Is 256 enough?

Normally I wouldn’t ask such a question but I’m pretty stumped.

I have a 2011 MacBook Pro, it’s done me well these past years but it’s seen better days. So I’ve considered a new 15” MacBook Pro.

I edit on LR, PS, and recently got into video editing, all of which are on an external HDD (4TB SSD is too dam expensive lol). Everything else that isn’t photo/video is pretty much on my google drive or iCloud account. I feel like 256GB is enough, but I also plan on keeping this computer for the next 7 years. Considering I keep everything on a cloud or external drive, should I buy the 256GB or 512BG model?

Side note:
Model will be

2018 MacBook Pro 15”
2.2GHz 6‑core i7 processor
Radeon Pro 560X with 4GB of GDDR5 memory
16GB DDR4 RAM

So Would it be best to get the 16GB ram with 512 storage
Or 32GB ram and 256 storage?

Mac's are pretty expensive. What is the increment in $$ to make that move from 256 to 512 GB?

I haven't gotten into video but went with the 500GB drive. I try to keep the drive lean, backing up images on external drives then deleting from the MBP. If you can run editing software on the external drive then go for the 250GB but the larger drive is ideal.

Windows user here, so not talking from experience - but I seriously also would compare the transfer speed difference between having to work off the external HD and the internal SSD. If the difference is significant you might want to invest into a larger SSD just to keep your options for the future (who knows how large your files will be in 5 years?)

First, the macbook pro will have a fast interface to external drives so don't worry about that, but do get a drive that supports those speeds and you'll be fine at home.

My macbook air that I've had for 3+ years is 512gb, but not my main computer. It is used plenty on trips and I've never needed an external drive for travel, except for the backup drive I carry. When I get home, I offload to the main computer, which has external drives for old images. I rarely need more than 256gb when I'm away though, but if it were my only computer, I'd go 512gb in a heartbeat. And 16gb memory is fine in a laptop in my opinion.

drmaxx wrote in post #18787181
Windows user here, so not talking from experience - but I seriously also would compare the transfer speed difference between having to work off the external HD and the internal SSD. If the difference is significant you might want to invest into a larger SSD just to keep your options for the future (who knows how large your files will be in 5 years?)

This will likely be a minor consideration as external drives are rapidly changing. The article at https://www.anandtech.​com …ro-portable-ssd-goes-nvme discusses a new Sandisk drive announced at CES 2019 that SanDisk Extreme Portable SSD that will use the USB C port with an NVMe SSD drive.

RAM, opt for the 32Gb if you have to choose despite the ransom apple demand for it. You can always add additional SSD space over USB-c & that's a 40GB/s channel if I remember rightly. My old 2012 retina runs 16Gb of ram and a 265 SSD with a 2.6GHz i7 and that is great for things like Photoshop or Capture One but as the GPU is old it's not worth editing any video except for very small clips.

Consider that the 'internal' drive (whatever its unlying technology, be it harddrive or SSD or a hybrid) would keep the most recently created/modified files, and most files (after the current year) are very good candidates for storage on external connected drives, and the cloud is perhaps best reserved for files that need to be accessed from a different PC from a remote location, or the cloud is used as archival 'backup' storage (in case of catastrophic destruction of your office/home with its PC and network of external drive)

Consider also that the connection speed between motherboard and external drive should influence the decision of what files go on which storage media.

• attached to controller of the motherboard has generally been the fastest
  
• externized 'extensions' (like Firewire) are a bit slower than motherboard connected
  
• USB 3 is faster than USB 2
  
• networked storage (via Etherrnet) can be fast, and it can be slow (depending upon the product used)
  
• cloud access is limited by your internet bandwith as well as regulated by your cloud storage service provided
  

256GB has been enough for me.

I store my photos and LR catalog on an external 2TB 5200 rpm drive. It's not great but it works. Someday, when 1 or more TB external SSD drives are more affordable it will be better or even great.

For now I only occasionally import photos to the internal drive on my MacBook Pro. Everything is faster with the photos stored on the SSD but it is a pain to move them back to the external drive. Since I don't store my catalog on the SSD it takes an export of the catalog and then an import to the external catalog.

I've been thinking about moving my catalog to the internal drive to help with that situation.

With minimal photos on my internal drive, I end up with about 100 GB open space.

You are smart to max out the processor but for the added cost spread over a 7 year life that you expect, I'd go ahead and get the max SSD and max RAM, it will be worth it.

The transfer speed for some unknown reason is MUCH FASTER with the larger SSD's. Don't ask me why.

I have a maxed out mac air and I am glad I maxed it out. It runs great and is fast still.

Same with my iMac 27, I maxed it out and smartly DID NOT wait for the iMac Pro since I would have maxed that out too! ($13,000 YIKES, not for me).

Mike

Aronis wrote in post #18787548
The transfer speed for some unknown reason is MUCH FASTER with the larger SSD's. Don't ask me why.

Mike

See https://www.howtogeek.​com …/?utm_content=b​ufferceba1

Where are you planning to install your programs? If you take your laptop somewhere (and apps are installed on an external drive) then that needs to travel everywhere as well.

I have a 256G SSD that is half full with just my OS, Lightroom Catalog (not images) and a handful of apps. Most programs and my image files live on an internal 1 TB HD which is almost full.

I didn't read the complete thread but here's my $0.02:

Get the 500!

I got the 500 and never regret the cost. Here's why; I create large Ps files and saving them takes a lot more time when using an external drive. Your software + music + whatever else will take most of your 256gb. How many sessions worth of images/video do you want to be working with at one time? For me, I want to have two or three sessions on my computer. Everything is quicker if it's on the SSD. Opening, rendering, saving, importing, etc.

And even with the 500gb I still move my sessions of to external HDD immediately after I complete my editing - I have to, so I have room. I notice the computer slow down if I don't have 10-20% of my SSD free.

And I just remembered the couple of times I have run out of space while working on large files... not fun.

Disclaimer: I edit 30 megapixel files, I often create 1gb+ files in Ps (most are around the 1gb mark and I am often forced to save working files as .psb when I'm getting really creative) and I don't delete files to make space.

Another note: My mid 2015 MBP has a SD slot and I have a "BaseQi MicroSD Adapter for MacBook Pro" and it has saved me so many headaches. I have a 200gb MicroSD in there and that alone is why I don't feel like upgrading to a new computer without an SD slot. But all my above comments are made with an effective 700gb of local storage (although 200 of which are slow).

Just my thoughts

how big the internal drive is (whether harddrive or SSD) is less important when you consider the fact that most laptops have USB ports that easily connect compact external harddrive or SSD storage, or even very compact memory devices in SDXC form or like this USB 3.1 128GB flash unit (and which currently come up to 256GB in capacity!), which are easily changed out...

Speed Wilt, speed

I have 16 external drives. Most are 4tb, but opening and saving large .psd, .tif, or .psb files from those drives is very frustrating.

Reading image preview files from external drives causes unnecessary lag time - fractions of a second - but it's beyond annoying when you are looking through hundreds of images.

This choice is about speed, not size. And it all depends on the OP's intended use now, and for the next 7 years.

Canon officially announced development of an 8k EOS R yesterday...