# Time Capsule...



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

I sometimes wish I wasn't so dammed impulsive.
Over the last year I've invested in a NAS drive and the new gigabit Airport Extreme.
Now I just know I'm going to have to buy this "Time Capsule", appears it does both, and will proably do it all better.
And to think back when I quit boating, I thought that would be the end of pouring money down the drain, so to speak 

jb


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

:lmao: Apple is the new boating!


----------



## RISCHead (Jul 20, 2004)

Does Time Capsule mean that Time Machine will now support network drives?


----------



## Eric0 (Nov 22, 2007)

I guess so, even if its only Apple's Time Capsule. It looks to me like you can save to the Time Capsule through time machine. 

Someone should probably clarify this though.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

It's pretty clear. 

I'm all over this and probably like this announcement more than anything at Macworld so far. I wish I wasn't as compulsive either though.... just bought my Airport Extreme N. Time to put it up in Classifieds I guess..


----------



## nick24 (Jul 11, 2006)

Q. What does boat stand for?
A. Bust Out Another Thousand

Q. What does mac stand for?
A. Pretty much the same...!


----------



## Megs_29 (Sep 25, 2007)

Oh well.. i wish I hadnt bought three of those 500GB LaCie Porsche drives at futureshop for $129 each. Tear.


----------



## Another_Paul (Sep 20, 2005)

Why not keep your current Airport Extreme and hookup your external hard drives to the USB port. Then use iTimeMachine.

Item : Time Machine Over the Network with iTimeMachine [Featured Mac Download]


----------



## sadd3j (Aug 24, 2004)

Whats the advantage to the Time Capsule vs an Airport Extreme w/external?

I know it would be faster with SATA vs USB2.. (which only matters if youre connected via gigabit e-net) but otherwise I'd probably just keep the Extreme and plug in a few external drives.


----------



## The Great Waka (Nov 26, 2002)

Thanks for the tip about iTime Machine. Makes me feel better about just having bought an Airport Extreme.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

jamesB said:


> I sometimes wish I wasn't so dammed impulsive.
> Over the last year I've invested in a NAS drive and the new gigabit Airport Extreme.
> Now I just know I'm going to have to buy this "Time Capsule", appears it does both, and will proably do it all better.
> And to think back when I quit boating, I thought that would be the end of pouring money down the drain, so to speak
> ...


Boating and motorcycles and cameras.... <sigh>  

The Time Capsule just blew my NAS research out of the water. I almost ordered a Synology DS107 this morning but procrastinated, thank goodness. And I be needing an "N" router too.. which I was about to go after... but is part of the TC package. For the money, it really isn't a bad deal taken all in.


----------



## csonni (Feb 8, 2001)

I don't see what the big hype is here. I have tried wireless backups and find them terribly slow. Sure, it can work in the background. So can wireless backups the old way- wireless networking from computer to computer. I much rather hook up firewire (or usb) and do a quick backup that way. Am I wrong?


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

nick24 said:


> Q. What does boat stand for?
> A. Bust Out Another Thousand
> 
> Q. What does mac stand for?
> A. Pretty much the same...!


It's pretty clear why most ships - boats have female names...

jb.


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2008)

I'm quite happy doing TM backups to my Xserve  Also of note, when backing up to the Xserve time machine share it makes sparseimages of the machines it backs up (instead of writing directly to the filesystem as it does with a local drive). I suspect that the TC will do the same as the Xserve. 

They use the sparseimages to avoid potential permissions nightmares you would end up with trying to duplicate local permissions on network mounts. I'm not sure what iTime machine does...


----------



## dibenga (Oct 30, 2001)

sadd3j said:


> Whats the advantage to the Time Capsule vs an Airport Extreme w/external?


one less power brick under your desk?


----------



## RISCHead (Jul 20, 2004)

csonni said:


> I don't see what the big hype is here. I have tried wireless backups and find them terribly slow. Sure, it can work in the background. So can wireless backups the old way- wireless networking from computer to computer. I much rather hook up firewire (or usb) and do a quick backup that way. Am I wrong?


simpler to manage multiple systems in an automated way.
Not really about wireless - more about network attached vs direct attached.
Direct attached is faster (generally speaking at consumer prices) but needs individual direct attachment.

