KnightExemplar wrote:As for whether or not Storage Spaces can do it... I don't think so. But resizing after the fact seems redundant in the face of just thin-provisioning a 100 TB storage space and never worrying about it again.
My concern about that is that it's a leaky abstraction, because you don't have that much space. (And it's not just a "go deal with this slider bar" to get it -- you have to go out and pay money and wait.) A small part of the reason that I partition stuff up as I do is that it helps me control how much space I use for certain tasks.
The other thing that I'd be a little concerned about is that I have three drives with three very different performance profiles (I have an SSD, a 7200 rpm drive, and a large green drive), and what things I put on what physical drive is a deliberate decision. If all you can do is say "put these things in some place on these physical drives", it's also not suitable for my uses.
EDIT: as for USB 3.0... 190MB/s flash drives are pretty nice. Yeah... an external flash drive that beats all mechanical hard drives in read speed for $25 bucks. I haven't used it yet, but if I ever use the Windows To Go feature in Windows 8... I'm probably gonna do it on a USB 3.0 drive. Actually, because Windows Enterprise is so expensive, I probably won't be doing that. But still... looks awesome.
Jeff Atwood talked about probably a similar fast thumb drive not so long ago, and I was impressed. I actually don't care about the improvements in read speed as much as fast write speeds; even though you read more than write, in my experience reads tend to already be fast enough to not be so annoying (at least for what I use thumb drives for), while you go to copy a fair bit of data to a flash drive and it can take 20 or 30 minutes.
It is possible though that having a drive with both fast read and fast write will make new uses realistic -- e.g. the Windows to Go.
Steax wrote:This was far less of a surprise for me than the native USB 3/ISO mounting/Bluetooth support, though. For those, I didn't intend to mean "OS X had it first!" - I meant more along the lines of "I thought it was commonplace technology since the other major commercial desktop OS has had it for a while, and I've seen it used everywhere so I thought it was native."
"The other major commercial desktop OS" seems to have a more frequent release cycle, though that may be changing. (10.5 "Leopard": Oct '07. 10.6 "Snow leopard": Aug. '09. 10.7 "Lion": July '11. 10.8 "Mountain lion": July '12.The bi-yearly releases go back earlier as well. Compare to Windows. XP: Oct 2001. Vista: Jan '07. Win7: Oct '09. Win8: Oct '12.)
USB 3.0 was relatively new on the scene when Win7 was released (wikipedia says USB 3 was "designed" Nov '08, so less than a year old), and it actually seems like it hasn't been on Macs for all that long -- this page (under the "products effected" in the upper right) seems to indicate it's a very recent addition to Macs as well. So USB 3 support at least seems like MS isn't really behind by fair measures.
Bluetooth and ISO mounting are a different story though; I've long thought that MS should include ISO mounting. At this point it's an "it's about time" feature. I'm not sure what the story is with Bluetooth; Apple seems to have had some support for it for ages, but I don't know if it's full support, and I also don't know whether it's been the case that it's only recently been added to chipsets commonly used for Windows boxes or something like that.
So what does being native actually afford you, then? What would the 15-second pitch be?
For me it'd be (1) one less thing to install and (2) fewer parties to trust. (Especially because it's not just an "well, I mostly trust the third-party person putting out a virtual CD drive, it's a "I'm installing a driver from them which could do anything.")