[panoguy]

For apple users, how many of you store your photo database on your system hard drive, and how many use an external storage drive? Just wondering if it would be worth it to upgrade to the 2 TB drive or just roll with the 1 TB external Western Digital I have now.

I opted for the 2TB internal on my 2011 iMac mainly because I read how they are not "user-upgradeable" if I need more space in the future, and I put a 500GB Bootcamp partition for (ugh) Windows on it. However, like Frogfish, I also have a string of external drives (dear me... 2x1TB, 1x2TB, 1x4TB RAID), but they are for work-related content, which averages 5GB of new data a week, and the all-important TimeMachine backup.

Note that your TimeMachine external drive will need at least as much space as the (data on the) drive(s) it is backing up, but prefers to have 50% more. The "extra space" allows you to have multiple versions and "incrementally graded" backups (allows you to restore your data from what was saved yesterday, last week, or two months ago, etc.).

[abieleck]

and the all-important TimeMachine backup

I am not real familiar with Time Machine, but I think I know the basics of how it works...might be another topic for a different thread Has anyone purchased the Time Capsule and had experience with it. I would think the wireless option would be nice, and 2 TB for $300 seems like a decent value.

Would storing Lightroom files directly on the iMac system hard drive increase access speed vs. using a 3rd party external drive? Has anyone made multiple catalogs and kept them in different locations? ie having one catalog for Weddings/Events and another for day to day shooting and keeping one catalog on the internal drive and one on an external? I am thinking of having a 1TB/2TB internal drive for all of my files including my recreational day to day photos. Having an USB external HD for work with clients and special projects. And then a third external HD/Time Capsule for Time Machine backups. Anyone have a set up similar to this? Could I backup both my internal hard drive and external HD to the same Time Machine back up drive?

[panoguy]

Could I backup both my internal hard drive and external HD to the same Time Machine back up drive?

Yes. Timemachine will backup multiple drives/partitions/mounted writable media... Easy!

[Nuff]

With lightroom the external drive doesn't matter as much for daily use. It will be important for importing the images and generating previews.
You will gain a lot of speed if you put your catalogue and cache/previews on a SSD drive. This is what is used 90% of the time while you are working in lightroom.
Also make sure to make the cache very big and generate 1:1 previews.

As for drives, if you value your photos I would go with external storage solution + backup. I had drives fail before and lost photos which I will never be able to get back.
I highly recommend you get some kind of raid solution, it will minimise your down time. There are lots of cheap 2 drive RAID1 solution out on the market and it will provide some redundancy.
Also make sure you backup your LR catalogue and Photos.

[robgo2]

My attitude is always to get the fastest, most powerful computer that you can afford, because it won't belong before it will start to seem sluggish. This is due to the fact that future software and web browsing will require ever greater computing power. Thus, what is fast today will be slower tomorrow. If you start out with a faster processor and more RAM, you will actually extend the useful life of the computer and save money in the long run.

Rob

[Anvh]

My attitude is always to get the fastest, most powerful computer that you can afford, because it won't belong before it will start to seem sluggish. This is due to the fact that future software and web browsing will require ever greater computing power. Thus, what is fast today will be slower tomorrow. If you start out with a faster processor and more RAM, you will actually extend the useful life of the computer and save money in the long run.

Rob

Thats why i upgrade things yearly with my pc, last year upgraded the videocard, RAM and got myself an SSD, this year processor and motherboard (need a new socket) can use an upgrade.

Sounds like a lot of money but is only around 400 euro a year roughly so that isn't so bad.

But this sort of thing is hard to do with a mac though and you can't upgrade them so much

[Ash]

But you'll find that you wont have to upgrade Macs as often... making them about on par with PCs for cost in the long run...

[Nuff]

As for me, I don't like to upgrade my hardware often. I will go for 3-5 years before upgrading. If that's even needed. That's how often I would upgrade cameras as well.
400euro over 5 years adds up to being 2000 euro. My iMac cost me a lot less than that and I didn't have to fiddle with it as well. By the way, it's my first iMac. Before that I had a windows laptop, it was one of the highest end at that time and I've used it for 6 years before getting the mac.

[normhead]

But this sort of thing is hard to do with a mac though and you can't upgrade them so much

With Mac, you really need to go top of the line upfront and get the extended warranty. I usually get a refurb and that pays for the warranty plus my memory upgrade. You get the same extended warranty on the refurb, so you're totally protected for 3 years.

The PC thing, buying one killer component then building your system and then upgrading your other components when you have the money just doesn't work on a Mac. But as stated, in my experience, in the long run that saves money and time. My last Mac ended up costing me 300 a year over 4 years, and for the last year has been an email and web surfing machine. When we go on vacation, I still pull out my 8 year old Macbook... 500m hz G3. ( My wife gets the 2ghz core 2 duo, now 5 years old) You can't do everything on it, but, I've read and posted on the forum with it and it still does email way better than a phone. It shows absolutely no signs it's going to go die anytime soon. The 8 year old machine is now down to about $125 a year for it's use and the iBook, under $200 a year. I've actually never had one die that was less than 8 years old.

[Anvh]

But you'll find that you wont have to upgrade Macs as often... making them about on par with PCs for cost in the long run...

That's not true though just look at the test I posted in the first page, the performance of Mac and windows is roughly the same on the same hardware.
if we start to talk about hardware alone then what's in the Mac isn't that special or powerful either so for cost you get more power with windows sadly.

[Anvh]

The PC thing, buying one killer component then building your system and then upgrading your other components when you have the money just doesn't work on a Mac. But as stated, in my experience, in the long run that saves money and time. My last Mac ended up costing me 300 a year over 4 years, and for the last year has been an email and web surfing machine. When we go on vacation, I still pull out my 8 year old Macbook... 500m hz G3. ( My wife gets the 2ghz core 2 duo, now 5 years old) You can't do everything on it, but, I've read and posted on the forum with it and it still does email way better than a phone. It shows absolutely no signs it's going to go die anytime soon. The 8 year old machine is now down to about $125 a year for it's use and the iBook, under $200 a year. I've actually never had one die that was less than 8 years old.

Form the old parts I also made a PC some components in it are also 5 years old it all depends on what you do with it like you say, but is enough to do raw editing without being slow.
I won't want to be doing film or 3d on it that's why I upgrade quite a bit you get quite a lot of performance this way without breaking the bank and all the new technology.

[GregK8]

You will gain a lot of speed if you put your catalogue and cache/previews on a SSD drive. This is what is used 90% of the time while you are working in lightroom.

Not necessarily. Check this out.

Will an SSD Improve Adobe Lightroom Performance? | Computer Darkroom

[Ash]

That's not true though just look at the test I posted in the first page, the performance of Mac and windows is roughly the same on the same hardware.
if we start to talk about hardware alone then what's in the Mac isn't that special or powerful either so for cost you get more power with windows sadly.

Well I can only speak from personal experience in that I have gone through a number of PC desktops and laptops for home and work over just a few years whereas every Mac I've owned for the past 10 years still works perfectly. The PCs had all critically failed one way or another - that is what I meant as opposed to the comparative performance. Anyway, I still prefer OSX over Windows.