I thought TM didn't support network attached hence my question.
TC could be a 'proprietary' special case forcing you to buy that solution.
I wouldn't be surprised.
Hence my original question earlier today.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

Backups over Wireless N are incredibly efficient.

The first time Time Machine Sync's, you'll find it slow.. you would with a firewire drive.. if you have a lot of content.

But, the subsequent changes after that are very small. Only what you've changed.. and in most cases, it's just the hotlinking of files. They've really thought out the design of Time Machine.

Even copying movies from my Macbook to my AppleTV over Wireless N is quite the treat.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

I'm guessing apple still doesn't support QOS on the Time Capsule? 

It really is silly that they can't give you this option on the AEBS. I love Apple, but sometimes....sometimes....arggghhh


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

I think the idea here is that "N" makes up for a lot of the "speed loss" you see comparing to directly-attached drives. Obviously FW is still faster, but TC should be more than fast enough for almost everyone after that first (long) sync, and you can do that overnight so it's "invisible" to the user.


----------



## csonni (Feb 8, 2001)

Wireless-N means that you need to have a N capable computer, right? I believe my MacBook is but not my G5. Will backups be any better performance-wise with the Time Capsule N without my G5 being N capable? I have done wireless backups from my MacBook to my G5 and quit after just a few moments realizing how long it would take.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

The whole wireless aspect is not such a big deal to me personally. I currently have a MacIntel Mini, a MacBook Pro and a MacPro that are all connected to a Gigabit switch (let me tell you running the ethernet cables in my crawl space almost killed me). So I already appreciate the amazing speed of a gigabit network, but my MacPro which has all the BIG drives on/attached to it basically has to function as the server to the other two, works great but less than ideal.

For me the Time Capsule is the perfect NAS solution and not particularly for backup, but as an always on data server for all three computers at once at Gigabit speeds. To me $529 bucks for a gigabit switch, with 802.11n, (when I'm or guests are in a wireless mood) a terabite of storage with USB hard drive expansion + printer sharing, all in one box made by Apple, so I know it is going to play nice with all my computers; this is a very good deal. Time Capsule is for me the BIGGEST announcement out of Macworld by far. I will be getting one for sure.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

*Not to mention...*

Also, if you put your Music folder on Time capsule all your music etc, will be directly accessible to all your computers, complete with one set of album covers etc. One place to update all files, no more "shared" music libraries, all computers access the same directory directly. WooHoo!


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

csonni said:


> Wireless-N means that you need to have a N capable computer, right? I believe my MacBook is but not my G5. Will backups be any better performance-wise with the Time Capsule N without my G5 being N capable? I have done wireless backups from my MacBook to my G5 and quit after just a few moments realizing how long it would take.


I believe if there is any *non "N" capable* system on the network, the speed for the whole network drops back to the slowest unit.

jb.


----------



## csonni (Feb 8, 2001)

So, in real life, is N actually that much faster for wireless transfer of files?


----------



## sadd3j (Aug 24, 2004)

screature said:


> Also, if you put your Music folder on Time capsule all your music etc, will be directly accessible to all your computers, complete with one set of album covers etc. One place to update all files, no more "shared" music libraries, all computers access the same directory directly. WooHoo!


I've done a bit of searching around, there's no easy way to synchronize multiple computers to one iTunes database is there? Like adding from one computer and having it automagically appear in the other. I'm really interested in this for when I plan to pick one of these up.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

sadd3j said:


> I've done a bit of searching around, there's no easy way to synchronize multiple computers to one iTunes database is there? Like adding from one computer and having it automagically appear in the other. I'm really interested in this for when I plan to pick one of these up.


The data base needs to be created on each computer (I believe it is created as an XML file that resides in the iTunes directory) that is in the Home folder, but if you have the actual music files in a single Music folder (you will have to tell iTunes to point to it in the preferences of iTunes on the different computers) that the iTunes Library is created from (creates the DB from) you should not have to have duplicate Music directories. They will all point to the same source files.

