Jeff's Blog

Amazon Kindle 2.0 Wish List

2008-09-13T19:32:00.001-07:00

I've been looking at the Amazon Kindle for a while now, and have never been quite ready to take the plunge and purchase the device for its $350 asking price. Don't get me wrong - the Kindle is a fantastic little device, I think truly heralds the forthcoming e-ink revolution. However, there is a lot of room for improvement, and with the recent rumors about a forthcoming Kindle 2.0 (next year) and a "Kindle for students," I thought I would weigh in with some feature suggestions that would truly excite me:

Smaller, thinner, lighter - better design (Apple-like), black/metal (since white gets dirty)
Richer formatting: Perfect for textbooks, images, and those many newspapers & magazines
Native Document Viewer/Editor: Supporting .doc, PDF, rtf, etc., supporting direct copying via USB or wireless without having to convert the file or pay a "small fee." Being able to edit (with keyboard)/annotate/highlight said documents would be an extra special touch).
PC Viewer Software: Lightweight PC/Mac viewer, allowing us to view our Kindle purchases on our computers in full color, synced over the air with all of our annotations,bookmarks, and highlights. Being able to view richly-formated color pages would be perfect for textbooks, with diagrams, and newspapers with vibrant images.
Multi-Lingual Dictionary: As a language student, consistently reading French novels and textbooks, a multi-lingual French and French-English dictionary would be a fantastic addition to the built-in English dictionary (as long as its quick/easy to lookup needed words) - great for when reading my Le Monde newspaper subscription as well!
Touchscreen
I don't care about the media features, as I would listen to MP3's and audiobooks on my iPod anyway - focus on books and document viewing, and maybe through in some internet features to take advantage of the Whispernet (at no or a very small fee), such as:

Web browser
Google Reader RSS integration
Email reading (with push)

The Kindle gets a lot right, including cheap book prices and fantastic (repeat - fantastic) newspaper and magazine subscription options, at great prices. I especially like the international options, such as Paris's Le Monde. Hopefully, Amazon can bring more non-English/international novels and material into the kindle universe in the future. With richer formating, multi-lingual dictionary, and a native document viewer, the Kindle would be a must have device - and I would be right in line among its first buyers!

Access your FreeNAS server remotely

2008-08-30T11:44:00.002-07:00

After finally getting my FreeNAS and ZFS-based file server up and running, I've been looking at ways to access its services from remote locations outside of my home network. There are numerous ways to achieve such a feat, such a creating a VPN between your remote computer and the server. However, VPN's typically require either special software installed on the server (which FreeNAS lacks, like Hamachi) or dedicated hardware running on the network (such as a machine running OpenVPN), which I lack. FreeNAS, however, does contain SSH, allowing you to create a sudo-VPN called an "SSH tunnel." An SSH tunnel is a secure, encrypted connection between the remote computer and the file server for a specific port. Each service running on the server uses different ports, thus it is necessary to create numerous tunnels - once for each service you which to access remotely. After reading a number of online tutorials, most of which were geared towards Windows or the CLI, I discovered a very easy way to set up tunnels between a Mac OS X remote machine and the FreeNAS server, which I'll describe here in detail.

On the server/local network:

1) First, enable SSH on FreeNAS through the FreeNAS Web interface. Also, make sure allow tunneling is checked and that SSH is using port 22 (you can use another port, but I'll be using the default port 22 in this tutorial). Finally, I enabled "enable root login," but for security purposes, this can remain unchecked and you can login as a local user account (assuming one has been created on the FreeNAS server).

2) If you have a dynamic IP address, its a tremendous help to use a dynamic IP service (such as dyndns or no-ip) to provide a static host name to your ever-changing IP address. This is built-into FreeNAS, and can be enabled under "Services" on the FreeNAS web interface.

3) Prepare your router: You'll need to open up the SSH port 22 to outside access on your router.

On the Remote Mac OS X-based Computer:

4) Download two applications, SSH Tunnel Manager and Network Beacon, which will be used to graphically configure the SSH tunnels.

5) In SSH Tunnel Manager, we need to configure the different tunnels required for the services we want to access. For example, suppose you want to access Samba file shares on your FreeNAS server:

Fill in your username and password, your static host name, and SSH port (22)

Than, you need to forward a local port on your Mac to the Samba-port (usually 445) on your FreeNAS server. Under "Local redirections," you can pick any port number on your Mac (I used 5445), the "LAN Host" of "localhost" and remote port of "445." You can leave "remote redirections" blank. Then, make sure your newly created tunnel is enabled and open.

6) Network Beacon allows reporting of the local port redirections to the system via bonjour, so for example, the SSH tunnel we created above for Samba shares will appear auto-magically in the Finder. In Network Beacon, create a "New Beacon" containing the following information:

For Samba, use Service Type "_smb._tcp." and enter the local port redirection you created above (ex. 5445). Next, enable the host proxy with the host name of "localhost" and IP address of "127.0.0.1." Finally, click OK and enable the new beacon.

7) If everything was performed correctly, your FreeNAS share should now show up under "Shared" machines in the Finder, and you can connect and browse files as if you were on your local network.

Other Services:

You can also enable other service besides Samba, such as iTunes sharing. As I add more tunnels for remote services to my remote connection, I'll update this tutorial with the required ports and information.

iTunes Shares: First, you need to have the daap service running on your FreeNAS machine. For this, you need to redirect the remote port of 3689 to a local port of your choice (I just reused 3689), and then set up a Beacon with the service type "_daap._tcp." with your local port redirect (3689) and the same local host proxy as above. Then, open up iTunes and your remote iTunes server should appear under "Shared."

Optional: Finally, with SSH, you can enable the use of secure certificates between your Mac and FreeNAS server to allow logging in via SSH without having to enter a password for the FreeNAS user account. I may add the instruction on how to do this to the tutorial, but for now, there are numerous tutorials on the internet about how to do this. Note, you'll need to use the command line to accomplish this completely optional feature.

Dual-Core Atoms on the Way!!!

2008-07-28T07:38:00.000-07:00

According to MacNN:

"Intel's long-rumored dual-core Atom processor now has a fixed launch date and price, according to a late leak. The Atom 330 is now purportedly due on September 21st and will be one of Intel's most economical dual-core chips, costing $43 for a 1.6GHz chip with both the extra core as well as a larger 1MB of Level 2 cache and the same Hyperthreading support as single-core chips, effectively simulating four cores with optimized apps.

The chip is believed to consume just 8W of power and should thus work in netbooks and larger ultra-mobile PCs without significantly reducing battery life. No customers have been named to receive the new device, although the new Atom is widely expected to reach the ASUS Eee PC and similar computers shortly after its introduction.

Apple is still thought to be introducing at least one Atom-based device before the end of 2008 after a leak last year, when the processor was still under Intel's Silverthorne codename."

This is really cool news, but one I've been expecting. However, it raises an interesting question. There's no doubt that MSI and Asus will adopt the dual-core Atom for their netbooks, so should I buy a MSI Wind now (or in a month or two when the six-cell battery is available), or should I wait an unknown amount of time (possibly an extra month or two) to purchase a dual-core Wind? I'm guesstimating that a dual-core Atom would essentially double CPU performance over the current single-core 1.6GHz CPU, as well as having an increased L2 caché? If so, this would certainly be a worthwhile upgrade with little additional power usage. Ah, the joys of technology: "Should I buy now, or wait for tomorrow!"

Get the benefits of MobileMe for Cheap (or free)

2008-07-27T07:54:00.000-07:00

I’ve been investigating ways to obtain the push email, contact, and calendar synchronization of MobileMe without subscribing to its $99 a year price. For those of you that don’t know what Apple’s MobileMe is, it is a service that offers users push email (@mac.com & @me.com domains), push calendar, push contacts, push pictures, and push bookmark synchronization to/from the iPhone and Apple’s MobileMe servers in the cloud. It doesn’t, however, offer push sync from a Mac or Windows-based computer, but the MobileMe software will sync with the cloud every fifteen minutes. Additionally, the service provides some slick web interfaces to these functions (mail, calendar, contacts) that mimic the look and feel of Apple’s desktop apps (Mail, iCal, and Address Book) and a web gallery app that allows the easy creation of online photo galleries from pictures uploaded from your computer or pushed directly from the pictures you’ve taken on your iPhone. Furthermore, the rebranded .Mac service still retains the iDisk cloud storage space and provides space to publish iWeb created websites, but adds no further new features to these. Now, let me take a look at these individually, and explore ways of achieving the same effect without MobileMe.

Email: First, lets look at email. I operate my own domain, and use Google Apps for Custom Domains and Gmail to host my email accounts. This provides me with an exceptional email service, with a lot of storage space, and a nice web interface (although not as Mac-specific as MobileMe’s webmail app). Obviously, the best solution for myself and the many millions of other Gmail users in a similar situation would be for Google to offer its own push service (compatible with the iPhone, of course, barring Apple’s support), to offer MS Exchange Direct Push (which is now supported in iPhone 2.0 software), or for Apple to enable IMAP Idle support in the iPhone Mail app, which would offer push-like functionality and be compatible with Google’s mail servers. But, Google doesn’t offer push or exchange support, at least at this point, and the iPhone doesn’t support IMAP idle, which leads all of us searching for another solution. Thankfully, Gmail allows its users to forward all incoming email to another email address. If you already have access to an exchange server, you can forward your mail there and have it push it to your iPhone. If not, you can sign up for a personal exchange host online for free or low cost depending on the services you require (typically between $4.99 and $10.99 a month). I personally use a free Exchange service called Mail2Web (which also offers an upgraded version for $4.99 a month). The only inconvenience of such an approach is having to manage duplicate emails: one set on Gmail and one on the exchange server. I still use Gmail as my main account, and Mail2web serves only as somewhat of an email notification service. It would be nice, however, if the changes on one would sync with the other, but this inconvenience is a small price to pay for push mail if you don’t manage large amounts of mail per day. There are two other services available which promise to be able to synchronize a Gmail POP/IMAP account while providing a push mail through Exchange Direct Push, but I haven’t had success with one (mobiPush) and the other has yet to launch email sync (NuevaSync).

