technology.
>
>>That's true. I use SuperDuper! to write to bootable partitions on a
>>Drobo S. I can't boot over eSATA but I can over Firewire 800. I might
Firewire 400 would work the same, right?
>>That's true. I use SuperDuper! to write to bootable partitions on a
>>Drobo S. I can't boot over eSATA but I can over Firewire 800. I might
Erik Richard Sørensen
Aug 6, 2012, 10:07:48 PM8/6/12
to
micky wrote:
> micky <NONONO...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> Robert Peirce <b...@peirce-family.com> wrote:
>>> Erik Richard Sørensen <tu...@tulle.dk> wrote:
>>>> micky wrote:
>>>>> Well, you and nospam say the same thing, so I think that is the plan.
>>>>> To look for a Firewire drive and if somehow the internal drive fails
>>>>> before then, to do what I say above.
>>>>>
>>>>> I talked to WD -- JR.com transferred me to them -- and he said it's
>>>>> true, only their Thunderbolt drives can boot a computer. And I'll
>>>>> check again, but I think they are much more expensive. So I'll find
>>>>> another brand.
>>>> Argh.:-( - That's not true! - ANY Firewire harddisk will boot ANY OS X
>>>> (or OS 8.6+) based Mac! - Of course the disk must be initialized the
>>>> correct way - APM (Apple Partiætion Map) for PowerPC based Macs and GUID
>>>> micky wrote:
>>>>> Well, you and nospam say the same thing, so I think that is the plan.
>>>>> To look for a Firewire drive and if somehow the internal drive fails
>>>>> before then, to do what I say above.
>>>>>
>>>>> I talked to WD -- JR.com transferred me to them -- and he said it's
>>>>> true, only their Thunderbolt drives can boot a computer. And I'll
>>>>> check again, but I think they are much more expensive. So I'll find
>>>>> another brand.
>>>> Argh.:-( - That's not true! - ANY Firewire harddisk will boot ANY OS X
>>>> (or OS 8.6+) based Mac! - Of course the disk must be initialized the
>>>> for Intel based Macs.
>> Thanks. Yes, he must be talking through his hat. What a shame they
>> let him answer the phone.
>
> OOops. I meant he was wrong when he said no drive but Thunderbolt
> would boot a Mac. Because their own webpage and people here have
> said that Firewire will usually boot an intel based processor.
> But most WD Firewire drives won't boot powerPc processors. And some
> are the reverse and can't boot intel. I read webpages about that, and
> WD's own webpage says so. It's url is earlier in the thread.
>
> I'm going to buy something from G-Technology.
I understood you that way. - Sometimes webpages' support pages aren't
>> Thanks. Yes, he must be talking through his hat. What a shame they
>> let him answer the phone.
>
> OOops. I meant he was wrong when he said no drive but Thunderbolt
> would boot a Mac. Because their own webpage and people here have
> said that Firewire will usually boot an intel based processor.
> But most WD Firewire drives won't boot powerPc processors. And some
> are the reverse and can't boot intel. I read webpages about that, and
> WD's own webpage says so. It's url is earlier in the thread.
>
> I'm going to buy something from G-Technology.
what they should be..-)
>>> That's true. I use SuperDuper! to write to bootable partitions on a
>>> Drobo S. I can't boot over eSATA but I can over Firewire 800. I might
>
> Firewire 400 would work the same, right?
Cheers, Erik Richard
nospam
Aug 6, 2012, 10:15:42 PM8/6/12
to
micky
Aug 7, 2012, 12:00:06 PM8/7/12
to
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 22:15:42 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
BTW, I did backup his Mac to a spare SATA harddrive of my own, and he
bought SuperDuper and was supposed to start doing incremental updates.
But even if he didn't, he still has a copy of almost all his files, so
the time pressure for me to set him up is gone.
I think I'm going to call G-tech and ask them
1) if their HD's will boot a Mac with Firewire
2) if their G-Drive spins down when the computer is off.
3) and if their portable drive (the g-drive mobile) has the longevity
of their G-driive.
While portables are more expensive, in his case the price will be
about the same but the drive will be smaller, and even 500G is far
bigger than he needs, given that he only has 19 G now after years..
Sort of thinking out loud here. Finally wrote down my questions
before I call.
wrote:
bought SuperDuper and was supposed to start doing incremental updates.
But even if he didn't, he still has a copy of almost all his files, so
the time pressure for me to set him up is gone.
I think I'm going to call G-tech and ask them
1) if their HD's will boot a Mac with Firewire
2) if their G-Drive spins down when the computer is off.
3) and if their portable drive (the g-drive mobile) has the longevity
of their G-driive.
While portables are more expensive, in his case the price will be
about the same but the drive will be smaller, and even 500G is far
bigger than he needs, given that he only has 19 G now after years..
Sort of thinking out loud here. Finally wrote down my questions
before I call.
nospam
Aug 7, 2012, 12:43:23 PM8/7/12
to
In article <pge2285tg86i9nl0t...@4ax.com>, micky
> 2) if their G-Drive spins down when the computer is off.
i think they do.
a better question is whether it spins down when the computer is idle.
> 3) and if their portable drive (the g-drive mobile) has the longevity
> of their G-driive.
they make the boxes, not the drives. the drives are made by seagate,
hitachi, western digital, etc. and they can fail at any time. the
question is when. most will last a while. sometimes not. that's why you
make backups.
<NONONO...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> I think I'm going to call G-tech and ask them
> 1) if their HD's will boot a Mac with Firewire
they will.
> I think I'm going to call G-tech and ask them
> 1) if their HD's will boot a Mac with Firewire
> 2) if their G-Drive spins down when the computer is off.
a better question is whether it spins down when the computer is idle.
> 3) and if their portable drive (the g-drive mobile) has the longevity
> of their G-driive.
hitachi, western digital, etc. and they can fail at any time. the
question is when. most will last a while. sometimes not. that's why you
make backups.
Erik Richard Sørensen
Aug 7, 2012, 5:25:25 PM8/7/12
to
nospam wrote:
> micky <NONONO...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> I think I'm going to call G-tech and ask them
>> 1) if their HD's will boot a Mac with Firewire
>
> they will.
>
>> 2) if their G-Drive spins down when the computer is off.
>
> i think they do.
>
> a better question is whether it spins down when the computer is idle.
Intel FW chipset that didn't spin down while idle... I know nothing
about the newer Archos units - or even if Archos still is around.:-)
David Empson
Aug 7, 2012, 8:17:50 PM8/7/12
to
2.0 (assuming the drive is fast enough).