When I stop to think about it because the art work is I believe stored in the iTunes directory of the Home folder, the artwork will still probably have to be duplicated on the different local computers. I am not sure about that detail, but the single source directory for music that all computers refer to/access on the NAS should work such that you only need it in the one directory.

Newly added music to the one "shared" music folder won't automatically show up in the the iTunes Library on the different computers, you will still need to manually import the music into each individual Library, but you only need to have ALL you music (the actual files) in one place (well two as of course you should also have a back up of your Music directory on a different hard drive).


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

csonni said:


> So, in real life, is N actually that much faster for wireless transfer of files?


Real World Speed Tests for Performance Minded Mac Users

See for yourself. Apple claims "up to" 5x faster than 802.11g, Barefeats found that it was actually 4x faster.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

sadd3j said:


> I've done a bit of searching around, there's no easy way to synchronize multiple computers to one iTunes database is there? Like adding from one computer and having it automagically appear in the other. I'm really interested in this for when I plan to pick one of these up.


I have it set up on a NAS and i use it on both my desktop mac pro and macbook. here's how :

-copy the itunes folder to the NAS.
-create an alias of the itunes folder on the NAS
-copy the alias to you USER/music/itunes folder (replacing the itunes folder) for each computer.

now when you start itunes it links to the NAS. 

a few things

- all music has to be on the NAS
- only one computer can access the library at a time
- both computers should be running teh same version of itunes or things get weird.
- back up the itunes library file and the itunes library XML file regularly just in case

Unfortunately under Leopard i can't access my NAS. Still waiting for Apple to hopefully fix this with 10.5.2 or the enclosure vendor (vantec) to upgrade the drives firmware. It's been a real frustrating couple of months waiting for someone to fix this problem.


----------



## Mr. Fartleberry (Dec 17, 2005)

Megs_29 said:


> Oh well.. i wish I hadnt bought three of those 500GB LaCie Porsche drives at futureshop for $129 each. Tear.


Me Too. (Just one). The combo looks interesting if it is the high quality drive Steve claims it is. 

So now we know why wireless Time Machine was deleted from the Leopard release. I guess this means an enabling release in Feb. to make the thing work. We'll see if other drives will be accommodated wirelessly.


----------



## Starkicker (Jun 12, 2007)

Mr. Fartleberry said:


> Me Too. (Just one). The combo looks interesting if it is the high quality drive Steve claims it is.


I don't know about other places, but at my work, server class drives are the same as commercial drives. We just buy them from a vendor and have a service contract on the drives (or the server to which the drive belongs to). I haven't seen the specifics for the drives used in TC, so I could be wrong.


----------



## Xaver (Dec 30, 2007)

hmm, so basically can this be used the same way as an external harddrive or do you have to use it with time machine?

would it also backup windows systems say for example if u had windows running on your macbook pro?

Also would you be able to backup using the built in lan ports instead of wirelessly if u wanted to?


----------



## csonni (Feb 8, 2001)

Is there any way of making my 1st generation G5 "N" compatible?


----------



## Another_Paul (Sep 20, 2005)

csonni said:


> Is there any way of making my 1st generation G5 "N" compatible?


G5 iMac or PowerMac? I'm sure either way there will probably be a USB adapter to enable 802.11n on your computer. It is just a matter of time.


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

csonni said:


> Is there any way of making my 1st generation G5 "N" compatible?


A quick Google search produced this plus many others.

NewerTech® - MAXPower® 802.11n/g/b Wireless USB 2.0 Stick Adapter & Extension Cradle

Google will be your friend, if you let it...

jb.