Note: I’ve had a few problems with Mail2web, such as long wait times to send mail (not immediate). I’ll post on any further problems I may experience.

Calendar & Contacts: Any Exchange server should provide you with a calendar and address book where changes gets pushed to and from your iPhone to the server. The problem, then, would be getting Exchange to sync with iCal and Address Book on your Mac or GCal and Gmail Contacts on the web. I have yet to find a solution to allow iCal to sync with Exchange (hopefully this will be built into 10.6 Snow Leopard), but its easy to do with Address Book (just enable Exchange sync; note that pictures in vcards pose a problem). I haven’t had much of a chance to research Google-Exchange sync, but will update this when and if I find an answer. Its possible, I suppose, to sync iCal to Gcal and then sync Gcal to Exchange? Likewise, perhaps one could sync Address Book with Google (possible with 10.3.3), and then sync Google to Exchange? Finally, NuevaSync supposedly offers and Exchange server that syncs with your Google Calendar and Contacts, but I haven’t been able to test it out yet. Note that its only possible to have 1 Exchange server configured on the iPhone at one time, so if you use Nuevasync for Contacts or Calendar, you can’t use another service for email (Nuevasync would be perfect once email gets up and running, assuming it works).

Note: Interestingly, it seems as though Calendars pushed/synced through MobileMe are not editable on the iPhone, which seems to defeat the purpose. I don’t know why this would be, since I thought Apple was using Exchange for MobileMe. Anyway, I will research this and update.

Photos: It’s not push, and it doesn’t sync with iPhoto over the air, but there are a few different 3^rd-party iPhone apps that allow uploading of pictures to various photo sites. This provides similar instant publishing functionality to MobileMe. I’ll update this once I test a few of the different apps.

Bookmarks: MobileMe offers bookmark push to and from the iPhone to the cloud (and then syncs every 15 minutes with your Mac), but doesn’t provide a web interface anymore to view your bookmarks. Unfortunately, I haven’t yet found a way to synchronize bookmarks with iPhone Safari over the air; nonetheless push bookmark updates to/from the iPhone. It’s technically possible for third party apps to provide such functionality, but I think accessing and modifying Safari’s bookmark store would violate Apple’s SDK terms, and thus would never be approved. Unless this changes, I assume the closest we will get will be 3^rd-party app interfaces to web bookmark service (like del.ic.ious), and perhaps an app that syncs with your bookmarks and provides a bult-in webkit browser that could be used as a Mobile Safari replacement.

iDisk (and offline access/sync): Coming Soon

Back To My Mac: Coming Soon

iWeb and Site Publishing: Coming Soon

MacBook Refresh in the Works?

2008-07-26T11:30:00.000-07:00

There has been a lot of speculation recently regarding an upcoming refresh of Apple’s MacBook and MacBook Pro notebook lines. These rumors were spurred by purported images which surfaced of a new bottom case for MacBook Pro’s which reflected some sleeker, MacBook Air inspired design curves as well as Apple’s own admission the other day of a “product refresh” later this year. Like many Mac heads, I’m rather excited about the prospects of the redesigned systems, and in addition to updating the system specs and adopting Intel’s new Centrino 3 “Montevino” architecture, I hope that above all, both models inherent design cues from the Air, and well as becoming lighter and slimmer. Furthermore, there has been a rumor in the last day or two claiming the new MacBook would gain a glass screen with iPhone-like multitouch, built-in GPS, and an accelerometer. This would also be neat! As I previously posted, there has also been rumor of an Apple netbook. Anyway, I decided to compile a short list of what I would like to see in the new models:

MacBook Air:

Faster Processor – at least 2GHz
2 USB Ports
Gigabit Ethernet Port
Upgradable Memory (2 RAM slots supporting up to 4GB)
Stereo Speakers
Audio input (Mic in)
Kensington Lock
User-Replaceable Battery
Upgraded iSight camera (the Air’s current version has less MP than other MacBooks and is fuzzy)
Cheaper Price

MacBook Pro:

MacBook Air-inspired curves and design cues
Lighter (5 pounds or less) and thinner
eSATA Port
Faster Centrino 3 Components
Multitouch?

MacBook:

Faster Centrino 3 Components
Aluminum Case (like MacBook Pro and MacBook Air, maybe even boring some design elements from the iMac’s rounded, aluminum sides– considering the iPods are all now aluminum – I really like the aluminum look, and it’s certainly more scratch/dirt repellent)
LED Backlight Display
Backlit Keyboard
eSATA port; USB 3.0 (draft) – Not especially important, I’m just wishing here!
Lighter (around 4-4.3 pounds – to compete with Windows competition)
Thinner (to compete with Windows competition)
Multitouch?

iPhone 2.0 Problems: Horrible Reception?

2008-07-25T07:51:00.000-07:00

I posted the other day about some problems I’ve experienced while using the new iPhone 2.0 software on my original iPhone. I would like to quickly revise and expand this list with one huge issue that’s bugging the *** out of me: terrible, no, deplorable, signal reception.

For the past week or so, I’ve been visiting family in Richmond, VA. I’m right in the heart of the city, a few blocks away from billboards that read “Richmond is AT&T Country,” and I have no coverage! That’s right, zero coverage - zip, nada! I’ll admit that sometimes the iPhone will change from “no service” to one or two bars, but even then, EDGE and GPRS use is very spotty and unreliable at best. Most of the time, it just won’t work at all. Furthermore, the signal completely drops and returns at whim, while the phone is stationary, and takes forever for the phone to regain a signal once a signal is lost. In fairness, I know the iPhone has worse reception than other phones (which itself is deplorable), but I know I did experience better coverage a few months ago in the same areas using an earlier version of the iPhone software (not much better, the internet was still slow and spotty, but the phone did retain some signal and it didn’t take so long to recover from a lost signal or was so quick to loose one to begin with).

The kicker, however, was when I went shopping the other night in one of the busiest parts of the city, where I had “no service.” This was standing outside, right in front of the door to an AT&T Wireless company store. This is really inexcusable! I mean, I’m paying $80 a month for service that I’m not getting. If they weren’t closed at the time, I would have walked in and demanded an answer. Is this problem specific to my iPhone, or do the store’s iPhones also exhibit the same lack of coverage? How does the iPhone signal strength compare to other manufacturer’s phones? Is there an overall lack of coverage in this particular part of the city (which I would find surprising) or in Central VA as a whole (since I have experienced the same issues elsewhere)? How about iPhone’s running earlier versions of Apple’s software verses iPhones running version 2.0? Whatever the problem is, I want answers. Is the issue with AT&T or Apple? If it resides with Apple, is it a hardware issue (poor antenna design) or a software problem, which could be corrected?

Note: Other websites and forums have reported users having extremely poor 3G signal reception with the iPhone 3G world-wide, but I haven’t read anything specific to poor reception with an original iPhone. The curious thing, however, it that just as many are reporting fantastic signals, much improved, in fact, over the original model (I would like to know how this compares to other manufacture’s phones though). Unfortunately, it all seems to somewhat be a crapshoot, and I think we deserve some type of response or fix from Apple as to what might be going on. Luckily, it seems that Apple has been testing version 2.0.1 of the iPhone software, so we can all hold out hope this update can correct things.

Finally, I’d like to pontificate further on two additional issues relating to the new iPhone 3G hardware. First, how scratchable is the new black plastic cover (specifically black)? Does it scratch like hell (like the original iPod Nano), or is it better at resisting scratches than most other plastics? Not that I would use my phone without a case, but would prefer if the iPhone wasn’t prone to scratching in the case. Second, I’ve read that Apple has removed the firewire charging pins from the iPhone 3G’s dock port, causing many out iPod accessories not to charge the iPhone 3G. I’ve been using a *** adapter n my 2005 Acura TSX for a few years now, which has worked perfectly with both my old iPod and iPhone for both charging and playing music through the car’s stereo system. I’m wondering, however, if this adapter would be able to charge an iPhone 3G, or if I were to purchase one, would I have to replace the car adapter as well? Finally, are there any adapters currently on the market that do charge the iPhone 3G for the Acura TSX? These are things I will have to research in the weeks ahead.

Netbooks: MSI Wind or a Possible Apple?

2008-07-24T10:30:00.000-07:00

Since I first read about the MSI Wind netbook back in April, I’ve been captivated. What’s not to like about it: 1.6GHz Atom processor, long battery life, and 10” screen – all at roughly 2 pounds and with an incredibly portable footprint? Adding to the intrigue, the Wind featured a dedicated overclock button, which overclocks the CPU automagically from the stock 1.6GHz to approximately 1.8GHz, which would come in extremely handy when running media intensive apps or games (unfortunately, this feature has been removed from shipping versions, apparently because MSI didn’t know how the CPU would react to overclocking in the long-term. Hopefully, this great feature will return, perhaps through software). Furthermore, all of this comes at the extremely amazing price of $499. The only drawback: it runs Windows XP (but I could live with this). After salivating over its good reviews, I’ve been waiting to click the purchase button now for over two months.

Anyone who has been following this machine would have noticed that its US release date keeps slipping. Originally scheduled to ship around June 14, the ship date was pushed back to the 2^nd week of July in limited quantities – and then only with the much smaller 3-cell battery – for essentially the same price ($479) as the 6-cell ($499). I think it’s interesting to note that the Wind, and its many clones, have been shipping in other parts of the world now for well over a month. Whatever MSI’s US distribution problems may be, it seems they don’t plague Europe and Asia – which makes me wonder whether MSI’s market focus has inched away from the North American market in sync with the ever declining dollar? Now, Newegg lists availability of the 3-cell black version as 7/26 (after slipping from 7/22) at a cost of $499 – the same retail price MSI originally announced for the six-cell. Additionally, MSI somewhat confusingly announced that the 6-cell version will be available either in late August or September (expect this to slip too). Now the question is: Do I buy the 3-cell version now, and purchase an additional 6-cell battery when it becomes available (at an unknown price), or wait an unknown amount of time for the 6-cell version to ship (Apple could refresh the MacBook or release a netbook in the meantime as well).

