thefranklin wrote in post #17548643
NAS (networked attached storage) speed won't be too much different than an external hdd connected directly to the MAC, if the MAC is wired to the router. It might not be as fast as your thunderbolt, but it shouldn't be far off. Speaking of which, can you just unload some of the files from your pc to your thunderbolt hdd? Or are you needing access to all the 500 GB on a regular basis. Usually you would use the NAS as storage and not stuff you are too concerned about the speed of, like storing raw files, music, movies, etc. But, since you already have something that functions the same, it might be unnecessary.
Buying a 1 TB SDD wouldn't be overkill. The price per GB isn't near as good as the 500gb, but if you need it, you might as well get it. I personally can manage my space well enough to get by on 250 gb ssds, but I wouldn't mind larger ones.
like the my last post, maybe this is a mac vs ibm thing, but i can tell you a NAS on my network with ibms is a TON slower than directly attached. throughput-wise, you're correct, you're talking 60-70mb/s vs. 100-140 mb/s for usb3 stuff (non-ssd), which ain't too bad. like, if you're copying a 2gb video or something, yeah, difference isn't a deal killer. but random access is FAR slower. like for instance, if you try right-clicking on the same directory on either a usb3 drive or the nas, it will take about 50-100x longer to complete an operation to calculate disk space used. that is not an exaggeration.
another operation: backing up a dir on my nas, and the same dir from my usb3, it takes about 10x longer to complete from the nas.
so, i dunno if macs are different, but on an ibm the real-world speed difference is very dramatic, depending if you are transferring few files of large size, vs many files of small size.