I just ordered a Time Capsule, and I plan to connect an external hard drive and a printer to it. The manual posted online says I'll need a hub to do this since there's only one USB port, but it doesn't say whether it has to be a powered hub or not. Does anyone know if I can get away without a powered hub since both the printer and the hard drive have their own power?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Time Capsule Arrives, Early Notes
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What does that even prove? So some developer on some forum said that, big deal. Has Apple given an official reason?? Not to my knowledge they haven't. Im not saying thats not the cause, but still. Can't be citing random quotes from some unknown developer & expect it to be the gospel.
Anyways, that was over 4 months ago. We're on 10.5.2 now & have a brand new AEBS with new firmware updates too, still no fix & I don't expect there to ever be one.
I'm afraid these Time Capsules are the "fix".
anyone know how to use Time Machine to back up 2 different notebooks on 1 TC?
I use AEBS with a drive now and use time machine to wirelessly back up my powerbook.
but I would like to set up my wife's MB to do the same when I pick up the TC
I use AEBS with a drive now and use time machine to wirelessly back up my powerbook.
but I would like to set up my wife's MB to do the same when I pick up the TC
Simple, just select the same drive for TM backup on both systems, it will work fine.
oh, ok.
I had heard that I couldn't do that (with my current set up) I guess I could have tried.
I'll wait until I pick up TC anyway.
Thanks
Hey, I expect my data to survive anything short of thermonuclear war.
Are you planning on storing a back-up of your drive in the Arctic doomsday seed vault?
If these capsules are the "fix" then you're contradicting yourself by saying: "They obviously crippled it on purpose." Which was my whole point. They very well could have crippled previous AEBS. But I wouldn't say it's obvious.
I do. In my case I have a computer in the home office, a mobile computer floating around the house, and the main computer room computer where the DSL modem and AEBS are located. The iMac in the office is connected wirelessly to an Airport Express that is extending the main AEBS network. The PowerBook floats around and could be anywhere at any given moment. The iMac in the computer room is also connected via Wi-Fi even though it's in range of the router and could be hard-wired if desired.
I need one solution for all of these computers. I'm NOT going to go out and buy an external HDD for each computer and I'm not going to go buy a 1TB drive and partition it three ways and lug it around the house wherever I happen to need it at the time. Why should I bother? Cheaper, yes...but the Time Capsule provides the convenience that only Apple provides. It may be expensive, and it may not be necessary for YOU, but it's a must-have for ME.
Apple rarely makes devices that have no target audience. And when they do, they don't last (iPod Hi-Fi, anyone? Love mine).
I'm willing to bet the Time Capsule sticks around for a while to come. I'll even go so far as to guess that as the price declines, the regular AEBS will be phased out and ALL Base Stations produced by Apple will have built-in storage of some sort.
My 2 cents.
At home, the risks other than hardware failure are: Theft and destruction of my home. Time Capsule would solve the theft problem, because I can store the Time Capsule in the loft, or hide it under my bed, anywhere a thief won't find it. For the home destruction problem (that must be _some_ destruction for the Time Capsule to die): In that case, the loss of data is probably not my biggest problem
Fair enough - if your house were to burn down, be bombed or be the random landing site for an alien craft your Time Capsule would probably be the least of your worries!
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)
my USB drive is partitioned for Time Machine, but it's still not wireless, which means for me to get the full protection of TM backups on my MacBook, I have a folder on my desktop labeled "trash" that I dump files into at the office (or ok the couch). Then when I get to my desk I can plug in for the backup.
I can't wait to get my TC!!
sirozha said:
my USB drive is partitioned for Time Machine, but it's still not wireless, which means for me to get the full protection of TM backups on my MacBook, I have a folder on my desktop labeled "trash" that I dump files into at the office (or ok the couch). Then when I get to my desk I can plug in for the backup.
I can't wait to get my TC!!
This has already been mentioned a couple times and as I have said previously, those are all very good points which I did not consider in my initial post.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)
agree. I just stopped my regular SuperDuper system in favor of TM
ChrisA said:
agree. I just stopped my regular SuperDuper system in favor of TM
I can answer some questions about Time Capsule, other than the actual Time Machine part of it. I've been playing around with it for the last few hours.
The gigabit ports on it are as fast as my D-Link DIR-655. The wireless N performance with b/g compatibility 2.4Ghz is much better. (up to 9 meg/sec)
The performance to the internal hard drive as a disk is pretty good 20 meg/sec read, 15 meg/sec write. I hooked up a USB2.0 disk to it and that was 15 meg/sec both ways.
I'm very impressed with it. I was afraid it was going to be sub-par in some way.
The gigabit ports on it are as fast as my D-Link DIR-655. The wireless N performance with b/g compatibility 2.4Ghz is much better. (up to 9 meg/sec)
The performance to the internal hard drive as a disk is pretty good 20 meg/sec read, 15 meg/sec write. I hooked up a USB2.0 disk to it and that was 15 meg/sec both ways.
I'm very impressed with it. I was afraid it was going to be sub-par in some way.
My only issue with stopping the use of SuperDuper in favor of Time Machine as opposed to using them in parallel is the fact that Time Machine does not create a bootable back-up. If a catastrophic drive failure happened you would be SOL until you could hook up yet another external drive, reload OS X on it from scratch, then restore using Time Machine. I realize this is not in the scope of the main function that Time Machine was designed to perform (i.e. backups to comprehensively track and store multiple file versions) yet it is a reason to still use a solution such as SuperDuper just in case.
I know! I read a review for the AEBS when they talked about Airport Disk and I was unimpressed. That's why I was scared about this. But it's ridiculously awesome!
I have found using both is a good idea. Super Duper type back up once in a while and TM on a daily basis. If I need to I can hook up my SD back up and boot if I have to whereas TM doesn't boot, but for retrieving a file TM is awesome I agree. I have a whole stack if 500 GIG bare internal drives and hook them up when needed with a Granite Digital FireWire 800 connection kit. Bare internal drives are soooo cheap these days.
Yes, that is actually surprinsigly impressive!
Yes, they are indeed. That would be one of the reasons I would consider using a system comprised of an external HDD enclosure as opposed to a TC, especially since I could swap out the drive in the future for even more storage. As many people have cited in this thread though, the ability to wireless back up is quite useful for households with multiple Macs.
Interesting, but to be expected I guess. This probably would be even a less of an issue for anyone who has their TC a decent distance away form their actual Macs, as I know would be the case with quite a few users here.
I hate to say it, but if someone does, I'm in (that is unless Apple gives us a solution first). I bought the newer model AEBS shortly before Leopards release, specifically to use with Time Machine. Already had an AEBS b/g, so I really didn't need the base station other than for the advertised feature.
Why
Why would the connection make much of a difference. Its still faster than most network drives anyway. I access all my data over airport from a OS X Server and there's only about a 5% loss of speed from 802.11n to Gigabit Ethernet. And that only occurs because I have server running when sharing from standard OS X the machine can't fill the bandwith anyway (about half the speed of using server).
If running 802.11n feels significantly slower than GBE then you need to adjust your setup. (or you have a wicked fast server)
Why would the connection make much of a difference. Its still faster than most network drives anyway. I access all my data over airport from a OS X Server and there's only about a 5% loss of speed from 802.11n to Gigabit Ethernet. And that only occurs because I have server running when sharing from standard OS X the machine can't fill the bandwith anyway (about half the speed of using server).
If running 802.11n feels significantly slower than GBE then you need to adjust your setup. (or you have a wicked fast server)