As a netbook, this would obviously not end up being my main computer (I would retain a Mac for that), but the Wind’s low price, light weight, and small size combine to form the perfect laptop for porting to and from university and using in the classroom for notes and on the go browsing and work. What I really would like is a MacBook Air, but since its really pricy and its performance is abysmal for the price, I feel like it would be a bad choice as my primary machine (which it would have to be at its $2,000 price). At only $500, the Wind would allow me to easily purchase both a more portable netbook for school, as well as a larger and heavier PowerBook (or MacBook). Obviously, the ideal solution would be for Apple to release netbook Mac, with MacBook Air style, and featuring identical or better specs to the Wind, running Mac OS X and possibly containing a touch screen for iPhone-like multitouch. I would gladly pay an additional premium for such a system, as long as the price would come in sub-$800. Indeed, there has been a lot of recent analyst chatter about the possibility of Apple entering the netbook (or touch tablet) market, possibly this fall or early next year (I remain skeptical, however, due to netbooks relatively low profit margins). This would certainly be a welcome, and highly aggressive move for Apple to attack and likely dominate a whole new and fast growing segment of the electronics and computing industry.

iPhone 3G & 2.0 Software: Problems, Updates, & Feature Requests

2008-07-23T10:45:00.001-07:00

Numerous problems and feature requests I had for with the original iPhone were fixed on the iPhone 3G and/or iPhone 2.0 software. For example, the iPhone software now supports multiple calendars, supports exchange and direct push, allows WiFi with Flight Mode, while iPhone apps. eliminates the need for Apple to create dedicated widgets for things like news, sports, or movies. Likewise, the iPhone 3G’s hardware has been updated with 3G support, and thankfully, no recessed headphone jack (so you no longer have to use adapters). These updates are great, but there are still a lot of things I’d like to see added to the iPhone in the future, and there are unfortunately a few problems I’ve experienced with the current 2.0 software that I’d like to see corrected in the short term. What follows is a somewhat lengthy post, listing in detail the problems I have with the 2.0 software, and both software and hardware feature requests for the future.

iPhone 2.0 Software Problems:

· The iPhone (2.0 software) has horrible reception on original iPhone; frequiently no signal at all or very low reception with slow or non-existent EDGE or GPRS

· The iPhone (2.0 software) has horrible battery life (especially with games)

· App and Keyboard slowdown after using the iPhone for a while

· Internet Explorer locking up and causing the iPhone to restart after browsing

· Better cache support in Safari – (Currently, immediately going back a page or two results in fully reloading each page (or after Safari crashes), which is extremely frustrating, slow, and cumbersome on EDGE or GPRS and doesn’t provide a desktop browsing experience.)

· SMS: Currently no indication of SMS character limit when writing a message that will be split into 2 or more SMS messages; Entry area is too small (can’t see entire message you a writing without drag-scrolling)

Software Requests I’d Like to See - Now!!!:

· Background “Push Notifications” (Coming in September)

· IMAP Idle Support (push mail for IMAP; like Mail.app for Leopard supports)

· Gmail Push Mail (& calandar/contacts push sync - see below; works with Google apps accounts)

· Google Calendar and Address Book Synchronization (OTA Push - SyncML???)

· Tasks in Calendar (with Exchange Sync support)

· Copy/Paste

· Safari: Open Link in New Window; bookmark seperators

· Flash Support (in Safari, app. frameworks, and flv movie viewing)

· Tasks in Calendar (with Exchange Sync support)

· Voice Command/Voice Dialing

· Notes Desktop Syncing

· Voice Notes (in Notes.app)

Software Requests I’d Like to See Sometime (the sooner, the better):

· Mail: Two-Pane view (was in iPhone when originally previewed at MacWorld 07); Option to “Go back to inbox” after deleting a message (instead of opening next message); Unified Email Inbox (All accounts in one inbox)

· iPod: Searching (available in iTunes Remote app.); iPhone playlist creation/rearanging; folders (available in iTunes Remote.app.); Song/Playlist editing/creation on iPhone and searching in iPod application (and playlist folders from iTunes support)

· Photos: Ability to rotate photos, tag, star, rename etc. to photos and new camera images

· Calendar: Appointments to exact minute (not just in 5 minute increments)

· Camera: Digital zooming and stabilization; video recording

· Photo Booth and camera effects in iChat and pictures

· Safari: ~~RSS reader~~, offline support (like Gears)

· SMS: MMS Support; Option to view SMS messages individually as opposed to threaded.

· “Today” like information listing tasks and messages on lock screen

· “Don’t Ask Again” support for the annoying “This device not made for iPhone. Enable Flight Mode?” message – Remember preferences.

· Automatic Profiles (according to schedule – not sure how it would work with hardware switch though)

· Pop-Up notifications for new email (like with text messages)

· Show daily calendar events on the lock screen

· Horizontal viewing support in iCal, widgets, maps, mail (Bug: Safari should switch to horizontal when rotated and keyboard is open).

· File browser for file Uploads on websites and in email (like pictures)

· Dictionary/Thesaurus and Spell Check

· iChat Mobile (with video chat - requires front-facing camera)

· Landscape keyboard support in all apps. (such as mail/calendar/notes)

· External Document viewer/filesystem for downloading documents/files from computer or over-the-air and then viewing them on the iPhone (outside of Mail or Safari)

Hardware Feature Requests (for iPhone 3.0):

Faster processor, more memory (so iPhone is faster, and more responsive – can support more features, and games can support increased graphics)
Longer battery life
Slimmer, Lighter (without scratchable plastic back & silver bezel)
Increase Mega-Pixels & Front-Facing Camera (for video chats)
Tactile feedback on screen (for typing, games, etc.)
MagSafe magnetic dock connectors (retaining compatibility with existing dock connector)

Gmail Labs Finally Available for Google Apps!

2008-06-18T14:58:00.001-07:00

Wow, the Gmail Labs feature I blogged about a week or two ago has finally been enabled for my Google Apps account! So, now I have a little less of a complaint with Google. However, it would be nice if they could roll out updates immediately to Google Apps and avoid these sort of delays!!!

Gmail Labs - Not for apps users!

2008-06-11T11:00:00.000-07:00

Late last week, Google added a new feature called "Gmail Labs" to Gmail. It consists of a tab in the "Settings," which allows you to add some new mini-features to Gmail. The features were all created by Google developers in their free time, and Google promises more to come. Some are neat and useful, others (like the snake game) are just ridiculous. I'm glad Google is rolling out these features to its users instead of just keeping them in-house.

However, once again, Google has yet to role out Gmail Labs to Google Apps users, in an apparent repeat of the long wait last fall for Gmail 2.0 to roll out. Around the end of last year (2 months after the initial roll out), Google announced a new option for Google Apps. administrators to "Enable new features" as soon as they roll out. I was hoping this would keep the apps code base in line with the regular code-base when new features were to be rolled out in the future, thus delivering new features immediately to Google Apps users and not making them feel like second class citizens. This doesn't seem to be the case. I understand that Google intends Google Apps to be an "enterprise" system, and as such needs to be completely stable, but at least provide an option for those of us that want new features and want them immediately!

Firefox 3 Bookmarks are Awful!

2008-06-10T17:06:00.005-07:00

Like many power-users, I typically use multiple browsers on my Macs - specifically: Safari, FireFox, and Camino. During my recent experimentation with FireFox 3, I fell in love with the new staring and tagging features which are part of the software's bookmarks overhaul, and decided I may try using it as my primary browser (bumping Safari). Furthermore, I've been using the Foxmark extension to synchronize my Firefox bookmarks from Windows with those on my Mac, and it works great! Here's my problem: Cross-browser Synchronization.

I currently use Bookit to synchronize my Safari & Camino bookmarks. While I don't use Camino as much as I used to, I still use it as my "primary" bookmarks, only to keep the separators which Safari doesn't support. Now, I'd like to add Firefox to my Bookit routine, but Bookit doesn't yet support Firefox 3. So, I tried Bookdog. While I don't like its interface very much, Bookdog supports Firefox 3 seems to work well for synchronization, but unlike Bookit, Bookdog will only will synchronize 2 browsers at one time. Bookdog also exposed a very serious problem I have with Firefox 3: No root bookmark folders.

Apparently, the new bookmark system in FireFox 3 no longer allows keeping bookmarks in folders. It seems FireFox has depreciated the traditional bookmark folder hierarchy structure in favor of tagging and keywords. I'm all for tagging, but as an enhancement or alternative to the traditional way and not a complete replacement. Folders can be created, but they have to be put under either "Unsorted Bookmarks," "Bookmark Menu," or "Toolbar Menu." This means I can't migrate my existing bookmarks directly from Safari, Camino, or FireFox 2 to Firefox 3 because I have thousands of bookmarks saved in dozens of bookmark folder at the root level of my Safari/Camino/Firefox 2 bookmark list. While I can add these bookmark folders to "Unsorted Bookmarks" or "Bookmarks Menu" in Firefox 3, they would end up syncing this way back to Safari/Camino throwing off these browsers bookmark lists.

I remember years and years ago when all bookmarks had to be kept under the "Bookmark Menu" folder. Then, browsers got smart, and allowed you to create folders to suit your organization style. Now, it seems, in an effort to move bookmarks forward, FireFox has actually gone backwards, returning us to those ugly bookmark organization days of yore. This is quite unfortunate because it greatly complicates my cross-platform bookmark sync plan, and means I won't be able to sync my Firefox and Safari bookmarks at all (which really means I'll probably stick with Safari and won't be using FireFox 3 much on my Mac, even though I do like many of its other features).