The iMac in question supports USB 2.0, but USB performance is limited by
the CPU and possibly the hardware architecture. On similar vintage Macs,
the best speed I ever saw from USB 2.0 was about 17 MB/s (with a
moderate CPU load), while Firewire was around 35 to 40 MB/s (and almost
no CPU load), using the same hard drive to test both interfaces, and
with no hubs or other USB devices connected (which would disadvantage
USB further).
Late G4 models got somewhat faster, and I expect G5 models are faster
again, but I've only seen USB 2.0 speeds reaching 30 MB/s on Intel Macs.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
nospam
Aug 7, 2012, 8:45:47 PM8/7/12
to
In article <1kogp27.1sfy6xw1buayvqN%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>, David
pcs back then with usb were much faster.
on intel macs, the difference between usb and firewire is negligible.
firewire is a little faster but nothing anyone is likely to notice
without a stopwatch.
Empson <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> > > Yes, and FW400 will be quite a lot faster than USB too.
> >
> > actually, only slightly faster.
>
> On an iMac G4, Firewire 400 will be in the order of twice as fast as USB
> 2.0 (assuming the drive is fast enough).
on powerpc macs, that is true. apple's drivers were pretty bad. windows
> > > Yes, and FW400 will be quite a lot faster than USB too.
> >
> > actually, only slightly faster.
>
> On an iMac G4, Firewire 400 will be in the order of twice as fast as USB
> 2.0 (assuming the drive is fast enough).
pcs back then with usb were much faster.
on intel macs, the difference between usb and firewire is negligible.
firewire is a little faster but nothing anyone is likely to notice
without a stopwatch.
micky
Aug 7, 2012, 9:45:44 PM8/7/12
to
On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 12:43:23 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <pge2285tg86i9nl0t...@4ax.com>, micky
><NONONO...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> I think I'm going to call G-tech and ask them
>> 1) if their HD's will boot a Mac with Firewire
>
>they will.
That's what he said. It was t he only question he had to look up and
it took him a while to find something, but that's what he said.
>> 2) if their G-Drive spins down when the computer is off.
>
>i think they do.
He said they don't. Now I was only talking about the G-Drive 1T and
maybe the Mini. I asked in a different way, if I'd have to turn the
drive off, and he said Yes.
So I'm tempted to buy a mobile after all, because that willl surely
turn off when the computer does.
He also said that with the mini drive, though the USB port isn't
always enough to power the drive, depending on the computer, the
Firewire port is. So if it's running on Firewiere, that would turn
if off when the coputer went off. OTOH, they sell an optional power
supply for using the USB when the USB power is not enough. I'm
trying to decide if there is any reason why my friend would want to do
this. (I'm not counting that the Firewire port breaks, but maybe I
should count that.)
>a better question is whether it spins down when the computer is idle.
That was the question I first asked here, but for me I think it is the
wrong questoin. It was followed by a bit of debate about whether
spining up and down a lot still damages bearings. And since my friend
will use the computer for maybe t wo hours and have it off for 22, the
thing that really matters is when it's off.
>> 3) and if their portable drive (the g-drive mobile) has the longevity
>> of their G-driive.
He said they were the same. and that the 3-year guarantee was the same
(I hope that's not his basis for saying longevity is the same. I
think a lightly used harddrive should last a lot longer than 3 years
and the all seem to. )
BTW, copy speed is not an issue for this guy. If it takes a while
he'll do other computer or non-computer stuff.
Thanks again.
wrote:
>In article <pge2285tg86i9nl0t...@4ax.com>, micky
><NONONO...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> I think I'm going to call G-tech and ask them
>> 1) if their HD's will boot a Mac with Firewire
>
>they will.
it took him a while to find something, but that's what he said.
>> 2) if their G-Drive spins down when the computer is off.
>
>i think they do.
maybe the Mini. I asked in a different way, if I'd have to turn the
drive off, and he said Yes.
So I'm tempted to buy a mobile after all, because that willl surely
turn off when the computer does.
He also said that with the mini drive, though the USB port isn't
always enough to power the drive, depending on the computer, the
Firewire port is. So if it's running on Firewiere, that would turn
if off when the coputer went off. OTOH, they sell an optional power
supply for using the USB when the USB power is not enough. I'm
trying to decide if there is any reason why my friend would want to do
this. (I'm not counting that the Firewire port breaks, but maybe I
should count that.)
>a better question is whether it spins down when the computer is idle.
wrong questoin. It was followed by a bit of debate about whether
spining up and down a lot still damages bearings. And since my friend
will use the computer for maybe t wo hours and have it off for 22, the
thing that really matters is when it's off.
>> 3) and if their portable drive (the g-drive mobile) has the longevity
>> of their G-driive.
(I hope that's not his basis for saying longevity is the same. I
think a lightly used harddrive should last a lot longer than 3 years
and the all seem to. )
>
>they make the boxes, not the drives. the drives are made by seagate,
>hitachi, western digital, etc. and they can fail at any time. the
>question is when. most will last a while. sometimes not. that's why you
>make backups.
Yes, I'm hoping to go by averages.
>they make the boxes, not the drives. the drives are made by seagate,
>hitachi, western digital, etc. and they can fail at any time. the
>question is when. most will last a while. sometimes not. that's why you
>make backups.
BTW, copy speed is not an issue for this guy. If it takes a while
he'll do other computer or non-computer stuff.
Thanks again.
Message has been deleted
Larry Gusaas
Aug 8, 2012, 12:33:42 AM8/8/12
to
On 2012-08-07 10:10 PM Lewis wrote:
> In message <070820122045472332%nos...@nospam.invalid>
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> on intel macs, the difference between usb and firewire is negligible.
> Except that all (or nearly all?) Intel Macs have Firewire 800 ports.
>> on intel macs, the difference between usb and firewire is negligible.
No MacBooks have FireWire 800. The last couple of models do not have FireWire.
MacBook Airs do not have any FireWire.
Early 15" MacBook Pros with CoreDuo processors only had FireWire 400
iMacs only had FireWire 400 before 2007
Mac Minis only had FireWire 400 before 2009
That is a lot of Macs without FireWire 800 ports.
--
_________________________________
Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese
nospam
Aug 8, 2012, 12:36:08 AM8/8/12
to
In article <slrnk23pm1....@mbp55.local>, Lewis
the issue is firewire 400 versus usb 2.
obviously, firewire 800 and usb 3 are faster than either of those.
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >> > > Yes, and FW400 will be quite a lot faster than USB too.
> >> >
> >> > actually, only slightly faster.
> >>
> >> On an iMac G4, Firewire 400 will be in the order of twice as fast as USB
> >> 2.0 (assuming the drive is fast enough).
