Looking at going full Macfag, but the storage situation is a serious concern.
Macs typically only have one storage drive, and it's *expensive* to upgrade. It's also obviously best to not put all of your eggs in one basket, so I'd be looking at external storage. The issue I'm up against is the stark contrast of mechanical drives vs a PCI-E SSD. The way I figure it, I have a few options: >1) RAID1 (or better) with large, NAS grade HDDs >2) RAID1 (or better) with SATA SSDs (at the expensive of storage space) But really, what I'd like is: >3) RAID1 (or better) with large NAS grade HDDs, and the ability to use an SSD as a buffer/cache (without it being a shitty SSHD with laughable amounts of NAND).
Perhaps the biggest issue with all of this, is compatibility under multiple operating systems. Would another OS still be able to read the RAID array in any of these configurations?
What would Jow Forums recommend for external storage solutions for a Macfag?
(The LaCies looked nice but fuck they're expensive)
just build a hackintosh, if you have too much money, buy that mac pro and add in as many sata hddsnas you want.
Jonathan Garcia
Hackintoshes are garbage, but I don't really know why OP thinks he needs to buy a Mac-specific NAS/external RAID appliance.
Lucas Phillips
Make a NAS (Network Attached Storage)
Thomas Nguyen
A NAS would do fine, I can't find any with an SSD cache which is a shame. It's more about ensuring the storage is compatible with whatever OS I use (because I will have a Bootcamp partition that'll also be used with Parallels).
I'm more sick of Microsoft live testing features, a general lack of hardware support, some of the more errant issues like my desktop's bluetooth randomly cutting out (with adjusted power settings, because it stopping to 'save power' was also a nightmare). It's just dumb shit that I really don't want to have to worry about anymore, without giving up all of my software compatibility.
Adrian Scott
...
Colton Morris
I mean, I'm not an expert by any means but it seems like the kind of solution you're looking for should be self-contained and the operating system you choose to use with it shouldn't matter.
Josiah Scott
Yeah that's what I'd hope for, which means for Option 3 with an SSD cache, it'd need to be built into the device (with some sort of firmware managing the internal storage tiering). I was hoping Jow Forums might know of something weird and niche that doesn't show up on Amazon straight away.
Qnap NAS' have the SSD caching feature. Dunno if you need it though. Working on files directly from the NAS over the network is VERY LIKELY going to result in issues with Macs because Apple likes to be an arrogant piece of shit. Just work on files locally and write a script that periodically syncs your files to the NAS.
Brody Martinez
Technically they aren't, as they're not actually PC-compatible (neither are most modern "PCs" with EFI)
>Working on files directly from the NAS over the network is VERY LIKELY going to result in issues with Macs because Apple likes to be an arrogant piece of shit. elaborate
Luis Williams
Did you mean to post that in the ThinkPad general?
Hunter Thomas
Most PCs (and Macs with Boot Camp) have CSM which enables them to boot DOS and run most standard DOS software. So yes, they are PC-compatible.
Ryan Miller
working with Macs, I cannot fathom what makes people like that garbage. Are you a masochist or what?
Benjamin Smith
This. "PC" doesn't really stand for personal computer, it's Boomer shorthand for "IBM PC compatible." So, no Macs aren't PCs, but Linux and FreeBSD can be.
Mason Hughes
no
Josiah Cox
Some years ago Apple decided to make their own version of smb because Samba made some irrelevant change to their licensing. It's been a clusterfuck ever since. The alternative, AFP is deprecated and it's barely supported by anything. I guess there's NFS too if you hate write speed.
Nah, if it can't boot straight into DOS/Windows without some compatibility layer or emulation it's not a PC. Pure and simple.
Eli Gomez
a legitimate criticism but that sounds like typical *nix licensing autism to me, does this actually result in real compatibility/reliability issues though?
Ethan Powell
CSM is built into the firmware. Is a regular BIOS a compatibility layer if it, eg, translates BIOS calls to write text to the screen into some fancy new standard that works differently than CGA?
Ian Watson
Yes. I spent a bulk of last year trying to troubleshoot these issues at one of our client. Mojave seems bit better though.
To my understanding, CSM emulates an entire BIOS environment separate from the modern EFI environment, which I would say is a little different from a traditional BIOS with some add-on modules to support newer hardware.
I consider modern Macs and EFI-based PCs to be something like the old SGI Visual Workstations - they booted Windows NT/2000 with a special HAL and were perfectly compatible with most of not all of the same software as PCs, but on their own they were nothing like PCs and not at all PC compatible.
Isaiah Adams
What a headache, I guess it'd have to be a Thunderbolt/USB storage solution then. I've looked at a couple, but even the LaCie ones struggle to bench 200MB/s, which is pretty slow.
I am, but you know, I have so many fucking problems right now with my Windows PC, that it the hoops seem worth it not to deal with the unexpected hassle later down the line.
Okay mr. purist, by your exacting standards no true PC has been manufactured since the 80s, if those even count. A PC has: >an 8086/8088 CPU Later CPUs boot up in real mode, which roughly replicates this, but is a compatibility layer built into the microcode. Even the original PC's 8088 used microcode to implement its CISC instruction set on an internally RISC microarchitecture -- which could be viewed as a compatibility layer. >an ISA bus running at the speed of the CPU Later machines ran the CPU at some multiple of the ISA speed, and later moved on to PCI and now PCIe. All this requires compatibility layers in BIOS and chipsets to make old software see it as ISA-like enough to use it. >keyboard attached via Intel 8042 keyboard controller through an AT or later PS/2 port, and optionally a mouse attached via serial port (or PS/2 later on) Most machines use USB for these now, and BIOS optionally emulates PS/2 peripherals through a compatibility layer. If you want to use actual PC software that uses a bus mouse, you're just plain screwed unless you want to use an emulator. >optional unidirectional parallel port through an ISA card All later machines have bidirectional, EPP or ECP ports that optionally emulate the old unidirectional ports through a compatibility layer. Newer machines don't include this at all. >standard AT floppy controller Newer machine omit this altogether but allow floppy emulation through USB flash drives or USB floppy drives, but software expecting actual PC floppy controller hardware won't find it, or will find a stub that can't be connected to an actual drive. >CGA or MDA display adapter VGA and newer cards emulate CGA text and graphics modes, but are not these cards. >cone type PC speaker through Intel 8253 chip Modern machines have a compatible function rolled into multifunction chips, and drive a piezoelectric buzzer. It's another compatibility layer.
Juan Taylor
>why doesn't everything behave just like windows???
Seriously, just sync them from your internal storage to external once you're finished working. You'll have easier time.
Grayson Wright
>Even the original PC's 8088 used microcode to implement its CISC instruction set on an internally RISC microarchitecture -- Yeah... I stopped reading here, you have no clue what you're talking about.
Jack Jackson
Why is the developer to blame for you being a baby duck who performs potentially dangerous file management tasks without bothering to understand how your operating system works beforehand?
Adrian Martin
>cope If you iShills are going to push your OS as being so intuitive and user friendly, perhaps it shouldn't require more manual reading than Windows to avoid irreversibly losing thousands of files with a single click of an unclearly labeled button.