Windows Live Writer Test Post

2008-06-06T16:13:00.000-07:00

This is a test post to my Blogger-hosted blog from Windows Live Writer running on Windows XP in a VirtualBox virtual machine on Ubuntu 8.0.4.

Now, if only I can figure out how I can get drafts working with Blogger and how much system resources these Windows Live apps (like Mail and Photo Gallery) take, I'll be set!

Rsync & Solaris Problems

2008-05-24T13:20:00.007-07:00

In my last blog, I posted some rsync test results from the BackupBouncer Mac metadata test suite, running against both a Mac-based ZFS file system and a ZFS-based Solaris server. Today, I'm going to discuss both my testing methodology and some pretty big problems I've ran into with rsync on Solaris. First off, I've compiled rsync 3.0.3 (pre2) with the fileflags and crtimes patches on both my Mac and Solaris. On Solaris, the crtimes patch wouldn't compile, so it was left out. With the same version of rsync running on both systems, I began my tests.

According to Mike Bombich (Mac backup expert and developer of CarbonCopyCloner) it is necessary to use a few specific flags to successfully backup Mac metadata: -X for extended attributes; -A for ACLs; -H for hard-links; and --fileflags for Mac file flags. Additionally, Bombich threw in a few additional flags in his recommended script: -N (unknown); --protect-args; --force-change; -a (archive mode); and -x ("don't cross filesystem boundaries". I'm not sure the utility of some of these commands, but I will include them because Bombich suggests it. The surprising result: numourous flags seem incompatable with the Solaris-compiled rsync.

The results (and rsync error message) are below:

-X won’t work (xtended attributes are not supported on this server)
-H will work
-A won’t work (recv_acl_access: value out of range: 8000)
-x will work
--fileflags won’t work (on remote machine: --fileflags: unknown option)
--protect-args works
--force-change won’t work (on remote machine: --force-change: unknown option)
-N (??) won’t work (on remote machine: -svnlHogDtNprxze.iL: unknown option)

What does this mean? Well, it seems the flags necessary to make rsync backup Mac data properly (specifically -X, --fileflags, & -A) are not supported on Solaris. Thus, when running rsync without these flags, rsync doesn't backup Mac metadata and BackupBouncer reports its very poor score. This leaves the utility of a Solaris-based NAS for a Mac backup server is serious question.

I then ran a rsync --version on both the Mac and Solaris versions of rsync 3.0.3 (pre2). Here are the capabilities reported, which seem to echo the above results.

Mac: rsync version 3.0.3pre2 protocol version 30
Capabilities:
64-bit files, 32-bit inums, 32-bit timestamps, 64-bit long ints,
socketpairs, hardlinks, symlinks, IPv6, batchfiles, inplace,
append, ACLs, xattrs, iconv, symtimes, file-flags

Solaris: rsync version 3.0.3pre2 protocol version 30
Capabilities:
64-bit files, 64-bit inums, 32-bit timestamps, 64-bit long ints,
socketpairs, hardlinks, symlinks, no IPv6, batchfiles, inplace,
append, ACLs, no xattrs, iconv, no symtimes, no file-flags

Unfortunately, the necessary flags are seemingly just not supported in Solaris rsync. However, this doesn't explain the results I received when running Mac rsync to a SMB share of the Solaris server (never calling the incompatible Solaris rsync). These numbers are almost as poor as running through the Solaris rsync. Me

I will note, however, that the -A (ACL) flag may actually be supported by rsync, but reports a "out of range" error message. I'm going to research what might be going on here, as the Mac ACL numbers may be incompatible with Solaris (thus a Solaris issue and not an rsync issue).

Finally, I'd like to comment on the ZFS filesystem in general. It seems ZFS, at least on the Mac, has relatively good support for Mac metadata. I really have to applaud both the Sun ZFS and Apple ZFS teams here. According to BackupBouncer, old historical Mac-only data, such as resource-forks and Finder locks are some of the few things that fail the Mac-based ZFS test; and these things arn't typically used anymore on OS X. Furthermore, Mac ZFS fails the "devices," "xattrs + rsrc forks" and "lots of metadata" tests.

Mac Metadata, ZFS, and Solaris

2008-05-24T11:18:00.006-07:00

Ok, this does not look so good! If you've been following my blog, I've begun a project to build and explore a Solaris-based ZFS NAS server to serve as both a file server and backup server for my Mac network. After exploring various backup solutions (in a previous post), I finally decided on rsync 3 to perform my backups due to its perfect support of Mac metadata as tested through the BackupBouncer test suite. You can view the BackupBouncer results for rsync, rdiff-backup, ditto, and a few other apps. to a Mac OS X 10.5-based host and a HFS+ filesystem in a previous post. This time, however, I decided to test rsync 3 to both an OS X-based ZFS filesystem (currently in beta) as well as to my Solaris ZFS test server via both SSH and a mounted SMB share. The results are interesting, and understandably a little concerning!

Rsync 3.0.3 pre2 & Mac-Based ZFS; Direct Local Copy, Full Args:
Verifying: basic-permissions ... ok
Verifying: timestamps ...
Sub-test: modification time ... ok
ok
Verifying: symlinks ... ok
Verifying: symlink-ownership ... ok
Verifying: hardlinks ... ok
Verifying: resource-forks ... grep: some-file/rsrc: Not a directory
FAIL
Verifying: finder-flags ... ok
Verifying: finder-locks ... FAIL
Verifying: creation-date ... FAIL
Verifying: bsd-flags ... ok
Verifying: extended-attrs ...
Sub-test: on files ... ok
Sub-test: on directories ... ok
Sub-test: on symlinks ... ok
ok
Verifying: access-control-lists ...
Sub-test: on files ... ok
Sub-test: on dirs ... ok
ok
Verifying: fifo ... ok
Verifying: devices ... FAIL
Verifying: combo-tests ...
Sub-test: xattrs + rsrc forks ... FAIL
Sub-test: lots of metadata ... FAIL
FAIL

Rsync 3.0.3 pre2 & Mac-Based ZFS using SSH and Full Args:
Verifying: basic-permissions ... ok
Verifying: timestamps ...
Sub-test: modification time ... ok
ok
Verifying: symlinks ... ok
Verifying: symlink-ownership ... ok
Verifying: hardlinks ... ok
Verifying: resource-forks ... grep: some-file/rsrc: Not a directory
FAIL
Verifying: finder-flags ... ok
Verifying: finder-locks ... FAIL
Verifying: creation-date ... FAIL
Verifying: bsd-flags ... ok
Verifying: extended-attrs ...
Sub-test: on files ... FAIL
Sub-test: on directories ... ok
Sub-test: on symlinks ... ok
FAIL
Verifying: access-control-lists ...
Sub-test: on files ... ok
Sub-test: on dirs ... ok
ok
Verifying: fifo ... ok
Verifying: devices ... FAIL
Verifying: combo-tests ...
Sub-test: xattrs + rsrc forks ... FAIL
Sub-test: lots of metadata ... FAIL
FAIL

Rsync 3.0.3 pre2 & Mac-Based ZFS using SSH and Limited Args (Solaris/rsync compatible args):
Verifying: basic-permissions ... ok
Verifying: timestamps ...
Sub-test: modification time ... ok
ok
Verifying: symlinks ... ok
Verifying: symlink-ownership ... ok
Verifying: hardlinks ... ok
Verifying: resource-forks ... grep: some-file/rsrc: Not a directory
FAIL
Verifying: finder-flags ... FAIL
Verifying: finder-locks ... FAIL
Verifying: creation-date ... FAIL
Verifying: bsd-flags ... ok
Verifying: extended-attrs ...
Sub-test: on files ... FAIL
Sub-test: on directories ... FAIL
Sub-test: on symlinks ... FAIL
FAIL
Verifying: access-control-lists ...
Sub-test: on files ... FAIL
Sub-test: on dirs ... FAIL
FAIL
Verifying: fifo ... ok
Verifying: devices ... FAIL
Verifying: combo-tests ...
Sub-test: xattrs + rsrc forks ... FAIL
Sub-test: lots of metadata ... FAIL
FAIL

Rsync 3.0.3 pre2 & Solaris ZFS via Direct Copy to Mounted SMB Share, Full Args:
Verifying: basic-permissions ... FAIL
Verifying: timestamps ...
stat: ./some-file: stat: No such file or directory
Sub-test: modification time ... FAIL
FAIL
Verifying: symlinks ... ok
Verifying: symlink-ownership ... FAIL
Verifying: hardlinks ... stat: link1: stat: No such file or directory
FAIL
Verifying: resource-forks ... grep: some-file/rsrc: Not a directory
FAIL
Verifying: finder-flags ... ok
Verifying: finder-locks ... FAIL
Verifying: creation-date ... ok
Verifying: bsd-flags ... ok
Verifying: extended-attrs ...
Sub-test: on files ... ok
Sub-test: on directories ... ok
Sub-test: on symlinks ... ok
ok
Verifying: access-control-lists ...
Sub-test: on files ... FAIL
Sub-test: on dirs ... FAIL
FAIL
Verifying: fifo ... FAIL
Verifying: devices ... FAIL
Verifying: combo-tests ...
cmp: EOF on /Volumes/Src/99-combo-tests/xattr-with-rfork/..namedfork/rsrc
Sub-test: xattrs + rsrc forks ... FAIL
cmp: EOF on /Volumes/Src/99-combo-tests/many-metadata/..namedfork/rsrc
Sub-test: lots of metadata ... FAIL
FAIL

Rsync 3.0.3 pre2 & Solaris ZFS via SSH; Limited Solaris/rsync Compatible Args:
Verifying: basic-permissions ... FAIL
Verifying: timestamps ...
Sub-test: modification time ... ok
ok
Verifying: symlinks ... FAIL
Verifying: symlink-ownership ... FAIL
Verifying: hardlinks ... FAIL
Verifying: resource-forks ... grep: some-file/rsrc: Not a directory
FAIL
Verifying: finder-flags ... FAIL
Verifying: finder-locks ... FAIL
Verifying: creation-date ... FAIL
Verifying: bsd-flags ... ok
Verifying: extended-attrs ...
Sub-test: on files ... FAIL
Sub-test: on directories ... FAIL
Sub-test: on symlinks ... FAIL
FAIL
Verifying: access-control-lists ...
Sub-test: on files ... FAIL
Sub-test: on dirs ... FAIL
FAIL
Verifying: fifo ... FAIL
Verifying: devices ... FAIL
Verifying: combo-tests ...
Sub-test: xattrs + rsrc forks ... FAIL
Sub-test: lots of metadata ... FAIL
FAIL

I'll explain the different rsync commands and arguments I've used for these tests in my next post, as I explain some rsync and metadata problems I've been experiencing on Solaris.

