I had a similar situation last year and decided to use a NAS appliance that supported USB2.0 expansion. This way I can start with the internal 160gb drive and grow with in expensive USB2.0 external drives. Additional drives are hosted by the NAS functions transparently giving easy expansion through the years. My cost for the NAS with 160gb was ~$230.
In contrast my brother-in-law just built a file server with four 250gb SATA drives configured in RAID-5. He bought all new equipment, motherboard, processor, gig of ram, drives, power supply case, etc... He spent considerably more then my $230 (over $1100) but he now has a terabyte at home. It was important for him to have not only the file storage but a location for server type applications to run.
I could have purchased a terabyte NAS for $870 or so but I didn't see the need. The only downside I have found with a NAS is with my laptops. At home they can connect up to the NAS and get access to my photos, music, documents, etc. On the road however, they are not very useful. I've now had to start classifying what information I need with me at all times, and what things I can live without. If you have a VPN solution that will allow you to access your home network at a decent speed this may not be an issue for you.
Having data on a central server also has implications with the software you use. For example you will need to decide where iTunes stores downloads, local or on the NAS? If it is on the NAS then you can only download new music when you're connected to your home network. My best recommendation to you is to look at how many people access the same data in your household and use this to identify who would be effected if they didn't have their data with them all the time.
One more option is using your NAS primarily for backup. This reduces most of the concerns above.
Disclaimer... I am an Apple zealot. I have tasted the Koolaid and it was good.
The new iMac with the built in camera, remote, and Front Row was interesting. It was tied to the iTunes music store and created (either by accident or design) the largest iPod on the planet, complete with 20inch LCD if desired. If we apply the remote technology and Front Row from the iMac to the Mini we can in effect turn it into a giant iPod dock.
With the new video iPod we can already perform almost everything we can do in Front Row on a TV by just connecting the iPod. To be really interesting the Mini will need to tap into a greater source of content. It is the content that is the key to any PVR/DVR solution IMO. Comcast manages their content through OnDemand, Tivo was wildly successful because it taped into a huge content store, starting with over the air, then moving to satellite. Unless the Mini can at a minimum support the content I already pay for (digital cable in my case) then I'm really not interested.
There is another post here talking about connecting to digital cable through the firewire connection on the cable box. That would be the least desirable method, but even that would be enough for me to make the purchase. HOWEVER, this firewire connection must be native to the product, not a hack. Ideally I would like to see a cablecard slot in the Mini but that is because I pay for cable. I'm not sure what the best solution is for the folks out there that are using satellite.
My prediction is that the new features of the Mini will tap into a Apple managed content pool, the iTunes store. The launch of this device will coincide with the launch of a much larger video content pool on iTunes, and, if we're lucky, the ability to rip your DVD's to the mini.
Ripping DVD's creates its own set of headaches on the Mini. Even with a switch to 3.5 inch hard drives there would still only be room for 1 drive in the system. Even if that drive were a 500gb SATA monster my DVD collection would not fit on the drive. My hope is that Apple will recognize this and let the Mini be the engine or brain allowing me to access a much larger NAS storage solution. I don't want to have to stack external firewire drives next to my Mini in the entertainment center.
This type of separation is a week spot already in the iTunes library. I keep all my music on a NAS appliance at home so that my wife and I can access it at the same time with out a server. When I add new music to the NAS appliance I have to go to my wife's machine and add the new folder to her library. My hope is that a new media center focused Mini could solve this issue by allowing our computers to access the Mini as a server for all of our content, music, video, etc. But if the Mini is limited to internal storage it really won't be able to keep up with the volume of content.
PVR/DVR solutions don't really have this problem because by design, you never own the content. It is assumed that the content on these drives would be overwritten over time. Apple on the other hand sells their content through the iTunes store so it is expected that the user would keep their content because they own it. It is the balance between these two sales models that needs to be addressed, prior to releasing any PVR/DVR functions on a new Mini.
Yes I have tasted the Kool-Aid from Mr. Jobs... That said I really don't understand this model from a consumers perspective.
I pay $0.99 for the privilege of watching a show without commercials.
I can only have this privilege if I pay a $10 monthly charge (Comcast) for a DVR rental.
I don't own it. I can't take it with me to a friend's house and watch it with them (without lugging over my DVR). I also can't archive it when my drive is full and I want to download another show.
I also cannot use this service if I don't have a DVR to store the programs...
With iTunes I pay $2.00 and I own the show. It is on my iPod, my Computer (PC or Mac), I can share it with others. If I decide that I don't want to download any programs next month, no fees. I can archive my programs to keep them safe. For that extra dollar I get an actual asset.
Even Napster understands that if they aren't going to let you own the media, they have to let you get all you want. That is why Comcast's onDemand service is a high value add. I feel as a cable subscriber I'm getting my money's worth because of the additional media library available at no charge in onDemand. As an HBO subscriber my value is even higher because I get premium movies included as part of my subscription.
Yes, there are still Pay-Per-View style moves in my Comcast service but those save me a trip to the video store, and they are not freely available on other channels in my subscription service.