>
> > on powerpc macs, that is true. apple's drivers were pretty bad. windows
> > pcs back then with usb were much faster.
>
> > on intel macs, the difference between usb and firewire is negligible.
>
> >> > > Yes, and FW400 will be quite a lot faster than USB too.
> >> >
> >> > actually, only slightly faster.
> >>
> >> On an iMac G4, Firewire 400 will be in the order of twice as fast as USB
> >> 2.0 (assuming the drive is fast enough).
>
> > on powerpc macs, that is true. apple's drivers were pretty bad. windows
> > pcs back then with usb were much faster.
>
> > on intel macs, the difference between usb and firewire is negligible.
>
> Except that all (or nearly all?) Intel Macs have Firewire 800 ports.
so what? not all drives have firewire 800 ports.
the issue is firewire 400 versus usb 2.
obviously, firewire 800 and usb 3 are faster than either of those.
Paul Sture
Aug 8, 2012, 4:38:13 AM8/8/12
to
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:17:50 +1200, David Empson wrote:
> On an iMac G4, Firewire 400 will be in the order of twice as fast as USB
> 2.0 (assuming the drive is fast enough).
>
> The iMac in question supports USB 2.0, but USB performance is limited by
> the CPU and possibly the hardware architecture. On similar vintage Macs,
> the best speed I ever saw from USB 2.0 was about 17 MB/s (with a
> moderate CPU load), while Firewire was around 35 to 40 MB/s (and almost
> no CPU load), using the same hard drive to test both interfaces, and
> with no hubs or other USB devices connected (which would disadvantage
> USB further).
What I have noticed is that Firewire file transfers are a lot more
> On an iMac G4, Firewire 400 will be in the order of twice as fast as USB
> 2.0 (assuming the drive is fast enough).
>
> The iMac in question supports USB 2.0, but USB performance is limited by
> the CPU and possibly the hardware architecture. On similar vintage Macs,
> the best speed I ever saw from USB 2.0 was about 17 MB/s (with a
> moderate CPU load), while Firewire was around 35 to 40 MB/s (and almost
> no CPU load), using the same hard drive to test both interfaces, and
> with no hubs or other USB devices connected (which would disadvantage
> USB further).
consistent in speeds achieved than USB 2.0. I have noticed this on a
PowerBook G4 and my AMD boxes running Windows or Linux.
> Late G4 models got somewhat faster, and I expect G5 models are faster
> again, but I've only seen USB 2.0 speeds reaching 30 MB/s on Intel Macs.
Windows or Linux. Here again with USB 2.0 I often see lower figures than
that.
--
Paul Sture
Erik Richard Sørensen
Aug 8, 2012, 5:14:11 PM8/8/12
to
David Empson wrote:
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Erik Richard Sørensen <tu...@tulle.dk> wrote:
>>> Yes, and FW400 will be quite a lot faster than USB too.
>> actually, only slightly faster.
>
> On an iMac G4, Firewire 400 will be in the order of twice as fast as USB
> 2.0 (assuming the drive is fast enough).
>
> The iMac in question supports USB 2.0, but USB performance is limited by
> the CPU and possibly the hardware architecture. On similar vintage Macs,
> the best speed I ever saw from USB 2.0 was about 17 MB/s (with a
> moderate CPU load), while Firewire was around 35 to 40 MB/s (and almost
> no CPU load), using the same hard drive to test both interfaces, and
> with no hubs or other USB devices connected (which would disadvantage
> USB further).
Generally I have FW400 speeds between 30-40mb/sec from internal FW400 to
>>> Yes, and FW400 will be quite a lot faster than USB too.
>> actually, only slightly faster.
>
> On an iMac G4, Firewire 400 will be in the order of twice as fast as USB
> 2.0 (assuming the drive is fast enough).
>
> The iMac in question supports USB 2.0, but USB performance is limited by
> the CPU and possibly the hardware architecture. On similar vintage Macs,
> the best speed I ever saw from USB 2.0 was about 17 MB/s (with a
> moderate CPU load), while Firewire was around 35 to 40 MB/s (and almost
> no CPU load), using the same hard drive to test both interfaces, and
> with no hubs or other USB devices connected (which would disadvantage
> USB further).
external HDs with Oxford chipsets and 30-35mb/sec to HDs with NEC
chipsets. And using the PowerLogics Combo PCI cards on my G4 I have
speeds as high as up to near 48mb/sec to the same HD types. Using the
USB2.0 port on the PowerLogix card has never come over 25mb/sec, and it
slows radically when working with other USB units. - Even using the
keyboard and my Kensington trackball can slow down the USB....
I've found here that utting in an USB 2.0 hub with balanced and
individual power feed ports between the PCI card and ext3ernal device
will stabilize transfers to external units so they keep near 25-30mb/sec.
> Late G4 models got somewhat faster, and I expect G5 models are faster
> again, but I've only seen USB 2.0 speeds reaching 30 MB/s on Intel Macs.
any other Mac. The G5 is a bit faster but not much. A MacPro Xeon
4x2,66ghz is a lot faster than the G4s and a bit faster than the G5, but
here it totally depends on the tyhpe of external unit used. - I've tried
the USB 2.0 on the MacPro to a Mercury Elite AL Pro Quad RAID harddisk.
This combination is faster than anything else I've tried. - A transfer
of up to 40mb/sec - sometimes 45mb/sec within reach if transfering large
files, somewhat slower transfering folders with many small files, - but
still faster than the G4 and G5.
I have two NewerTech MiniStack V3 with 500gb and 1tb HDs. The 500gb disk
is near standard when using FW400 and FW800 - very, very close to the
max. limit. The one with the 1tb disk is definitely faster. It isn't
anormal that speeds with FW400 is up as high as 65mb/sec (!) - and FW800
as high as near 120mb/sec (!). I have no idea why that one is apprx. 20%
faster than the spec range... FW400 65mb/sec = 510mbit, FW800 120mb/sec
= 960mbit. Both having Seagate 821AS/32mb cache series HDs. Cables are
the same type - NewerTech double-shielded 48" cables, - and if I recall
right, both enclosures have the Oxford934 rev.2 chipset...
Using the USB on the MacPro copying to a WD Essential 2tb/64mb cache
disk I have seen speeds as high as near 45mb/sec when copying larger
single files and near 40mb/sec when copying folders with many small
files - also good speeds for a Mac.
nospam
Aug 8, 2012, 5:34:45 PM8/8/12
to
In article <5022d6a3$0$293$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>, Erik Richard
> And using the PowerLogics Combo PCI cards on my G4 I have
> speeds as high as up to near 48mb/sec to the same HD types.
no you don't.
a powerpc mac will typically get about half those speeds, about 20
mb/s. at best, you can't get more than about 35-40 over usb due to
overhead. you will *never* get 48mb/s.