Home Server: Potential Problems

2008-04-22T16:00:00.002-07:00

I've come up with a list of problems I will have, or could run into, as I embarking on building my Solaris-based open server in the coming weeks:

Solaris/Linux Hardware Compatibility: I don't know whether my hardware is fully compatible (ex. NIC, GPU) with Solaris, and the Solaris Hardware Compatibility lists are incomplete. Let's hope everything goes ok!
Bootloading: I will have to configure a bootloader, probably GRUB, with all of my different OS's. I have previously experimented with GRUB, and I didn't like it. It seemed too complicated, and I was never able to understand how to add OS's. Maybe there is a better alternative than GRUB?
General *NIX Ineptitude: I have very limited CLI experience, mainly from using OS X's Terminal app. lightly. If it comes down to having to enter shell commands in order to enable or fix things, I won't know what to do unless I have a tutorial to follow.
Networking Protocols: Which networking protocol should I use to share my files? SMB/CIFS? NFS? Should I try to install AFP on Solaris? What about iSCSCI? or mDNS (Bonjour) for automatic discovery with my Macs?
Server Access: How will I go about remotely accessing my server to perform admin tasks and browse files and snapshots. This is easy. More than likely, I'll just use whatever networking protocol I decide on. I may also enable some of the following: SSH; FTP; VNC; media serving?
rsync Script: I will need both a shell script & a Launchd/CRON job for automatic, hourly backups from my Mac to the file server (however, what happens if I sleep my Mac while a backup is in progress; can I get any notification while a backup is in progress or if one completes successfully?)
ZFS Snapshot Creation Script: I will need a script, running preferably on the server, to create a snapshot using the current date/time as a name upon successful rsync backup.
ZFS Snapshot Management Script: I will need a script, running preferably on the server, to manage ZFS snapshots (deleting old snapshots)
Remote Backup: This isn't so much a problem as it is a curiosity. Which online backup service should I use once I get my server up and running, and whether I should backup from my Mac or from the server (Some considerations: Mozy, Amazon S3, JungleDisk, etc. - I'm currently using Mozy on my Mac, which is not available for Solaris)
Server Sleep: Can the server enter either S1 or S3 sleep, and automatically be woken by attempted network access?
Windows+ZFS Compatibility: How to get around Window's incompatibility with the ZFS pool. I think I will use my proposed FAT or NTFS "Windows Storage" drive, and copy files back and forth when I know I will need them. Oh, can Solaris read NTFS? If not, I will have an additional problem. Another option would be to create a separate Solaris virtual machine inside Windows to use as a bridge.

I think the hardest aspects will be finding the necessary scripts (since I wouldn't know where to begin to write one myself) and the GRUB configuration. I will update this post when I come up with some answers.

What about TimeMachine?

2008-04-21T15:00:00.000-07:00

In my last post on backup strategies, I completely neglected mentioning TimeMachine. So, I have decided to devote an entire post to it. For those unfamiliar, TimeMachine is a backup feature in Apple's Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard" operating system. TimeMachine has some good and interesting features. To start off with, it's heavily integrated into the OS, automatically executing hourly or when a disk is connected to backup your entire disk to another drive. The application uses hard links to save space for incrementals, and keeps hourlies for a day, dailies for a week, and weeklies for a month. The system will automatically delete the oldest backup if it needs to recover space for the latest (after alerting the user). Furthermore, TimeMachine has the famous, and often criticized, "time warp" interface which shows your present disk in the foreground, with your previous snapshots disappearing into the endless black hole. Essentially, underneath the unnecessary eye candy, are instances of the regular Finder interface. You can flick back and forth between snashots and present, fully browse the, and even use Spotlight to search for a specific file. You can restore an entire snapshot or a specific file. Additionally, the Leopard start-up DVD allows restoration of a TimeMachine snapshot.

All of this seems fantastic, and indeed it generally is. However, TimeMachine is lacking a few features and exhibits numerous bugs that keep me from wanting to use it. TimeMachine only supports HFS+ formatted target disks or disk images. It can use an internal partition, an external USB disk, and a USB disk connected to an Airport Express (called an AirDisk) only. No backing up to another system or server, which means I can't use TimeMachine to backup to a ZFS-based storage pool (even if it has a HFS+ disk image residing on it). TimeMachine also doesn't support delta-transfer, which means if a large file changes, it copies the entire file as opposed to just the bits that changed (like rsync does). One potential plus that TimeMachine has going for it is its use of Leopard's FSevent API to dynamically see changes on the disk without having to scrub the entire filesystem at each backup looking at modification times like every other backup solution does (including rsync). This should allow relatively instantaneous backups, cutting out time a typical program takes to scrub. I use the would "potentially" because it doesn't really work like it should. For unknown reasons, TimeMachine is incredibly slow. It takes forever once started, seemingly stuck on "preparing backup" before files even begin to copy (reminiscence of a scrub). Once files start copying, they go slowly with frequent pauses in the backup stream. Literally, the initial backup of an 80GB disk connected via USB 2.0 could take upwards of 5-6 hours. I've had subsequent backups, even ones with less than 100MB to backup, take upwards of an hour (mostly on the "preparing" stage). Furthermore, I have had numerous problems where TimeMachine refuses to backup to its backup store, and the only fix is to all of your backups and start fresh. Unfortunately, deleting all of the files (including hardlinks) off of an HFS+ disk takes forever (hours and hours), so I recommend reformatting the entire partition/drive or deleting or recreating the disk image. In fact, I recommend just using disk images altogether!

Personally, I find it a pain to have to connect a disk to my laptop to do a backup. If so, I'm only likely to backup a few times a week (if that), which entirly defeats the purpose. To fix this, I've decided to connect my USB drive to my Airport and use it as an AirDisk. Recently, Apple added support to use an AirDisk like its TimeCapsule product. Again, this is tightly integrated. TimeMachine creates a sparse image on the AirDisk, and automatically mounts it whenever a backup begins and unmounts it when finished. This is fantastic! However, my PowerBook uses 802.11g (no n for me yet), so I'm stuck with extremely slow wireless transfers. This further exaggerates TimeMachine's general sluggishness I mentioned earlier. Even connecting via gigabit ethernet, backups are still slow. The worst problem lies in browsing snapshots via the TimeMachine interface, which is so slow over 802.11g its almost unusable. Finally, an AirDisk or USB drive are not redundant, meaning a crash would destroy all backup data (making TimeMachine not an enterprise backup solution).

I really like TimeMachine, but because of its slowness and buggy operation, I'm left searching for another backup solution that offers me some more flexibility (thus, my last post). I do, however, think TimeMachine has a very bright future! Apple will be tweaking it with Leopard point updates, and may very well eradicate the bugs I've experienced and speed up its general sluggishness. Hopefully, it will! One thing I'd really like to see, is snapshot support in the Finder without having to open the TimeMachine interface (such as previous version in the contextual menu). Furthermore, its very possible that in future OS X versions, TimeMachine could support delta-transfers and even ZFS!!! With these feature additions, FSEvent used to its full potential, combined with greater scheduling and target drive flexibility (including network drives), TimeMachine would truly be a world-class backup product I would relish coming back to.

Possible Homeserver & Backup Solutions

2008-04-20T17:28:00.005-07:00

When I built my latest computer last December, I had the intention of using it as a backup and home file server for other computers on my network, mainly my PowerBook. Once built, however, I installed Windows on it (because I don't have an Intel-based Mac) and began playing with different operating systems. The file server idea got delayed, and I'm just about ready to pick it up again. The problem is, I will periodically need to use Windows, which won't be able to access my ZFS pool from my server. I can't get around this until ZFS for Windows is available, so I'm thinking about the following solution (barring any compatibility conflicts).

Current hardware:

1 500GB SATA HD
1 150GB PATA HD
1 100GB PATA HD

Partition Idea:

Use the 100GB HD as the OS drive, partitioned into the following:
10GB Solaris Partition - (File-server OS - either Solaris Nevada or OpenSolaris Indiana)
5-10GB *nix Partition - (for Indiana or Ubuntu)
10GB Windows Vista Partition
20-25GB Test OS Partition
45-50GB (aprox.) Windows XP Partition
Use the 150GB drive as Windows compatible storage (NTFS)
Use the 500GB SATA drive and additional to-be-purchased drives for ZFS storage pool

Backup Strategy:

I have a couple options when it comes to a potential backup strategy for my new fileserver, which I will explore below. Assume the backup sources are running either the HFS+ filesystem or NTFS filesystems, and the backup target is running ZFS.

rsync: Use rsync to make delta backups to the file-server (no incrementals or old data would be kept)
rsync + ZFS Snapshots: Use rsync to make delta backups to the file-server, and automatic ZFS snapshots to keep incrementals
rsyncsnapshot: Script uses rsync to make delta backups to the file-server, which keeps incrementals through rotated hard-links.
rdiff-backup: Makes delta backups to file-server, and keeps incrementals as diffs
ZFS send/receive: Use built in ZFS commands to send delta ZFS file-system snapshots from a ZFS source to either a ZFS target or an archive file (incrementals kept via snapshot on ZFS target; no incrementals kept in archive file?)