----------



## csonni (Feb 8, 2001)

G5 PowerMac.
I suppose this one would do?
Edimax nMax Wireless 802.11n USB 2.0/1.1 Ada... (EW-7718Un) at OWC


----------



## RISCHead (Jul 20, 2004)

If you have a PCI slot free, I would use a PCI card instead.
Mac user reports on Edimax 802.11N PCI Card


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

MacWireless - Wireless Cards & Adapters - 11n USB Stick

This one advertises Leopard compatibility too.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Xaver said:


> hmm, so basically can this be used the same way as an external harddrive or do you have to use it with time machine?
> 
> would it also backup windows systems say for example if u had windows running on your macbook pro?
> 
> Also would you be able to backup using the built in lan ports instead of wirelessly if u wanted to?


It is just basically a NAS with some extended capabilities: wireless base station, gigabit switch, USB extendability and on the computers side, automated back up software aka Time Machine. You can use it however you want, absolutely you can do everything through the LAN, that is entirely what I am planning to do, wireless can't come close to gigabit speeds.

If you notice on the web page for Time Capsule Specs you can also use it with a PC which quite obviously doesn't have Time Machine. It is just basically Apples way of marketing the device to be a utility to be used in conjunction with Time Machine. It doesn't mean that is the way you have to use. It certainly isn't the way I plan to use it.


----------



## Xaver (Dec 30, 2007)

ah ok, so say you were going to use it with a windows machine would it just display as a network computer sort of thing? and u can just copy and paste your files onto and off it?


----------



## csonni (Feb 8, 2001)

Hold on now. I may have gone way off base here. My G5 PowerMac is hooked up by ethernet to my Speedstream wireless router. Doesn't this eliminate my issue of N capable, since I am hard wired? Or, will the Time Capsule be an entirely different network?


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

Yes.. if you're hard wired... then, you're able to transfer at N speeds.

I have my iMac Core Duo hooked up to the Extreme upstairs via Ethernet.. Then, my MacBook (N Capable) and AppleTV (Also N Capable) running wirelessly.

The speed of the network is incredible.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Xaver said:


> ah ok, so say you were going to use it with a windows machine would it just display as a network computer sort of thing? and u can just copy and paste your files onto and off it?


Xaver, no that is not the case. The point I was trying to make is that if the Time Capsule can be used with a PC clearly you do not have to use it only in conjunction with Time Machine. I will be using it on a Mac network. 

The point here is that Apple is marketing the device as a backup utility which it can be when used in conjunction with Time Machine. However, as I said before it is really just a NAS device with the added bonus of being a wireless 802.11n base station, a gigabit switch with USB expandability.

You don't have to use it in conjunction with Time Machine at all if you don't want to. I don't want to because for me I feel it to be an inferior form of back up relative to a firewire or USB drive connected directly to the computer and which can actual be used to boot the system in the case of catastrophic failure. You can't boot from a Time Machine backup or from a network drive. So for me I will continue to use SuperDuper (once it is Leopard ready) for back up. 

However, as a NAS drive that all my computers can access the data from, that is always on, regardless of what computers in the network are actually on...this is a very good thing...especially at full gigabit speed.


----------



## Xaver (Dec 30, 2007)

screature said:


> The point here is that Apple is marketing the device as a backup utility which it can be when used in conjunction with Time Machine. However, as I said before it is really just a NAS device with the added bonus of being a wireless 802.11n base station, a gigabit switch with USB expandability.


 Im understanding how they are marketing the product now



screature said:


> You don't have to use it in conjunction with Time Machine at all if you don't want to. I don't want to because for me I feel it to be an inferior form of back up relative to a firewire or USB drive connected directly to the computer and which can actual be used to boot the system in the case of catastrophic failure. You can't boot from a Time Machine backup or from a network drive. So for me I will continue to use SuperDuper (once it is Leopard ready) for back up.
> However, as a NAS drive that all my computers can access the data from, that is always on, regardless of what computers in the network are actually on...this is a very good thing...especially at full gigabit speed.


so your saying you will be using it as a server type of system, where u will put your files(music, movies, documents etc.) to be accessed over different machines?

if i get one of these i would also not use it for backups but rather to share files accross the network, basically that is what i was trying to ask in my last post

also how would windows access the device, with extra software or just through explorer?

thanks 
xaver


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Xaver said:


> Im understanding how they are marketing the product now
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You got it, that is how I plan to use it.