> Using the
> USB2.0 port on the PowerLogix card has never come over 25mb/sec, and it
> slows radically when working with other USB units. - Even using the
> keyboard and my Kensington trackball can slow down the USB....
are they independent busses?
> I've found here that utting in an USB 2.0 hub with balanced and
> individual power feed ports between the PCI card and ext3ernal device
> will stabilize transfers to external units so they keep near 25-30mb/sec.
>
> > Late G4 models got somewhat faster, and I expect G5 models are faster
> > again, but I've only seen USB 2.0 speeds reaching 30 MB/s on Intel Macs.
>
> Hm... I have a G4 MDD (latest), and it won't give higher USB speeds than
> any other Mac. The G5 is a bit faster but not much. A MacPro Xeon
> 4x2,66ghz is a lot faster than the G4s and a bit faster than the G5, but
> here it totally depends on the tyhpe of external unit used. - I've tried
> the USB 2.0 on the MacPro to a Mercury Elite AL Pro Quad RAID harddisk.
> This combination is faster than anything else I've tried. - A transfer
> of up to 40mb/sec - sometimes 45mb/sec within reach if transfering large
> files, somewhat slower transfering folders with many small files, - but
> still faster than the G4 and G5.
an intel mac pro will be faster than a powermac g4 or g5, but it will
not be 40-45 mb/s.
> I have two NewerTech MiniStack V3 with 500gb and 1tb HDs. The 500gb disk
> is near standard when using FW400 and FW800 - very, very close to the
> max. limit. The one with the 1tb disk is definitely faster. It isn't
> anormal that speeds with FW400 is up as high as 65mb/sec (!) - and FW800
> as high as near 120mb/sec (!).
that's also not possible.
> I have no idea why that one is apprx. 20%
> faster than the spec range...
because you're not measuring it correctly.
> FW400 65mb/sec = 510mbit, FW800 120mb/sec
> = 960mbit. Both having Seagate 821AS/32mb cache series HDs. Cables are
> the same type - NewerTech double-shielded 48" cables, - and if I recall
> right, both enclosures have the Oxford934 rev.2 chipset...
>
> Using the USB on the MacPro copying to a WD Essential 2tb/64mb cache
> disk I have seen speeds as high as near 45mb/sec when copying larger
> single files and near 40mb/sec when copying folders with many small
> files - also good speeds for a Mac.
not possible.
Sørensen <tu...@tulle.dk> wrote:
> Generally I have FW400 speeds between 30-40mb/sec from internal FW400 to
> external HDs with Oxford chipsets and 30-35mb/sec to HDs with NEC
> chipsets.
those are typical speeds for firewire 400.
> Generally I have FW400 speeds between 30-40mb/sec from internal FW400 to
> external HDs with Oxford chipsets and 30-35mb/sec to HDs with NEC
> chipsets.
> And using the PowerLogics Combo PCI cards on my G4 I have
> speeds as high as up to near 48mb/sec to the same HD types.
a powerpc mac will typically get about half those speeds, about 20
mb/s. at best, you can't get more than about 35-40 over usb due to
overhead. you will *never* get 48mb/s.
> Using the
> USB2.0 port on the PowerLogix card has never come over 25mb/sec, and it
> slows radically when working with other USB units. - Even using the
> keyboard and my Kensington trackball can slow down the USB....
> I've found here that utting in an USB 2.0 hub with balanced and
> individual power feed ports between the PCI card and ext3ernal device
> will stabilize transfers to external units so they keep near 25-30mb/sec.
>
> > Late G4 models got somewhat faster, and I expect G5 models are faster
> > again, but I've only seen USB 2.0 speeds reaching 30 MB/s on Intel Macs.
>
> Hm... I have a G4 MDD (latest), and it won't give higher USB speeds than
> any other Mac. The G5 is a bit faster but not much. A MacPro Xeon
> 4x2,66ghz is a lot faster than the G4s and a bit faster than the G5, but
> here it totally depends on the tyhpe of external unit used. - I've tried
> the USB 2.0 on the MacPro to a Mercury Elite AL Pro Quad RAID harddisk.
> This combination is faster than anything else I've tried. - A transfer
> of up to 40mb/sec - sometimes 45mb/sec within reach if transfering large
> files, somewhat slower transfering folders with many small files, - but
> still faster than the G4 and G5.
not be 40-45 mb/s.
> I have two NewerTech MiniStack V3 with 500gb and 1tb HDs. The 500gb disk
> is near standard when using FW400 and FW800 - very, very close to the
> max. limit. The one with the 1tb disk is definitely faster. It isn't
> anormal that speeds with FW400 is up as high as 65mb/sec (!) - and FW800
> as high as near 120mb/sec (!).
> I have no idea why that one is apprx. 20%
> faster than the spec range...
> FW400 65mb/sec = 510mbit, FW800 120mb/sec
> = 960mbit. Both having Seagate 821AS/32mb cache series HDs. Cables are
> the same type - NewerTech double-shielded 48" cables, - and if I recall
> right, both enclosures have the Oxford934 rev.2 chipset...
>
> Using the USB on the MacPro copying to a WD Essential 2tb/64mb cache
> disk I have seen speeds as high as near 45mb/sec when copying larger
> single files and near 40mb/sec when copying folders with many small
> files - also good speeds for a Mac.
Erik Richard Sørensen
Aug 8, 2012, 7:10:50 PM8/8/12
to
nospam wrote:
> Erik Richard Sørensen <tu...@tulle.dk> wrote:
>> Generally I have FW400 speeds between 30-40mb/sec from internal FW400 to
>> external HDs with Oxford chipsets and 30-35mb/sec to HDs with NEC
>> chipsets.
>
> those are typical speeds for firewire 400.
>
>> And using the PowerLogics Combo PCI cards on my G4 I have
>> speeds as high as up to near 48mb/sec to the same HD types.
>
> no you don't.
>
> a powerpc mac will typically get about half those speeds, about 20
> mb/s. at best, you can't get more than about 35-40 over usb due to
> overhead. you will *never* get 48mb/s.
>> Using the
>> USB2.0 port on the PowerLogix card has never come over 25mb/sec, and it
>> slows radically when working with other USB units. - Even using the
>> keyboard and my Kensington trackball can slow down the USB....
>
> are they independent busses?