I would obviously like to take advantage of aspects of the ZFS filesystem, specifically snapshots, so this sways my choice a little bit, but here are some pros and cons for the differing solutions:

rsync: Pros (uses rsync engine, fast) Cons (no incrementals)
rsync + ZFS: Pros (uses rsync engine, fast, ZFS snapshots for incrementals) Cons (???)
rsyncsnapshot: Pros (uses rsync engine) Cons (slow?, hard-link incrementals?)
rdiff-backup: Pros (incrementals as diffs) Cons (slow, bad Mac meta-data support, must use rdiff-backup to browse/restore diffs)
ZFS Send/Receive: Pros (all ZFS) Cons (source filesystems not running ZFS)

So, I like the rsync engine. It performs very well, and has perfect Mac meta-data support. However, plain rsync won't work, since it doesn't keep incrementals. I still need to do some more testing with rsyncsnapshot, but my limited testing indicates it is dog slow. The most cons seem to be with rdiff-backup, and I can't use plain ZFS send/receive because my source to be backup is not yet running ZFS.

This leaves me with one very promising option: rsync + ZFS. I get to use rsync's delta copies combined with ZFS's efficient snapshot feature. A seemingly win-win! Here's the only problem I can forsee: I have to find some sort of script to either automatically create a ZFS snapshot on the target upon completion of a rsync backup, or have the target automatically take snapshots at certain times (and name them after the time). Furthermore, I will need a script that can manage my snapshots automatically, keeping a given number of snapshots (such as 24 hourlies, 7 dailies, and 4 weeklies) and delete snapshots that exceed this. It is too complicated and time-consuming to manually manage the barrage of ZFS snapshots that would be created.

BackupBouncer Metadata tests

2008-04-03T15:40:00.003-07:00

I've recently been experimenting with different backup tools in order to find something more effective than Time Machine to use for my daily backup. Backup-Bouncer is an amazing test suit created by Nate Gray for the sole purpose of checking how well backup and file copy tools preserve all of the different types of metadata inherent in Mac OS X. I, as most people do, consider a backup tool to be ineffective if metadata is not preserved or is handled incorrectly. After scouring the tubes for some Backup-Bouncer results for common *nix backup tools, and not finding any, I decided to run my own and came up with some very interesting results:

Ditto (on 10.5):

Verifying: basic-permissions ... ok

Verifying: timestamps ...

Sub-test: modification time ... ok

Verifying: symlinks ... ok

Verifying: symlink-ownership ... FAIL

Verifying: hardlinks ... ok

Verifying: resource-forks ... ok

Verifying: finder-flags ... ok

Verifying: finder-locks ... ok

Verifying: creation-date ... FAIL

Verifying: bsd-flags ... FAIL

Verifying: extended-attrs ...

Sub-test: on files ... ok

Sub-test: on directories ... ok

Sub-test: on symlinks ... ok

Verifying: access-control-lists ...

Sub-test: on files ... FAIL

Sub-test: on dirs ... ok

FAIL

Verifying: fifo ... ok

Verifying: devices ... ok

Verifying: combo-tests ...

Sub-test: xattrs + rsrc forks ... ok

Sub-test: lots of metadata ... FAIL

FAIL

rdiff-backup 1.1.15:

Verifying: basic-permissions ... ok

Verifying: timestamps ...

Sub-test: modification time ... ok

Verifying: symlinks ... ok

Verifying: symlink-ownership ... ok

Verifying: hardlinks ... ok

Verifying: resource-forks ... ok

Verifying: finder-flags ... FAIL

Verifying: finder-locks ... FAIL (edited: originally ok)

Verifying: creation-date ... ok

Verifying: bsd-flags ... ok (edited: originally failed)

Verifying: extended-attrs ...

Sub-test: on files ... ok

Sub-test: on directories ... ok

Sub-test: on symlinks ... FAIL (edited: originally ok)

Verifying: access-control-lists ...

Sub-test: on files ... FAIL (edited: originally ok)

Sub-test: on dirs ... FAIL (edited: originally ok)

Verifying: fifo ... ok

Verifying: devices ... ok

Verifying: combo-tests ...

Sub-test: xattrs + rsrc forks ... ok

Sub-test: lots of metadata ... FAIL

FAIL

Note: I have updated the above rdiff-backup rtest result to reflect some new results I've received. I think I must have errored on the previous test, because the above results have been constant through numerous trials. Additionally, I have discovered through some research that rdiff-backup doesn't support (yet) ACL's on Mac OS X with the pylibacl python extension, which would explain the ACL failures. rdiff-backup uses the python xattrs library, which seems to not fully support attributes in symlinks, as well as finder-flags and finder-locks (finder-locks may be on purpose to allow file deletion by the app). It's possible I'm using the xattrs library wrong, so I will conduct further tests and report back. I would really like to use rdiff-backup, but wish its Mac support was stronger!

Rsync-3.0.1 pre2 (Patched):

Verifying: basic-permissions ... ok

Verifying: timestamps ...

Sub-test: modification time ... ok

Verifying: symlinks ... ok

Verifying: symlink-ownership ... ok

Verifying: hardlinks ... ok

Verifying: resource-forks ... ok

Verifying: finder-flags ... ok

Verifying: finder-locks ... ok

Verifying: creation-date ... ok

Verifying: bsd-flags ... ok

Verifying: extended-attrs ...

Sub-test: on files ... ok

Sub-test: on directories ... ok

Sub-test: on symlinks ... ok

Verifying: access-control-lists ...

Sub-test: on files ... ok

Sub-test: on dirs ... ok

Verifying: fifo ... ok

Verifying: devices ... ok

Verifying: combo-tests ...

Sub-test: xattrs + rsrc forks ... ok

Sub-test: lots of metadata ... ok

rsync (Apple supplied leopard default with -E flag):

Verifying: basic-permissions ... ok

Verifying: timestamps ...

Sub-test: modification time ... ok

Verifying: symlinks ... ok

Verifying: symlink-ownership ... ok

Verifying: hardlinks ... FAIL

Verifying: resource-forks ... ok

Verifying: finder-flags ... ok

Verifying: finder-locks ... FAIL

Verifying: creation-date ... FAIL

Verifying: bsd-flags ... ok

Verifying: extended-attrs ...

Sub-test: on files ... ok

Sub-test: on directories ... ok

Sub-test: on symlinks ... FAIL

FAIL

Verifying: access-control-lists ...

Sub-test: on files ... ok

Sub-test: on dirs ... ok

Verifying: fifo ... ok

Verifying: devices ... ok

Verifying: combo-tests ...

Sub-test: xattrs + rsrc forks ... ok

Sub-test: lots of metadata ... ok

As these tests show, the standard Apple-provided and modified backup tools, rsync and ditto, fail the test! Ditto performed the worst, not being able to copy 5 different types of metadata. rdiff-backup performs slightly better. However, the champion would have to be rsync 3.1, which passed every single test thrown at it with flying colors - hands down the best performance I've seen from any backup or copy tool!

Note: I didn't test duplicity or rsnapshot, but assume duplicity would perform like rdiff-backup (uses same core) and rsnapshot like rsync (since it uses rsync - just make sure its using rsync 3!) Box-backup is a little more advanced/complicated than I want to delve into at the moment, so I didn't test it.

New Backup Strategy?

2008-04-01T19:29:00.006-07:00

I've been doing a lot of research recently to determine the best way to improve my current backup scheme, which consists of Mozy for online backups and Apple's Time Machine for local backups. I've documented my Mozy issues in a different post, so I will briefly comment on my problems with TimeMachine: It's slow, resource intensive, and unreliable; and its slow! I'm currently backing up to a USB drive connected as an AirDisk with my Apple Airport Express Basestation. Its very convenient (always available and not having to consistently run my home server), but slow - not just over 802.11g, but also when connected via gigabit ethernet. However, my bigger problem lies with Time Machine (not AirDisk), although both could be a lot faster. Did I mention Time Machine was slow? Anyway, here are the backup apps I'm looking at:

rsync 3.0.1: The gold standard - delta encoding, perfect Mac OS meta-data support, SSH-remote transfer; browsable files on a system; excellent Mac meta-data support (Cons: no versioning; no built-in encryption or compression???)
rsnapshot: Configuation front-end to rsync; makes versioned incremental backups using hardlinks; browsable. (Cons: no encryption)
rdiff-backup: Incremental; versioned; SSH; Uses libsync delta encoding; increments stored as diffs; (Cons: no encryption; increments stored in proprietary diffs - not browsable & requires rdiff-backup for restore; bad Mac meta-data support)
duplicity: Uses libsync, incremental, encrypted (GPG), and compressed (tar); increments saved as diffs (like rdiff-backup); Amazon S3 support (Cons: encrypted and tar'ed on server - not browsable and requires duplicity to restore; No versioning!)
Box Backup: Continuous data protection; requires complex daemon setup?; file-system server

One problem I have is with restoration: I'm not a CLI guru, and would like to have to use it as little as possible. Therefore, backup programs that save files as a regular filesystem directory that can be browsed/restored with GUI tools (instead of the app itself) are preferential (not sure how easy restoring from an rdiff-backup diff file would be without using the app to combine the files.)

Now, all I have to do is find a good online storage/hosting provider that doesn't charge too much, but that will be saved for another post.

Some thoughts on Mozy...