On the Windows side it would depend. Are you using a Windows box, Virtual Machine on a OSX system (VMware Fusion or Parallels) or BootCamp.


----------



## Xaver (Dec 30, 2007)

A windows box which is a desktop pc
and maybe even linux on bootcamp


----------



## twolf3232 (Jan 26, 2006)

Xaver said:


> also how would windows access the device, with extra software or just through explorer?


You'd probably need to use MacDrive (Mediafour | Home. It makes Mac formatted drives look like any other drives in Windows Explorer. I bought it for my MacBook with BootCamp and I really couldn't live without it (since I work on XP, and my personal life is all on the Mac partition)


----------



## Pat McCrotch (Jun 19, 2006)

twolf3232 said:


> You'd probably need to use MacDrive (Mediafour | Home. It makes Mac formatted drives look like any other drives in Windows Explorer. I bought it for my MacBook with BootCamp and I really couldn't live without it (since I work on XP, and my personal life is all on the Mac partition)


Or perhaps you'd have to install Bonjour like you do with the Macbook Air. It comes with a CD that you need to install on a windows machine so that you can use it's disk drive because for some strange reason, not having a disk drive is a great invention.

I was really high on TC when it was announced but was mega disappointed when I say it did not have a firewire plug in the back. Does that mean that you can't clone your hard drive and boot from it? If I'm using an external HD to boot from, you can bet I'd rather a firewire connection than a USB 2. I doubt you can boot from it remotely through wi-fi, or that you would even want to. If it wasn't for the lack of a firewire plug, I'd be all over TC.


----------



## jdurston (Jan 28, 2005)

Intel Macs can boot and clone over USB 2. It's probably 90% as fast as FW400. I did it yesterday when I swapped my MacBook drive out.

You won't need mac drive to see your Time Capsule. The drive format doesn't matter because it is going thru a server (built in). You might have to put apple software on your PC to see the share though. This is similar to how you can share files over a network with your Mac to PCs.

Wireless or wired to your router it's the same network just the hardware is different, services available will be the same as long as your on a local Ethernet port or connected wirelessly.

802.11n has much better backwards compatibility than G/B. It doesn't drag everyone down as much if a legacy client connects (I've tested this with a Gigabit Airport Extreme). If you want real speed use the 40mHz wide channels on the 5.8Ghz spectrum (all intel macs can connect at the higher frequency spectrum, but the older ones do a 802.11a speeds)


----------



## pictor (Jan 29, 2007)

I am curious if it can be used just as a regular drive. Does it have to tie to Time Machine. It wouldn't make much sense, it's a decent price for a base station and a hard drive (not killer price, but decent price). Partition it up, and it's a great bundled NAS.


----------



## nick24 (Jul 11, 2006)

pictor said:


> I am curious if it can be used just as a regular drive. Does it have to tie to Time Machine. It wouldn't make much sense, it's a decent price for a base station and a hard drive (not killer price, but decent price). Partition it up, and it's a great bundled NAS.


From the apple webby > Apple Canada - Time Capsule - Wireless

"Because it mounts as a wireless hard drive, Tiger and Windows users simply access Time Capsule directly from the wireless network for exchanging and storing files quickly and easily."

I assume the Tiger reference may be a typo (or it's saying that Tiger and Leopard users can use TC)


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

pictor said:


> I am curious if it can be used just as a regular drive. Does it have to tie to Time Machine. It wouldn't make much sense, it's a decent price for a base station and a hard drive (not killer price, but decent price). Partition it up, and it's a great bundled NAS.


Pictor and Nick 24. As I explained to Xaver:

_"... if the Time Capsule can be used with a PC clearly you do not have to use it only in conjunction with Time Machine...
The point here is that Apple is marketing the device as a backup utility which it can be when used in conjunction with Time Machine. However, as I said before it is really just a NAS device with the added bonus of being a wireless 802.11n base station, a gigabit switch with USB expandability.