2.0 only where port 3 is both 1.1 and 2.0.
>> I've found here that utting in an USB 2.0 hub with balanced and
>> individual power feed ports between the PCI card and ext3ernal device
>> will stabilize transfers to external units so they keep near 25-30mb/sec.
>>
>>> Late G4 models got somewhat faster, and I expect G5 models are faster
>>> again, but I've only seen USB 2.0 speeds reaching 30 MB/s on Intel Macs.
>> Hm... I have a G4 MDD (latest), and it won't give higher USB speeds than
>> any other Mac. The G5 is a bit faster but not much. A MacPro Xeon
>> 4x2,66ghz is a lot faster than the G4s and a bit faster than the G5, but
>> here it totally depends on the tyhpe of external unit used. - I've tried
>> the USB 2.0 on the MacPro to a Mercury Elite AL Pro Quad RAID harddisk.
>> This combination is faster than anything else I've tried. - A transfer
>> of up to 40mb/sec - sometimes 45mb/sec within reach if transfering large
>> files, somewhat slower transfering folders with many small files, - but
>> still faster than the G4 and G5.
>
> an intel mac pro will be faster than a powermac g4 or g5, but it will
> not be 40-45 mb/s.
desktop...
>> I have two NewerTech MiniStack V3 with 500gb and 1tb HDs. The 500gb disk
>> is near standard when using FW400 and FW800 - very, very close to the
>> max. limit. The one with the 1tb disk is definitely faster. It isn't
>> anormal that speeds with FW400 is up as high as 65mb/sec (!) - and FW800
>> as high as near 120mb/sec (!).
>
> that's also not possible.
>
>> I have no idea why that one is apprx. 20%
>> faster than the spec range...
>
> because you're not measuring it correctly.
times with that specific drive with same results within range of
+/-1-2mb/sec., and it still wonders me...
>> FW400 65mb/sec = 510mbit, FW800 120mb/sec
>> = 960mbit. Both having Seagate 821AS/32mb cache series HDs. Cables are
>> the same type - NewerTech double-shielded 48" cables, - and if I recall
>> right, both enclosures have the Oxford934 rev.2 chipset...
>>
>> Using the USB on the MacPro copying to a WD Essential 2tb/64mb cache
>> disk I have seen speeds as high as near 45mb/sec when copying larger
>> single files and near 40mb/sec when copying folders with many small
>> files - also good speeds for a Mac.
>
> not possible.
So yes, it /is/ possible!
nospam
Aug 9, 2012, 12:44:03 AM8/9/12
to
In article <5022f1fa$0$292$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>, Erik Richard
> >> Using the
> >> USB2.0 port on the PowerLogix card has never come over 25mb/sec, and it
> >> slows radically when working with other USB units. - Even using the
> >> keyboard and my Kensington trackball can slow down the USB....
> >
> > are they independent busses?
>
> Yes, and that's also why the slow down puzzles me. USB port 1 and 2 are
> 2.0 only where port 3 is both 1.1 and 2.0.
nope. usb 2.0 ports are required to support usb 1.1. there is no such
thing as usb 2.0 only.
there are even usb 2.0 ports that only work at usb 1.1 speeds. they
don't support usb 2.0 hi speed (480 mb/s), only low speed and full
speed. this was a common trick with flash card readers. they put usb
2.0 on the box, but they weren't any faster than the older 1.1 readers.
> >> I've found here that utting in an USB 2.0 hub with balanced and
> >> individual power feed ports between the PCI card and ext3ernal device
> >> will stabilize transfers to external units so they keep near 25-30mb/sec.
> >>
> >>> Late G4 models got somewhat faster, and I expect G5 models are faster
> >>> again, but I've only seen USB 2.0 speeds reaching 30 MB/s on Intel Macs.
> >> Hm... I have a G4 MDD (latest), and it won't give higher USB speeds than
> >> any other Mac. The G5 is a bit faster but not much. A MacPro Xeon
> >> 4x2,66ghz is a lot faster than the G4s and a bit faster than the G5, but
> >> here it totally depends on the tyhpe of external unit used. - I've tried
> >> the USB 2.0 on the MacPro to a Mercury Elite AL Pro Quad RAID harddisk.
> >> This combination is faster than anything else I've tried. - A transfer
> >> of up to 40mb/sec - sometimes 45mb/sec within reach if transfering large
> >> files, somewhat slower transfering folders with many small files, - but
> >> still faster than the G4 and G5.
> >
> > an intel mac pro will be faster than a powermac g4 or g5, but it will
> > not be 40-45 mb/s.
>
> Yes it is. It's measured with a stopwatch - Meridian - which is on my
> desktop...
bullshit. 40-45 mb/s is not possible with firewire 400.
> >> I have two NewerTech MiniStack V3 with 500gb and 1tb HDs. The 500gb disk
> >> is near standard when using FW400 and FW800 - very, very close to the
> >> max. limit. The one with the 1tb disk is definitely faster. It isn't
> >> anormal that speeds with FW400 is up as high as 65mb/sec (!) - and FW800
> >> as high as near 120mb/sec (!).
> >
> > that's also not possible.
> >
> >> I have no idea why that one is apprx. 20%
> >> faster than the spec range...
> >
> > because you're not measuring it correctly.
>
> Again - measured with the Meridian stopwatch... I have tested this more
> times with that specific drive with same results within range of
> +/-1-2mb/sec., and it still wonders me...
bullshit. you're claiming speeds that are faster than the maximum
speed, and by a fair amount too.
> >> FW400 65mb/sec = 510mbit, FW800 120mb/sec
> >> = 960mbit. Both having Seagate 821AS/32mb cache series HDs. Cables are
> >> the same type - NewerTech double-shielded 48" cables, - and if I recall
> >> right, both enclosures have the Oxford934 rev.2 chipset...
> >>
> >> Using the USB on the MacPro copying to a WD Essential 2tb/64mb cache
> >> disk I have seen speeds as high as near 45mb/sec when copying larger
> >> single files and near 40mb/sec when copying folders with many small
> >> files - also good speeds for a Mac.
> >
> > not possible.
>
> Again - measured with the Meridian stopwatch.
>
> So yes, it /is/ possible!
no, it's not. something is wrong with your measurements.
it is *not* possible to have transfer speeds faster than the
theoretical maximum speed of the interface.
S�rensen <tu...@tulle.dk> wrote:
> >> Generally I have FW400 speeds between 30-40mb/sec from internal FW400 to
> >> external HDs with Oxford chipsets and 30-35mb/sec to HDs with NEC
> >> chipsets.
> >
> > those are typical speeds for firewire 400.