2008-03-31T20:19:00.001-07:00

So, I was curious to see whether Mozy (at least the Mac client, anyway) actually contained incremental, byte-level backup, such as rsync’s delta encoding algorithm. Mozy claims it does, but I wasn’t so sure. So, I conducted a very simplistic and unscientific test. I added 2.3 MB of pictures to a 100MB disk image, and Mozy backed up a total of 5.8MB (instead of the entire 100MB image file). Hard to say what the additional 2MB was for, since Mozy’s log files aren’t very informative.

Good News: Mozy Mac does seem to have some sort of delta-ecoding algorithm.

Bad News: It’s algorithm doesn’t seem especially efficient (especially comparing it to rsync, but again, its hard to tell without good logs)

After using Mozy’s Mac client for almost a year, here are some additional issued I’ve discovered with the perpetually beta client:

Mozy’s uploads are slow, and the Mozy Configuration application caps its upload bandwidth at XXX. No way to allow unlimited ups.

I’ve also noticed the Mozy background process is fairly unintelligent. I added a file to a backup folder, and it took Mozy a day and a restart to “see” it and actually back it up!

Important: Mozy doesn’t mantain some very important Mac OS X meta-deta. For example, I had some bad permission problems after restoring some preference files a few weeks ago.

Back to Blogger!

2008-03-08T03:26:00.004-07:00

Wow, a few years ago, I never thought I would actually come back to Blogger. As many may know, the Blogger situation not too long ago was pretty bleak. Blogger had been purchased by Google, and was sitting tight as one of the first blogging services while new and much better services launched. Blogger had become very outdated and stale, especially in comparison with the features offered by sites like Wordpress.com. However, a few months ago, Blogger rolled out version 2.0, complete with some pretty nifty new features that in many respects, actually have surpassed that of Wordpress. Now, if I wanted to host my own blog, I would unquestionably choose Wordpress. There is no doubt that it is more powerful in its capabilities than Blogger. However, its interesting to note a role reversal: now Wordpress.com (hosted Wordpress) is stale and Blogger has re-gained the crown, at least for me. Here are some of the new features that attracted me back to Blogger:

Better theme support (allowing actual theme edits without paying)
Better widget/script support (embedded javascript widgets and the like had problems on Wordpress)
Google integration (with Docs, GrandCentral, AdSense, etc. - always a plus!)
Post by email (to post while on the go from my iPhone - here's hoping Google creates a Blogger iPhone app!)
Custom domain support (to use my fancy domain name, without ads or a titlebar)

It would be fantastic if everything could be perfect, but things never are. Right? Just in the few short areas I've been using Blogger, I've noticed some room for improvement - mostly within the "create a post" editor. For example, it would be nice to have some more formatting options (underline) and multiple levels for bullets. However, these can be accomplished with HTML code.

Note: I'm in the process of moving posts from my Wordpress.com hosted blog to this new Blogger blog, so things may be unstable for the next few days and all posts may not be available.

A 5400 RPM 1.8" Hard Drive!

2008-02-25T01:57:00.003-07:00

Electronista has reported on Toshiba's introduction of 5400RPM 1.8 inch hard drives with SATA interfaces. As some of you may already know, the MacBook Air (along with the iPod Classic) makes use of a 1.8" hard drive. As anyone whose read one of my interpretations of the MacBook Air, one of my main gripes (if not the main one) is regarding its super-slow 4200 PATA hard drive. So, I read about this new advancement from Toshiba with great enthusiasm and hope for the next MBA refresh. Such a drive would solve the MBA's slowness problem, giving it SATA and the acceptable speeds of a standard notebook HD. However, this enthusiasm quickly left as I read that Toshiba's new disks will be 8mm tall. Unfortunately, to make the MBA so thin, Apple has designed the MBA's chassis so that only a 5mm tall 1.8" drive. Toshiba's drives are too big, unless Apple makes some slight design changes. I hope they do, because as MacRumors reports and this Toshiba announcement demonstrates, most, if not all, 1.8" drive advancements (both speed and size) occur with the 8mm variations, leaving the 5mm models to rot in technological obsoleteness! For example, I've criticized the Air's small 80GB HD. Larger 1.8" drives exist, but are - you guessed it - 8mm tall, and thus, too big for the MBA.My assessment? In this area, the MacBook Air currently is too thin (albeit only slightly) for its own good, and will greatly restrict its ability to stay innovative, competitive, and current in the fast slim and light PC industry. Let's hope Apple recognizes this, and makes the design changes needed to propel the MacBook Air to the front of the class! Some related reliability information I found interesting about the Air's 1.8" hard drive (from AppleInsider):

While desktop hard drives are generally expected to live reliably for three years, iPod sized hard drives have a roughly two year expected lifespan, as their AppleCare warranty options suggest. Take a hard drive apart and you'll understand why. Their ultra fragile mechanisms spin platters at thousands of RPM and are read by featherweight arms with a magnetic head that floats over the disk surface on a cushion of air. After just a few minutes of activity, these drives quickly become too hot to comfortably handle. It's amazing they can last as long as they do.When exposed to regular shock and vibration, the chances of the head touching the surface or otherwise failing quickly rises into the danger zone. Once a disk fails, it is usually impossible to repair and often very expensive to attempt to recover data from. SSD solves all those fragility problems by using electronic chips instead of moving parts. Apple's business in iPods and with the iPhone give it high volume component pricing on the latest SSD devices, but its still an early adopter technology. Apple's SSD offering on the Air should both bring attention to the technology and help push SSD into the mainstream.

MacBook Air & Intel Montevino

2008-02-24T02:16:00.001-07:00

I would like to briefly revisit two of my previous posts on the MacBook Air and Intel’s upcoming Montevino platform with some new insights

First, besides the MacBook Air’s limiting specs, it is a first generation product that typically comes with its own issues that will need to be worked out. One of the very important issues being exhibited by the MBA is taking an extreme amount of time to recharge its battery. Obviously, this flaw would certainly hamper its performance as a mobile computer and could have a verity of sources. The battery could be at issue, maybe the power adapter isn’t powerful enough, maybe voltages were cut to reduce heat, etc. We don’t know for sure. However, the one thing that is certain is such an issue is unacceptable and must be fixed by Apple in future revisions. Additionally, may have reported that with extended use or CPU-intensive applications, the MBA get s hot (real hot) and to reduce heat, the system automatically shuts down a CPU core, thereby cutting the already mediocre processor performance in half. Again, if I’m already settling on a lower-specked processor, I want to use all of the processor’s capabilities. Such a performance/heat dissipation issue will also have to be fixed in future revisions.

One such fix for heat dissipation would be a lower voltage processor, and as reported earlier this week by Digitimes, such processors are on the way as part of Intel’s Montevino platform due to launch in May. A leak of processor clock/voltage/pricing allowed us to take a look at what very well could be at the heart of the next MacBook Air refresh. The two most likely candidates for the Air run at 1.6 GHz and 1.86 GHz (the same as current Air possessors), yet reduces voltage from 20 to 17. Such a reduction (albeit slight) would help both with battery life, as well as heat dissipation. While the processor clock would be essentially the same, performance increases would be seen by way of an increased front side bus, larger caches, and an improved Intel graphics processor. The unfortunate news, however, is that the higher-clocked processors (those above 2 GHz) will be coming in at a voltage of 25 (down from today’s 35), so while a clock-speed increase is not out of the question for the Air, it seems rather unlikely. So, it unfortunately seems that the Air may be stuck at 1.6/1.8 GHz for the foreseeable future. So, while the Montevino platform should bring its own improvements and upgrades to the Air, Apple could and should refine the machine on its own by switching to a SATA bus (and faster hard drives), adding a 2nd USB port, a stereo speaker, and maybe a gigabit Ethernet port. Such enhancement would be greatly welcomed by critics and users alike, and would effectively solve my issues with the machine.

Furthermore, it was reported earlier this week by a Japanese engineering firm that the MacBook Air’s internal build quality is greatly lacking, leaving a lot of room for design improvements by Apple. Additionally, such build inefficiencies could also indicate Apple rushed the Air to market, and didn’t have time to refine its manufacturing process. The report mentions an excess of screws. As we all know, screws add weight (sometimes unnecessary weight) to the chassis. By reducing the amount of screws and improving the Air’s internal structure, quality, and manufacturing process, Apple could very well free up both weight and space, allowing it to add welcomed enhancements such as the 2nd USB port, a Mic port, an Ethernet port, and stereo speakers. Hopefully, Apple will address these issues with the next MacBook Air revision as well. Even if the processor isn’t significantly increased, if the Air gets Montevino, a 2nd USB port, and faster Hard Drive and SATA, I know I and many others would become proud new MacBook Air owners! I can only hope Apple is listening!

Some links for further reading:

Intel Montevino & Apple

2008-02-18T03:23:00.001-07:00

It was reported by Digitimes earlier today that Intel next Centrino mobile chipset platform, code-name Montevina, will be released in June, featuring processors clocked at 2.26 GHz to 3.0 GHz dual core, a 1066 MHz front side bus (up from 800MHz), DDR3 memory, 2 and 4 core CPUs, WiMAX, and the all new Intel X4500 graphics processor. Montevina is the successor to Intel’s Santa Rosa platform launched in May 2007 as well as its Penryn 45 nanometer processor upgrade. Additionally, it is interesting to not that the “packaging” miniaturization of the CPU found in the MacBook Air is part of the Montevina platform, while the chipset and processor are from last years Santa Rosa platform (not Penryn). Needless to say, with Apple not having already released it long-rumored and apparently immanent Penryn MacBook Pro (and MacBook) upgrades, it calls into question Apple’s release schedule for Montevina as well as the existing Penryn.