You don't have to use it in conjunction with Time Machine at all if you don't want to. I don't want to because for me I feel it to be an inferior form of back up relative to a firewire or USB drive connected directly to the computer and which can actual be used to boot the system in the case of catastrophic failure. You can't boot from a Time Machine backup or from a network drive. So for me I will continue to use SuperDuper (once it is Leopard ready) for back up.

However, as a NAS drive that all my computers can access the data from, that is always on, regardless of what computers in the network are actually on...this is a very good thing...especially at full gigabit speed."_

There is no typo in on the Apple site, where it says you can also use Time Capsule with Tiger and a PC - they are telling you this because neither of these platforms use Time Machine, Time Machine is Leopard only.

The whole reason they are calling it Time Capsule is for marketing. They are trying to tie it into the use of Time Machine on Leopard and also very useful for the new MacBook Air. But it doesn't stop you from using it as a General NAS. You have to ask yourself, why would they make a product that could only be used with Leopard and Time Machine when over half of current Mac users still haven't even upgraded to Leopard yet and also they would be completely ignoring the potential Windows market?

This is a great multi purpose NAS (I said it before I'll say it again) with the added bonus of being a wireless 802.11n base station, a gigabit switch with USB expandability.


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

Any release date?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Black said:


> Any release date?


Ships in February, they are taking pre-orders on the Apple site now though.


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

Perfect, thank you.


----------



## nick24 (Jul 11, 2006)

I think that's what I said, Mr Creature - 

Because it *mounts as a wireless hard drive*, Tiger and Windows *users *simply *access Time Capsule *directly from the wireless network *for *exchanging and *storing files *quickly and easily

My emphasis added


----------



## Rukus (Aug 10, 2007)

I have a question about the usb expandability. Does this mean that for example, if someone buys the 500gb version and down the road finds they have run out of room, they could go out and buy a 500gb external usb hard drive, plug it in and now have a 1 tb time capsule?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

nick24 said:


> I think that's what I said, Mr Creature -
> 
> Because it *mounts as a wireless hard drive*, Tiger and Windows *users *simply *access Time Capsule *directly from the wireless network *for *exchanging and *storing files *quickly and easily
> 
> My emphasis added


Sorry nick24, the only reason why I referenced you was because there is not a typo on the Apple page. No offense intended. 

I think Apple has done itself a bit of disservice by marketing the Time Capsule as being so closely tied to the use of Time Machine, the product is actually more versatile than their marketing makes it seem. At least so it would seem from this forum in that many people are not clear on that it doesn't need to used in conjunction with Time Machine.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Rukus said:


> I have a question about the usb expandability. Does this mean that for example, if someone buys the 500gb version and down the road finds they have run out of room, they could go out and buy a 500gb external usb hard drive, plug it in and now have a 1 tb time capsule?


No not really because Time Machine only points to one external drive.

You do gain added network storage, but bear in mind that for the data stored on the USB drive the throughput is throttled down to that of the USB interface. Not a problem if you are transferring data wirelessly through the 802.11n protocol which is 248 Mbit/s max. (USB 2.0 480 Mbit/s max.) but if you are using the the gigabit ethernet network then you throughput is basically cut in half from 1000 Mbit/s to 480 Mbit/s.

However, if speed isn't a big issue for you, the expandability potential is HUGE. Attach a powered USB hub to the Time Capsule and go crazy adding drives, printers, scanners, (why you would want a shared scanner, I don't know, but you could) whatever.


----------



## MazG (Jan 25, 2008)

screature said:


> However, if speed isn't a big issue for you, the expandability potential is HUGE. Attach a powered USB hub to the Time Capsule and go crazy adding drives, printers, scanners, (why you would want a shared scanner, I don't know, but you could) whatever.


Is this true? Can you add a scanner? The airport extreme didn't let you do this and the Belkin Networked Hub only works with PCs. 

We have a laptop but have to keep an old desktop PC just for the purpose of using the scanner. Now if we could plug that scanner into the Time Capsule then we could ditch the old desktop PC. 