> >
> >> And using the PowerLogics Combo PCI cards on my G4 I have
> >> speeds as high as up to near 48mb/sec to the same HD types.
> >
> > no you don't.
> >
> > a powerpc mac will typically get about half those speeds, about 20
> > mb/s. at best, you can't get more than about 35-40 over usb due to
> > overhead. you will *never* get 48mb/s.
>
> Mistyping... instead of 48mb/sec it should have been 38mb/sec.
powerpc macs were never that fast on usb.
> >> Generally I have FW400 speeds between 30-40mb/sec from internal FW400 to
> >> external HDs with Oxford chipsets and 30-35mb/sec to HDs with NEC
> >> chipsets.
> >
> > those are typical speeds for firewire 400.
> >
> >> And using the PowerLogics Combo PCI cards on my G4 I have
> >> speeds as high as up to near 48mb/sec to the same HD types.
> >
> > no you don't.
> >
> > a powerpc mac will typically get about half those speeds, about 20
> > mb/s. at best, you can't get more than about 35-40 over usb due to
> > overhead. you will *never* get 48mb/s.
>
> Mistyping... instead of 48mb/sec it should have been 38mb/sec.
> >> Using the
> >> USB2.0 port on the PowerLogix card has never come over 25mb/sec, and it
> >> slows radically when working with other USB units. - Even using the
> >> keyboard and my Kensington trackball can slow down the USB....
> >
> > are they independent busses?
>
> Yes, and that's also why the slow down puzzles me. USB port 1 and 2 are
> 2.0 only where port 3 is both 1.1 and 2.0.
thing as usb 2.0 only.
there are even usb 2.0 ports that only work at usb 1.1 speeds. they
don't support usb 2.0 hi speed (480 mb/s), only low speed and full
speed. this was a common trick with flash card readers. they put usb
2.0 on the box, but they weren't any faster than the older 1.1 readers.
> >> I've found here that utting in an USB 2.0 hub with balanced and
> >> individual power feed ports between the PCI card and ext3ernal device
> >> will stabilize transfers to external units so they keep near 25-30mb/sec.
> >>
> >>> Late G4 models got somewhat faster, and I expect G5 models are faster
> >>> again, but I've only seen USB 2.0 speeds reaching 30 MB/s on Intel Macs.
> >> Hm... I have a G4 MDD (latest), and it won't give higher USB speeds than
> >> any other Mac. The G5 is a bit faster but not much. A MacPro Xeon
> >> 4x2,66ghz is a lot faster than the G4s and a bit faster than the G5, but
> >> here it totally depends on the tyhpe of external unit used. - I've tried
> >> the USB 2.0 on the MacPro to a Mercury Elite AL Pro Quad RAID harddisk.
> >> This combination is faster than anything else I've tried. - A transfer
> >> of up to 40mb/sec - sometimes 45mb/sec within reach if transfering large
> >> files, somewhat slower transfering folders with many small files, - but
> >> still faster than the G4 and G5.
> >
> > an intel mac pro will be faster than a powermac g4 or g5, but it will
> > not be 40-45 mb/s.
>
> Yes it is. It's measured with a stopwatch - Meridian - which is on my
> desktop...
> >> I have two NewerTech MiniStack V3 with 500gb and 1tb HDs. The 500gb disk
> >> is near standard when using FW400 and FW800 - very, very close to the
> >> max. limit. The one with the 1tb disk is definitely faster. It isn't
> >> anormal that speeds with FW400 is up as high as 65mb/sec (!) - and FW800
> >> as high as near 120mb/sec (!).
> >
> > that's also not possible.
> >
> >> I have no idea why that one is apprx. 20%
> >> faster than the spec range...
> >
> > because you're not measuring it correctly.
>
> Again - measured with the Meridian stopwatch... I have tested this more
> times with that specific drive with same results within range of
> +/-1-2mb/sec., and it still wonders me...
speed, and by a fair amount too.
> >> FW400 65mb/sec = 510mbit, FW800 120mb/sec
> >> = 960mbit. Both having Seagate 821AS/32mb cache series HDs. Cables are
> >> the same type - NewerTech double-shielded 48" cables, - and if I recall
> >> right, both enclosures have the Oxford934 rev.2 chipset...
> >>
> >> Using the USB on the MacPro copying to a WD Essential 2tb/64mb cache
> >> disk I have seen speeds as high as near 45mb/sec when copying larger
> >> single files and near 40mb/sec when copying folders with many small
> >> files - also good speeds for a Mac.
> >
> > not possible.
>
> Again - measured with the Meridian stopwatch.
>
> So yes, it /is/ possible!
it is *not* possible to have transfer speeds faster than the
theoretical maximum speed of the interface.
Message has been deleted
David Empson
Aug 9, 2012, 8:01:22 AM8/9/12
to
> David Empson wrote:
> > nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> Erik Richard S�rensen <tu...@tulle.dk> wrote:
> >>> Yes, and FW400 will be quite a lot faster than USB too.
> >> actually, only slightly faster.
> >
> > On an iMac G4, Firewire 400 will be in the order of twice as fast as USB
> > 2.0 (assuming the drive is fast enough).
> >
> > The iMac in question supports USB 2.0, but USB performance is limited by
> > the CPU and possibly the hardware architecture. On similar vintage Macs,
> > the best speed I ever saw from USB 2.0 was about 17 MB/s (with a
> > moderate CPU load), while Firewire was around 35 to 40 MB/s (and almost
> > no CPU load), using the same hard drive to test both interfaces, and
> > with no hubs or other USB devices connected (which would disadvantage
> > USB further).
>
> Generally I have FW400 speeds between 30-40mb/sec from internal FW400 to
> external HDs with Oxford chipsets and 30-35mb/sec to HDs with NEC
> chipsets. And using the PowerLogics Combo PCI cards on my G4 I have
> speeds as high as up to near 48mb/sec to the same HD types. Using the
> USB2.0 port on the PowerLogix card has never come over 25mb/sec, and it
> slows radically when working with other USB units. - Even using the
> keyboard and my Kensington trackball can slow down the USB....
(I see you corrected the 48 to 38 in a subsequent post. No way can USB
> >>> Yes, and FW400 will be quite a lot faster than USB too.
> >> actually, only slightly faster.
> >
> > On an iMac G4, Firewire 400 will be in the order of twice as fast as USB
> > 2.0 (assuming the drive is fast enough).