With the switch to Intel-based processors, Apple began competing in the spec-race with PC manufactures, specifically Sony, Dell, and Lenovo. Needless to say, these companies will no doubt be releasing Montevina upgrades immediately around the release by Intel in June (as they have done in the past). However, if Apple releases Penryn upgrades now, just a few months before Montevina, Apple will probably not be releasing upgrades again in the June/July timeframe causing Apple to fall far behind in the spec-race. Let’s take a look at this in a little more detail:

Apple usually releases two mobile product upgrades per year, with an average product life-cycle of about six to eight months. Both the MacBook and MacBook Pros were last updated in early October (Full Santa Rosa upgrade for MacBooks; minor processor bump for MacBook Pro only). Both portables are due for an update before the summer, and Apple seemingly (and understandably, albeit frustrating) never releases a MacBook update prior to a PowerBook update. Forgetting about Montevina, and solely looking at Apple’s upgrade cycle, than a MacBook Pro update is likely immanent with the MacBook being updated in the April/May timeframe. However, both of these obviously would miss the Montevina launch, leaving Mac portables stuck with Penryn (except the MBA). Apple could very easily delay the MacBook refresh by a month or two and introduce it with Montevina. However, the result would be a better/faster/newer MacBook, leaving the higher-performance MacBook Pro stuck with Santa Rosa/Penryn. Would Apple do this? I would hope so, if they want to remain competitive with Sony, Dell, and IBM. The other option would be for Apple to moderately bump both products now, and then update to Montevina in Sept/Oct, yet this option leaves Apple way behind and consumers in a precarious situation of potentially purchasing a PC notebook as opposed to a Mac.

None of the above situations are considering a full product refresh either, which is something both the MacBook and MacBook Pro could use to position it better in the market. The MacBook Pro’s design (case) has essentially been the same since the last few PowerBook revisions way back in 2005. Likewise, the MacBook design hasn’t been touched in nearly two years, and could use an upgrade. The MacBook Air set a new design premium for Apple, one that reflects curves, aluminum, and lightness/thinness that needs to be reflected in its other products. Neither the MacBook or MacBook Pro will ever be as light or thin as the MacBook Air, but they could be made lighter and thinner than they currently are, and the Montevina chipset, with its smaller size and better power savings would present are remarkable opportunity to do so. I would target around 4 pounds for the MacBook and 5.1 for the MacBook Pro. If both Dell and Sony can produce a sub-4.5 pound 13.3 notebook, than there isn’t any reason why Apple couldn’t either. In fact, Apple will need to if it wishes to remain competitive.

Finally, what about the MacBook Air? Off of a six to eight month lifecycle, it would seem to be ready for a refresh around the time of the Monition launch or soon after (July through Sept). The Montevina was practically made for the MBA (as is shown by its use of the packaging material), and would provide an excellent opportunity for higher clock speeds in excess of 2.0Ghz (hopefully higher) and better battery life. Furthermore, Apple could use the Montevina upgrade opportunity to improve the Air’s design, adding a 2nd USB port, gigabit Ethernet, faster SATA HD, RAM expandability, and a stereo speaker to allow competition with the onslaught of ultra-portable notebooks inaugurated by the MBA and the Lenovo X300. And Apple, don’t tell me the above isn’t possible: Lenovo could do all of the above on the X300, as well as add a internal DVD and still come in between 2.9-3.1 pounds!

My MacBook Air Analysis

2008-02-08T03:18:00.002-07:00

As most people are probably well aware, Apple last month introduced a new sub-notebook called the MacBook Air. A new addition to the MacBook product line, the MBA's real strength and differentiation lies in its svelte size (extremely thin and only 3 pounds) and stylish design. One frequent criticism lies in the MacBook Air not being small enough, due to its 13.3' screen and the MacBook size form factor this brings withit. However, I disagree. I want just such screen size, and anything smaller is too small - what really matters to me is weight, and then thickness (weight=portability). However, as most critiques' and bloggers have mentioned, Apple may have made too many sacrifices in specs, such as lack of expandability and low performing components, to achieve its amazing size. But, when compared to some competitors (such as Dell and Lenovo), Apple may not have needed to make such compromises at all. If PC makers can deliver a sub-notebook that's faster, has far greater expandability, with Ethernet and multiple USB, a removable battery, and an optical drive for essentially the same size and weight (maybe slightly heaver/thicker), why couldn't Apple? I know I would have preferred a MBA at 3.5 pounds and a little thicker if it could have been more competitive spec-wise in the market. Thus, I'm really torn on this product. I really want to like it, and I would really like my next Mac to be the Air! However, I think the cons might outweigh the positives in this case. Additionally, I'm asking myself how I can justify purchasing the Air when it's PC competitors can offer much more (not to mention the MacBook). The MBA is fairly weak, with a 1.6 or 1.8 GHz CPU and a non-expandable 2 GB of memory. Will these specs be able to adequately run apps and the Mac OS two years from now (as my PowerBook G4 can)? Can the MBA adequately run Windows Vista? Will a 4200 pATA hard drive prove too small and slow for my file use? I have my doubts. As many have pointed out, the Air's specs and lack of expandability really position the MBA as one's 2nd, mobile Mac - certainly not ones sole Mac, as something more powerful will undoubtedly be needed for graphics and processor intensive tasks and future compatibility/performance. The problem is, my next Mac will be my sole Mac, and it look's like the Air won't be up to the task. I've analyzed my largest concerns regarding the MacBook Air below.

Slow/Small 80GB 4200 pATA Hard Drive
- In my normal computing use, I use the HD - a lot! I download large files, transfer them to other computers or external storage, peruse large numbers of pictures and video, and hold a lot of music. In terms of sheer storage capacity, 80GB is too small for a modern digital hub. It's the same size as the disk in my 2+ year old PowerBook, with which I'm constantly running out of space. I'm of the opinion that when upgrading, you should get more than you had previously, and this certainly isn't the case with the MBA's HD (as compared to my PB). However, I could work around the storage limitation. What I can't work around is the disk speed, and that is what's really alarming about the MBA. With my typical disk use, I think I would see a huge slowdown with the MBA. In fact, Ars Technica noted tremendous system slow downs and lockups due to the drive speed, even when doing some rudimental file movements. This is truly unacceptable, and remains the major fault keeping from purchasing the Air.
- The solution to the MBA's slow disk speed is simple, you might say: Buy the 64GB SSD version. The solid-state drive would certainly be faster and consume less power, except for the fact that it is constrained by its pATA interface too (as opposed to the faster, more modern SATA). However, if I would have a problem with a 80GB HD, 64GB would certainly be too small. That's not withstanding the SSD model's approximately $1300 price premium - certainly not worth it considering the MBA's other specs.
- I will admit, however, solid-state drives certainly are the future for the MacBook Air. They are thin, and fast. Especially considering that the MBA's 80GB 4200 RPM HD is currently the largest (and unfortunately, fastest) single platter 1.8" drive available. The problem - solid-state drives are very expensive and currently don't come larger than 64GB.
- Solution: So, what is the answer when building the next MBA revision? I don't know. The MBA's thickness limits it from accepting slightly physically larger drives that are faster with more capacity, and SSD are too expensive. Thus, there's no good answer at the moment. Unless a faster single platter 1.8" drive appears, or SSD drastically comes down in price, my hope would be that Apple would make the MBA ever so slightly thicker to accommodate a 2 platter 1.8" drive or standard notebook drive.
- Note: There seems to be a load clicking sound being constantly produced by the Air's 1.8" HD.
- One of the features I'm looking forward to as part of the MacTel upgrade is the ability to one Windows, both natively via Boot Camp and possibly through virtualization. Here, the Air's limited storage space is a real killer! A 10GB NTFS partition is pretty small (considering Win can't read HFS+) for Windows, and it would take up a good portion 1/7 of the total HD capacity - Too small in my opinion!
Integrated Memory:
- The Air's two gigabytes of integrated memory may be fine now, but what about in the future? How will the next Mac OS X version run? Equally important, how will Windows run under Boot Camp or virtualization? Is this too little RAM for virtualization to be adequate? Additionally, with Vista a RAM hog, at least 3 GB would be preferred!
- Solution: Upgradable memory (at least build-to-order configurations) or at least ship with 3GB + integrated.
Processer speed:
- Too slow! 1.8 GHz (the upgraded model) is too slow to reliability run Photoshop, Virtualization, Vista, and media applications. Additionally, I've read reports about the Air's dual core processor shutting down a core when the temperature gets too high, further reducing performance - and this is usually during processor intensive actions where the performance is needed!
- For the price, and to remain competitive with PC notebooks currently on the market, the MacBook Air really should have a 2 GHz processer. My guess is that Apple clocked the processors lower for both energy savings and heat dissipation, issues which I hope can be overcome through the use of Intel's new processors and chipsets in the Air next revision.
- Solution: 2.0+ GHz Processor
Only 1 USB Port:
- Solution: Two USB Ports
- There are a lot of times I need to have to USB devices connect at the same time. My music library is one such example, and becomes even more indicative of MacBook Air usage when considering it's small HD capacity. I keep all of my iTunes Music Library on an external USB drive. When I connect my iPhone, I have to also have the USB drive connected in order to sync existing or new songs. I couldn't do this with the Air without the use of a USB hub.
- A USB hub is not the answer! True, it can temporarily circumvent the 1-port issue, but its inconvenient (when traveling), unnecessary, and reduces bandwidth-intensive uses like external HDs.
- What about Firewire? I'm actually OK with withholding the FireWire port since the only thing it is good for anymore is working with older digital video cameras (newer ones use USB). However, how about a Firewire to USB dongle so I can still use my old camera? Additionally, how about a USB target disk mode?
No Built-In Gigabyte Ethernet:
- Since the Air has such a small capacity HD, it's necessitating the need to easily and quickly move the files to an external storage device, like my file server. What better and quicker way to do this than by Gigabit Ethernet.
Battery:
- Not user replaceable/swappable - this isn't such a big deal, since it seems easy to do anyway and I've never swapped batteries.
- In fact, this may even be a plus - by not having the battery as part of the case, it makes it easier for 3rd-party suppliers to create cheaper, higher capacity batteries for the Air.
- Battery Life: I've read some negative reports on battery life and charging times.