Have you seen something that refers specifically to a scanner? Or are you assuming that because there is a USB port a scanner will work?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MazG said:


> Is this true? Can you add a scanner? The airport extreme didn't let you do this and the Belkin Networked Hub only works with PCs.
> 
> Our family only uses laptops but have to keep an old desktop PC just for the purpose of using the scanner. Now if we could plug that scanner into the Time Capsule then we could ditch the old desktop PC.
> 
> Have you seen something that refers specifically to a scanner? Or are you assuming that because there is a USB port a scanner will work?


Is your scanner OSX friendly? It sounds like it may not be if you had to keep an old PC around to use it. If it isn't then off course you wouldn't be able to use it. If it is you would need the OSX software that it comes with it (that you download from the manufacturer site) it should work. You are just sharing a USB device over the network. I can't say absolutely for sure obviously because Time Capsule isn't available yet. I would would call Mac sales and ask them. In theory you should be able to. It could be that you might only be able to use it over a gigabit network because 802.11n is actually at max only half the throughput of USB 2.0 while gigabit is actually twice the throughput capacity of USB 2.0. 

I run a gigabit network so that was built into my assumption. Sorry if I assumed incorrectly. A phone call to Mac sales would probably provide the definitive answer.


----------



## MazG (Jan 25, 2008)

The scanner is OSX compatible. The reason I suspected that scanners might not work is that the scanning function in multifunction printers is not supposed to work with the Airport Extreme (same with dedicated scanners). 

The desktop is actually acting like a printer/scanner/external hard drive server right now but I'd dearly love to replace it with the small streamined box of the Time Capsue which seems like it might actually do the trick. I'll try and give Apple a call.


----------



## MazG (Jan 25, 2008)

I spoke to the Apple Store (1-800-myapple) and they seem to think that a scanner won't work with the time capsule. The stated reason is that the kind of information a scanner needs and transmits cannot be transmitted wirelessly. However, they also said to check with the scanner manufacturer once time capsule is released.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

MazG said:


> The stated reason is that the kind of information a scanner needs and transmits cannot be transmitted wirelessly.


Data is data. "Cannot be transmitted wirelessly" is a red herring. I scan wirelessly regularly. My scanner is part of a HP all-in-one and is attached to my network. My laptop communicates with it flawlessly.


----------



## MazG (Jan 25, 2008)

I tend to agree with you. I guess until the time capsule is released and someone actually tries it we won't really know.


----------



## Meleemark (Mar 3, 2007)

MazG said:


> The scanner is OSX compatible. The reason I suspected that scanners might not work is that the scanning function in multifunction printers does not work with the Airport Extreme (and neither do dedicated scanners).


My MFP and scanner works quite nicely over my AEBS. One shouldn't make such bold black or white statements if one hasn't done one's research.


----------



## RISCHead (Jul 20, 2004)

There's nothing like proving it for yourself 
You can state the problem in 2 parts:
1. Does my 'device x' work over a networked device?
2. If so, and if the networked device resembles TC sufficiently, can we apply an associative property?

Proof for #1:
a. You've said device x works through your PC over your current network.
b. So at least we know:
i. Device x is not busted.
ii. Your PC is not busted.
c. We also know your PC is nothing like TC.

d. You could at this point, go to Costco or another retailer who doesn't penalize you for returning items and purchase a wireless router with a USB port.
e. Repeat experiment 1. 
f. If device x works over router y, you can draw conclusions a and b above.
g. You may also choose to say router y is like TC. This is more acceptable than saying your PC is like TC.

At this point you have 3 choices:
1. Keep router y and scan merrily along.
2. Return router y and pine for TC - keeping the associative property in mind.
3. Wait for TC, find out your associative assumption is not valid. TC != router y
Curse Apple and Steve Jobs until you've got your restocking fee's worth of angst out of your system (cheaper than therapy, even for the 1 TB capsule).
Keep router y and scan despondently along.

Ignore all the jokers including myself who know no better for all such future questions. 

Of course, you could simply rid yourself of doubt, fear and uncertainity, by simply purchasing a (relatively) cheap USB print server device like the D-Link DP-301U
Currently available at TigerDirect for $67.99
15% restocking fee if you have to return it: $10 - cheap for a quick experiment.


----------