As a consumer, what do I get from this new service other then another item to avoid in my on-screen menus?
The raised floor has more to do with how heat moves in an environment rather then how you move air through a duct. Most raised floors don't have major ducting under them. In our data centers the raised floor provides a controlled space that we can use to modify temps.
Heat rises, our original designs back in 2002 for our data center called for overhead cooling using a new gel based radiator system. It would have been a great solution and caused us to go with a lower raised floor, just for cables and bracing. At the time the cost was too extreme to justify the design so we went back to traditional raised floor.
Tile placement on a raised floor is key, only allowing the cool air to be pushed up in the front of your racks and creating hot rows facing your exhaust ends into the same isle. This way the cool air is pushed up from the floor, pulled in through the rack by the server fans, and exhausted, where it can then rise to a vent.
To answer the original question, I think that using raised floors for cooling is not the most efficient solution. Top down chillers that address the heat that is rising off the servers would be better. I just don't know that the price of these solutions has reached a balance for the savings. Even with this design you need something to create a cool pad for your racks to sit on. Many times this can just be the concrete slab of the floor.
So the iPod is now on the market and if Steve and the gang at Apple want to the next release of iTunes could bring in Ripping from DVD. No new hardware to buy and suddenly the market for the new iPod grows.
Next thing we see is a new feature on.Mac, this connects your.Mac account to the iTunes store and lets you cache the shows you like in the.Mac file space. This release is partnered with a new Mini, with Front Row, a remote, and a HDMI interface to go with the existing DVI interface. Front Row gets an added feature that connects to your.Mac account and streams your video via broad band. The interesting thing is that apple will not need to give everyone their own copy of the actual media, they would only have to support a 'On Demand' type interface that would link you to the media when needed.
If you want to take something from your new.Mac Media Library with you, sync it to your iPod, you already own it...
HP, Apple, BMW, Audi, and VW Don't think so...
on
Is Bluetooth Dead?
·
· Score: 1
All of the companies listed above have gone so far as to include Bluetooth interfaces into their product lines. HP and Apple have notebooks but the real story in my opinion is the auto manufacturers.
Audi/VW and BMW are both offering Bluetooth interfaces to their multi media platforms for their next generation of cars. I have a Parrot hands free kit in my car and it is a huge asset when driving. I don't have to take my phone out of my pocket to answer or make calls.
Bluetooth is just a connection method. The real "Killer Apps" are just starting to come forward for the technology. I have even heard rumor that then next iPod will have a Bluetooth interface for controlling unit and displaying the ID tags.
I think the author of this artical was missing the point. Bluetooth is not for large data packages or network connectivity it is for linking devices and creating personal networks. I use my iPAC through my T39m to connect to the Internet. I store my calendar on my T39m by sync'ing via Bluetooth.
Bluetooth is a choice, just like many of you have already pointed out in your comparisons to USB. If you don't adopt the platform you can't realize the benefits.
Slashdot Mirror
In contrast my brother-in-law just built a file server with four 250gb SATA drives configured in RAID-5. He bought all new equipment, motherboard, processor, gig of ram, drives, power supply case, etc... He spent considerably more then my $230 (over $1100) but he now has a terabyte at home. It was important for him to have not only the file storage but a location for server type applications to run.
I could have purchased a terabyte NAS for $870 or so but I didn't see the need. The only downside I have found with a NAS is with my laptops. At home they can connect up to the NAS and get access to my photos, music, documents, etc. On the road however, they are not very useful. I've now had to start classifying what information I need with me at all times, and what things I can live without. If you have a VPN solution that will allow you to access your home network at a decent speed this may not be an issue for you.
Having data on a central server also has implications with the software you use. For example you will need to decide where iTunes stores downloads, local or on the NAS? If it is on the NAS then you can only download new music when you're connected to your home network. My best recommendation to you is to look at how many people access the same data in your household and use this to identify who would be effected if they didn't have their data with them all the time.
One more option is using your NAS primarily for backup. This reduces most of the concerns above.
Disclaimer... I am an Apple zealot. I have tasted the Koolaid and it was good.
The new iMac with the built in camera, remote, and Front Row was interesting. It was tied to the iTunes music store and created (either by accident or design) the largest iPod on the planet, complete with 20inch LCD if desired. If we apply the remote technology and Front Row from the iMac to the Mini we can in effect turn it into a giant iPod dock.
With the new video iPod we can already perform almost everything we can do in Front Row on a TV by just connecting the iPod. To be really interesting the Mini will need to tap into a greater source of content. It is the content that is the key to any PVR/DVR solution IMO. Comcast manages their content through OnDemand, Tivo was wildly successful because it taped into a huge content store, starting with over the air, then moving to satellite. Unless the Mini can at a minimum support the content I already pay for (digital cable in my case) then I'm really not interested.
There is another post here talking about connecting to digital cable through the firewire connection on the cable box. That would be the least desirable method, but even that would be enough for me to make the purchase. HOWEVER, this firewire connection must be native to the product, not a hack. Ideally I would like to see a cablecard slot in the Mini but that is because I pay for cable. I'm not sure what the best solution is for the folks out there that are using satellite.
