Promise Pegasus R6 & Mac Thunderbolt Review
by Anand Lal Shimpi on July 8, 2011 2:01 AM ESTTarget Display Mode with an iMac
In our 2011 iMac review I mentioned that you could use the new iMac as an external display if, and only if, you had a Thunderbolt cable connecting it to a 2011 MacBook Pro. When I reviewed the iMac, you couldn't buy a Thunderbolt cable. Now you can.
The process is pretty simple. Just connect any 2011 MacBook Pro to any 2011 iMac via a Thunderbolt cable. Hit Cmd + F2 on the iMac's keyboard and boom, your brand new iMac is now a secondary display for your MacBook Pro. Note that you need a modern Apple keyboard for this to work. Older Apple keyboards and some non-Apple keyboards won't send the right key code and will refuse to activate target display mode on the iMac.
 |
 |
The iMac has to be fully powered on when this happens. You do lose all keyboard/mouse support on the iMac, however the machine doesn't go to sleep when in this mode - it'll remain on, although likely in a low power state. Any applications you have open on the iMac will remain open. Any music playing on the iMac will continue to play and you don't get use of the iMac's speakers from your MacBook Pro.
15-inch MacBook Pro (2011) + 27-inch iMac (2011) running in Target Display Mode
For 2011, this is admittedly an odd usage model. I'm not sure how many people want to connect their brand new MacBook Pro to a brand new iMac and use the latter as just a display. Down the road I can see this being a good feature as it lets you upgrade to faster MacBook Pros and still use your iMac as a larger display if you'd like.
I would prefer it if the iMac allowed itself to boot into a minimal environment where only the display and necessary ICs were powered, leaving the CPU, GPU, hard drive and the rest of the system mostly powered down. I suspect Thunderbolt complicates this as the controller needs a number of components powered up before it'll function. Perhaps future versions of the iMac can find a way around this limitation however.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
88 Comments
View All Comments
takumsawsherman - Saturday, July 9, 2011 - link
You mean like booting from a CD or USB flash drive and copying files to a very small, hideable storage container?Perfectly possible, and in fact I find myself doing this frequently (though copying the data in the other direction typically) when disinfecting PCs. I do this multiple times per week, removing data stealing trojans and rootkits.
Compare with Thunderbolt, where you will "sneak in with only a laptop and a cable and reboot and press T, and ZOMG yor datas are hax0red! Ha HA ha stupid Apple!!!111oneonewonwon"
Leaves obvious traces? Exactly what traces did the Boot CD leave?
Penti - Wednesday, July 13, 2011 - link
As you can password protect (which can be bypassed with physical access any way) the firmware it doesn't matter if it is Firewire/Thunderbolt-target or USB-stick/HDD that access and or copies the files or simply a CD that changes your password so you can just log in an access everything without any effort at all. If you don't have limits on the firmware/bios any way you can just set up whatever, and access anything without any effort, less so then using slow target disk mode, even through network boot is possible which might be on in a corporate/university environment any way.Just disable the good damn features you don't like, it don't make your computer safe but I'm sure it will quit you whining for nothing.
You will just access everything by running the system rescue tools on the install CD for OS X any how. Windows computers are essentially unprotected any way. So I really don't see how it's any worse then plugging in a USB stick to access everything or change the password (SAM) to blank/whateveryoulike. Screaming about a ten year old feature is just dumb. Just set up a firmware password and it stops people from simply booting a CD, USB-drive, HDD-drive, using target disk mode and network boot any way. It's simply not more vulnerable then PCs any way. It's quite easy to restore the firmware-password thus bypassing it on say an iMac any way, I could easily do it on older macs without taking the entire computer apart. And on a PC of course resetting CMOS password is often troubleless and manufacturers often has master passwords you get by calling the support any way. Later macs has got better protection from resetting the firmware password though. So just set the damn password.
Penti - Friday, July 8, 2011 - link
They are not driving the screen with a separate control-board. That's why target display is so awkward. You can expect third party stuff (and older macs) will work when Atlona has designed and released an Thunderbolt-compatible adapter/switch/converter/scaler though. It a integrated solution not a screen and a computer separate. The screen is when used normally connected directly to the ATi/AMD 6000M GPU. That's why you can't adjust the screen in Bootcamp/Windows without their software tool too.HW_mee - Friday, July 8, 2011 - link
That makes sense, not much you can do to separate the two things if the screen is "merged" with the computer. I expected the computer part and screen part was seperate and the display input could be used in the same way as with most multiple input screens.If that was the case, a simple power circuit could control the screen and computer separately.
youngjimmy - Friday, July 8, 2011 - link
'Failing to do so will give you this all-*to*-familiar error' (bottom, The Pegasus: Software)Kimbie - Friday, July 8, 2011 - link
You made mention about connecting up a monitor to the last port on the chain, by plugging in a thunderbolt cable into the imac and used it as a second screen.Does this still work if you use a mini-display port to DVI adaptor and into a bog standard DVI monitor?
Kimbie
Focher - Saturday, July 9, 2011 - link
Just to clarify, the last connection in the chain to a mini DisplayPort monitor does not require a Thunderbolt cable. You would just use a mini DP cable.André - Friday, July 8, 2011 - link
Does it support JBOD?Would be really great for us using ZFS+ arrays, although I would have preferred at least 8 bays.
Exodite - Friday, July 8, 2011 - link
The performance is impressive, though nothing like what you'd get transfering a large number of smaller files obviously.That said, for 2000 USD why wouldn't I simply build a high-end desktop /with/ 12TB of storage?
It'd still be cheaper and I could put the remainder towards a gilded sticker for the case saying 'cheap-ass NAS'.
André - Friday, July 8, 2011 - link
It would appear that is the solution for you, building your own NAS.This enclosure is, however, not a NAS.
It enable users that need high disk performance to get easy access to precisely that in a mobile package you can take on the road with you and edit in the field.
Think large Final Cut Pro (or any other NLE), Logic Studio and Photoshop projects.