> >
> > The iMac in question supports USB 2.0, but USB performance is limited by
> > the CPU and possibly the hardware architecture. On similar vintage Macs,
> > the best speed I ever saw from USB 2.0 was about 17 MB/s (with a
> > moderate CPU load), while Firewire was around 35 to 40 MB/s (and almost
> > no CPU load), using the same hard drive to test both interfaces, and
> > with no hubs or other USB devices connected (which would disadvantage
> > USB further).
>
> Generally I have FW400 speeds between 30-40mb/sec from internal FW400 to
> external HDs with Oxford chipsets and 30-35mb/sec to HDs with NEC
> chipsets. And using the PowerLogics Combo PCI cards on my G4 I have
> speeds as high as up to near 48mb/sec to the same HD types. Using the
> USB2.0 port on the PowerLogix card has never come over 25mb/sec, and it
> slows radically when working with other USB units. - Even using the
> keyboard and my Kensington trackball can slow down the USB....
2.0 hit its theoretical limit.)
> I've found here that utting in an USB 2.0 hub with balanced and
> individual power feed ports between the PCI card and ext3ernal device
> will stabilize transfers to external units so they keep near 25-30mb/sec.
>
> > Late G4 models got somewhat faster, and I expect G5 models are faster
> > again, but I've only seen USB 2.0 speeds reaching 30 MB/s on Intel Macs.
>
> Hm... I have a G4 MDD (latest)
desktop G5 models), not PowerMacs in 2003. The overall performance of
the USB chipset or some other factors seemed to improve between early
PowerBook G4s and later ones, as I recall doing comparitive tests on a
friend's final generation PowerBook G4. I can't remember the specific
numbers we observed on that model, just that it was faster than the 17
MB/s we got with an earlier aluminium PowerBook G4.
> and it won't give higher USB speeds than any other Mac. The G5 is a bit
> faster but not much. A MacPro Xeon 4x2,66ghz is a lot faster than the G4s
> and a bit faster than the G5, but here it totally depends on the tyhpe of
> external unit used. - I've tried the USB 2.0 on the MacPro to a Mercury
> Elite AL Pro Quad RAID harddisk. This combination is faster than anything
> else I've tried. - A transfer of up to 40mb/sec - sometimes 45mb/sec
> within reach if transfering large files, somewhat slower transfering
> folders with many small files, - but still faster than the G4 and G5.
limit.
I've never seen USB 2.0 achieve speeds faster than 35 MB/s on any
computer, and rarely over 31 MB/s.
> I have two NewerTech MiniStack V3 with 500gb and 1tb HDs. The 500gb disk
> is near standard when using FW400 and FW800 - very, very close to the
> max. limit. The one with the 1tb disk is definitely faster. It isn't
> anormal that speeds with FW400 is up as high as 65mb/sec (!)
The theoretical maximum data rate over Firewire 400 is 393.216 megabits
per second, or 49.152 megabytes per second.
>- and FW800 as high as near 120mb/sec (!).
Firewire 800 (after allowing for the 8B/10B encoding) is 98.304
megabytes per second.
Both of those limits assume zero delays and zero overhead for data
packets and issuing commands, which cannot occur in reality. (Firewire
800 is full duplex so commands and data going in opposite directions
might be able to overlap, but there will still be packet overhead and
arbitration delays.)
The bit cell timing characteristics of a particular version of Firewire
are fixed, unless it steps down to slower rates (e.g. transferring at
S100, S200 or S400 speeds over a faster Firewire bus). There is no way a
hard drive or computer could transfer data about 30% faster than the
theoretical maxium.
Some possible explanations: you were mistaken, or some of the data was
being read from RAM cache on the computer rather than being transferred
over Firewire, or a file had sparse storage and some of its nominal size
was not allocated on disk so didn't need to be copied (typically
encountered with a .sparseimage, but the same method can be used for
other files on HFS/HFS+ volumes and on some other file systems).
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
nospam
Aug 9, 2012, 9:46:06 AM8/9/12
to
In article <vilain-244DF8....@news.individual.net>, Michael
> can't read a stop watch. Or living in a different space-time continuum.
> Or just plain wrong.
that's my point. he's delusional.
Vilain <vil...@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
> > > Again - measured with the Meridian stopwatch.
> > >
> > > So yes, it /is/ possible!
> >
> > no, it's not. something is wrong with your measurements.
> >
> > it is *not* possible to have transfer speeds faster than the
> > theoretical maximum speed of the interface.
>
> It is if you're lying. Or delusional and didn't take your meds. Or
> > > Again - measured with the Meridian stopwatch.
> > >
> > > So yes, it /is/ possible!
> >
> > no, it's not. something is wrong with your measurements.
> >
> > it is *not* possible to have transfer speeds faster than the
> > theoretical maximum speed of the interface.
>
> can't read a stop watch. Or living in a different space-time continuum.
> Or just plain wrong.
that's my point. he's delusional.
Erik Richard Sørensen
Aug 9, 2012, 10:43:55 AM8/9/12
to
>>> Late G4 models got somewhat faster, and I expect G5 models are faster
>>> again, but I've only seen USB 2.0 speeds reaching 30 MB/s on Intel Macs.
>> Hm... I have a G4 MDD (latest)
>
> By "late G4 models" I meant PowerBooks in 2005 (contemporary with late
> desktop G5 models), not PowerMacs in 2003. The overall performance of
> the USB chipset or some other factors seemed to improve between early
> PowerBook G4s and later ones, as I recall doing comparitive tests on a
> friend's final generation PowerBook G4. I can't remember the specific
> numbers we observed on that model, just that it was faster than the 17
> MB/s we got with an earlier aluminium PowerBook G4.
OK, I have the latest 17" PowerBook G4/1,67ghz (prod. jan.06). I haven't
>>> again, but I've only seen USB 2.0 speeds reaching 30 MB/s on Intel Macs.
>> Hm... I have a G4 MDD (latest)
>
> By "late G4 models" I meant PowerBooks in 2005 (contemporary with late
> desktop G5 models), not PowerMacs in 2003. The overall performance of
> the USB chipset or some other factors seemed to improve between early
> PowerBook G4s and later ones, as I recall doing comparitive tests on a
> friend's final generation PowerBook G4. I can't remember the specific
> numbers we observed on that model, just that it was faster than the 17
> MB/s we got with an earlier aluminium PowerBook G4.
made any specific USB testings on that one, but have noticed that
connecting one of my WD Essentials HDs to it, it is faster than the MDD,
but how much I can't tell.