My prediction is that the new features of the Mini will tap into a Apple managed content pool, the iTunes store. The launch of this device will coincide with the launch of a much larger video content pool on iTunes, and, if we're lucky, the ability to rip your DVD's to the mini.Ripping DVD's creates its own set of headaches on the Mini. Even with a switch to 3.5 inch hard drives there would still only be room for 1 drive in the system. Even if that drive were a 500gb SATA monster my DVD collection would not fit on the drive. My hope is that Apple will recognize this and let the Mini be the engine or brain allowing me to access a much larger NAS storage solution. I don't want to have to stack external firewire drives next to my Mini in the entertainment center.
This type of separation is a week spot already in the iTunes library. I keep all my music on a NAS appliance at home so that my wife and I can access it at the same time with out a server. When I add new music to the NAS appliance I have to go to my wife's machine and add the new folder to her library. My hope is that a new media center focused Mini could solve this issue by allowing our computers to access the Mini as a server for all of our content, music, video, etc. But if the Mini is limited to internal storage it really won't be able to keep up with the volume of content.
PVR/DVR solutions don't really have this problem because by design, you never own the content. It is assumed that the content on these drives would be overwritten over time. Apple on the other hand sells their content through the iTunes store so it is expected that the user would keep their content because they own it. It is the balance between these two sales models that needs to be addressed, prior to releasing any PVR/DVR functions on a new Mini.
I don't own it. I can't take it with me to a friend's house and watch it with them (without lugging over my DVR). I also can't archive it when my drive is full and I want to download another show. I also cannot use this service if I don't have a DVR to store the programs...
With iTunes I pay $2.00 and I own the show. It is on my iPod, my Computer (PC or Mac), I can share it with others. If I decide that I don't want to download any programs next month, no fees. I can archive my programs to keep them safe. For that extra dollar I get an actual asset.
Even Napster understands that if they aren't going to let you own the media, they have to let you get all you want. That is why Comcast's onDemand service is a high value add. I feel as a cable subscriber I'm getting my money's worth because of the additional media library available at no charge in onDemand. As an HBO subscriber my value is even higher because I get premium movies included as part of my subscription.
Yes, there are still Pay-Per-View style moves in my Comcast service but those save me a trip to the video store, and they are not freely available on other channels in my subscription service.
As a consumer, what do I get from this new service other then another item to avoid in my on-screen menus?
Heat rises, our original designs back in 2002 for our data center called for overhead cooling using a new gel based radiator system. It would have been a great solution and caused us to go with a lower raised floor, just for cables and bracing. At the time the cost was too extreme to justify the design so we went back to traditional raised floor.
Tile placement on a raised floor is key, only allowing the cool air to be pushed up in the front of your racks and creating hot rows facing your exhaust ends into the same isle. This way the cool air is pushed up from the floor, pulled in through the rack by the server fans, and exhausted, where it can then rise to a vent.
To answer the original question, I think that using raised floors for cooling is not the most efficient solution. Top down chillers that address the heat that is rising off the servers would be better. I just don't know that the price of these solutions has reached a balance for the savings. Even with this design you need something to create a cool pad for your racks to sit on. Many times this can just be the concrete slab of the floor.
So the iPod is now on the market and if Steve and the gang at Apple want to the next release of iTunes could bring in Ripping from DVD. No new hardware to buy and suddenly the market for the new iPod grows.
.Mac, this connects your .Mac account to the iTunes store and lets you cache the shows you like in the .Mac file space. This release is partnered with a new Mini, with Front Row, a remote, and a HDMI interface to go with the existing DVI interface. Front Row gets an added feature that connects to your .Mac account and streams your video via broad band. The interesting thing is that apple will not need to give everyone their own copy of the actual media, they would only have to support a 'On Demand' type interface that would link you to the media when needed.
.Mac Media Library with you, sync it to your iPod, you already own it...
Next thing we see is a new feature on
If you want to take something from your new
All of the companies listed above have gone so far as to include Bluetooth interfaces into their product lines. HP and Apple have notebooks but the real story in my opinion is the auto manufacturers. Audi/VW and BMW are both offering Bluetooth interfaces to their multi media platforms for their next generation of cars. I have a Parrot hands free kit in my car and it is a huge asset when driving. I don't have to take my phone out of my pocket to answer or make calls. Bluetooth is just a connection method. The real "Killer Apps" are just starting to come forward for the technology. I have even heard rumor that then next iPod will have a Bluetooth interface for controlling unit and displaying the ID tags. I think the author of this artical was missing the point. Bluetooth is not for large data packages or network connectivity it is for linking devices and creating personal networks. I use my iPAC through my T39m to connect to the Internet. I store my calendar on my T39m by sync'ing via Bluetooth. Bluetooth is a choice, just like many of you have already pointed out in your comparisons to USB. If you don't adopt the platform you can't realize the benefits.