>> and it won't give higher USB speeds than any other Mac. The G5 is a bit
>> faster but not much. A MacPro Xeon 4x2,66ghz is a lot faster than the G4s
>> and a bit faster than the G5, but here it totally depends on the tyhpe of
>> external unit used. - I've tried the USB 2.0 on the MacPro to a Mercury
>> Elite AL Pro Quad RAID harddisk. This combination is faster than anything
>> else I've tried. - A transfer of up to 40mb/sec - sometimes 45mb/sec
>> within reach if transfering large files, somewhat slower transfering
>> folders with many small files, - but still faster than the G4 and G5.
>
> That's surprisingly fast for USB 2.0, and approaching its theoretical
> limit.
card has individually powered and individually balanced USB ports, so
that might explain it. (Internal USB ports on the rear are used for
keyboard and trackball. The front USB ports are used for BlueTooth and a
docking station).
> I've never seen USB 2.0 achieve speeds faster than 35 MB/s on any
> computer, and rarely over 31 MB/s.
specs as the MacPro, - he is also experiencing the same faster speed of
the USB than with his earlier HP CoreDuo 3.2ghz.
>> I have two NewerTech MiniStack V3 with 500gb and 1tb HDs. The 500gb disk
>> is near standard when using FW400 and FW800 - very, very close to the
>> max. limit. The one with the 1tb disk is definitely faster. It isn't
>> anormal that speeds with FW400 is up as high as 65mb/sec (!)
>
> That is physically impossible.
>
> The theoretical maximum data rate over Firewire 400 is 393.216 megabits
> per second, or 49.152 megabytes per second.
>
>> - and FW800 as high as near 120mb/sec (!).
>
> Also physically impossible. The theoretical maximum data rate over
> Firewire 800 (after allowing for the 8B/10B encoding) is 98.304
> megabytes per second.
>
> Both of those limits assume zero delays and zero overhead for data
> packets and issuing commands, which cannot occur in reality. (Firewire
> 800 is full duplex so commands and data going in opposite directions
> might be able to overlap, but there will still be packet overhead and
> arbitration delays.)
>
> The bit cell timing characteristics of a particular version of Firewire
> are fixed, unless it steps down to slower rates (e.g. transferring at
> S100, S200 or S400 speeds over a faster Firewire bus). There is no way a
> hard drive or computer could transfer data about 30% faster than the
> theoretical maxium.
one disk it happens.
> Some possible explanations: you were mistaken, or some of the data was
> being read from RAM cache on the computer rather than being transferred
> over Firewire, or a file had sparse storage and some of its nominal size
> was not allocated on disk so didn't need to be copied (typically
> encountered with a .sparseimage, but the same method can be used for
> other files on HFS/HFS+ volumes and on some other file systems).
plain audio and video files.
nospam
Aug 9, 2012, 10:49:44 AM8/9/12
to
In article <5023ccab$0$285$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>, Erik Richard
there is *no* possible way you can exceed the theoretical maximum speed
of an interface. none.
> > Some possible explanations: you were mistaken, or some of the data was
> > being read from RAM cache on the computer rather than being transferred
> > over Firewire, or a file had sparse storage and some of its nominal size
> > was not allocated on disk so didn't need to be copied (typically
> > encountered with a .sparseimage, but the same method can be used for
> > other files on HFS/HFS+ volumes and on some other file systems).
>
> No sparse files or anything like that. A few ISO images, but mostly just
> plain audio and video files.
in other words, you were mistaken.
S�rensen <tu...@tulle.dk> wrote:
> >> I have two NewerTech MiniStack V3 with 500gb and 1tb HDs. The 500gb disk
> >> is near standard when using FW400 and FW800 - very, very close to the
> >> max. limit. The one with the 1tb disk is definitely faster. It isn't
> >> anormal that speeds with FW400 is up as high as 65mb/sec (!)
> >
> > That is physically impossible.
> >
> > The theoretical maximum data rate over Firewire 400 is 393.216 megabits
> > per second, or 49.152 megabytes per second.
> >
> >> - and FW800 as high as near 120mb/sec (!).
> >
> > Also physically impossible. The theoretical maximum data rate over
> > Firewire 800 (after allowing for the 8B/10B encoding) is 98.304
> > megabytes per second.
> >
> > Both of those limits assume zero delays and zero overhead for data
> > packets and issuing commands, which cannot occur in reality. (Firewire
> > 800 is full duplex so commands and data going in opposite directions
> > might be able to overlap, but there will still be packet overhead and
> > arbitration delays.)
> >
> > The bit cell timing characteristics of a particular version of Firewire
> > are fixed, unless it steps down to slower rates (e.g. transferring at
> > S100, S200 or S400 speeds over a faster Firewire bus). There is no way a
> > hard drive or computer could transfer data about 30% faster than the
> > theoretical maxium.
>
> It should be ...yes. - But nevertheless it is so but also only with this
> one disk it happens.
it *can't* happen. period.
> >> I have two NewerTech MiniStack V3 with 500gb and 1tb HDs. The 500gb disk
> >> is near standard when using FW400 and FW800 - very, very close to the
> >> max. limit. The one with the 1tb disk is definitely faster. It isn't
> >> anormal that speeds with FW400 is up as high as 65mb/sec (!)
> >
> > That is physically impossible.
> >
> > The theoretical maximum data rate over Firewire 400 is 393.216 megabits
> > per second, or 49.152 megabytes per second.
> >
> >> - and FW800 as high as near 120mb/sec (!).
> >
> > Also physically impossible. The theoretical maximum data rate over
> > Firewire 800 (after allowing for the 8B/10B encoding) is 98.304
> > megabytes per second.
> >
> > Both of those limits assume zero delays and zero overhead for data
> > packets and issuing commands, which cannot occur in reality. (Firewire
> > 800 is full duplex so commands and data going in opposite directions
> > might be able to overlap, but there will still be packet overhead and
> > arbitration delays.)
> >
> > The bit cell timing characteristics of a particular version of Firewire
> > are fixed, unless it steps down to slower rates (e.g. transferring at
> > S100, S200 or S400 speeds over a faster Firewire bus). There is no way a
> > hard drive or computer could transfer data about 30% faster than the
> > theoretical maxium.
>
> It should be ...yes. - But nevertheless it is so but also only with this
> one disk it happens.
there is *no* possible way you can exceed the theoretical maximum speed
of an interface. none.
> > Some possible explanations: you were mistaken, or some of the data was
> > being read from RAM cache on the computer rather than being transferred
> > over Firewire, or a file had sparse storage and some of its nominal size
> > was not allocated on disk so didn't need to be copied (typically
> > encountered with a .sparseimage, but the same method can be used for
> > other files on HFS/HFS+ volumes and on some other file systems).
>
> No sparse files or anything like that. A few ISO images, but mostly just
> plain audio and video files.
0 new messages