Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Computers 
Thread started 07 May 2015 (Thursday) 18:24
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Replace or upgrade mid 2011 iMac? Need storage.

 
jeffreynmandy
Senior Member
348 posts
Joined Mar 2010
Post edited over 4 years ago by jeffreynmandy.
     
May 07, 2015 18:24 |  #1

I'm getting back into photography, but my computer is running slow on Lightroom and I need space.

I have a,

I5 processor
16gb ram
500gb HD
Usb 2.0
Wireless N

Or Replace to a newer iMac with

I7 processor
8gb ram
1tb fusion drive
Usb 3.0
Wireless ac- I have an Ac router.


My main problem now is storage. My hd is full and slowing down the computer. If I upgrade mine it would run me around $600 for what I want.
Upgrade the main HD to 3.5" 4tb for storage, and then replace the optical drive with a 960gb crucial SSD. That should make it fly and have enough storage.

Should I scrap the upgrade plans and replace it to get the usb3.0, wireless ac, and i7 processor. But then I'd only have a 1tb fusion?

I'm looking at a used 2013 iMacs. I can't afford a new one. Windows is out of the question. Windows 8 sucks, I'm not going back.


Ever changing.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
thefranklin
Member
44 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2011
     
May 07, 2015 18:52 |  #2

To fix your main problem, I suggest a NAS unit that will plug directly into your router. This will give you plenty of space and decouple storage from your pc. This leaves you the option of an ssd for you OS drive. I saw a slickdeal today for the 500 GB Samsung 850 evo for $170.


I would also suggest an extra backup external HDD if you don't already have one. You cannot be too safe with your data, and 2tb to 4tb external HDDs are everywhere.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jeffreynmandy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
348 posts
Joined Mar 2010
     
May 07, 2015 19:18 |  #3

thefranklin wrote in post #17547736 (external link)
To fix your main problem, I suggest a NAS unit that will plug directly into your router. This will give you plenty of space and decouple storage from your pc. This leaves you the option of an ssd for you OS drive. I saw a slickdeal today for the 500 GB Samsung 850 evo for $170.


I would also suggest an extra backup external HDD if you don't already have one. You cannot be too safe with your data, and 2tb to 4tb external HDDs are everywhere.


I haven't thought or know much about nas. I'm pretty impatient, what are the transfer speeds like? I have a 3tb thunderbolt as my main time machine backup HD.

Using the usb 2.0 is too slow for anything large like raw files and movies.

Thanks for the help with the nas. Would it transfer files at Ethernet speeds?


Ever changing.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,977 posts
Likes: 357
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
May 07, 2015 21:20 |  #4

960GB is excessive, 120GB or 240GB is enough for most people to put on their OS, programs, caches, and catalog. Samsung 850 (external link) is the best choice at the moment IMHO.

Internal disks can do 160MB/sec, ethernet/NAS can do around 80MB/sec. I recommend HGST Hard Drives (external link), BackBlaze rates them as the most reliable.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jeffreynmandy
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
348 posts
Joined Mar 2010
     
May 08, 2015 07:15 |  #5

tim wrote in post #17547861 (external link)
960GB is excessive, 120GB or 240GB is enough for most people to put on their OS, programs, caches, and catalog. Samsung 850 (external link) is the best choice at the moment IMHO.

Internal disks can do 160MB/sec, ethernet/NAS can do around 80MB/sec. I recommend HGST Hard Drives (external link), BackBlaze rates them as the most reliable.


I'm wanting to future proof it a little with the 960gb ssd. I'd use that one for the boot drive. Since I'm cracking it open I may as well go ahead and put as much as I can.


Ever changing.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bearmann
Goldmember
Avatar
1,226 posts
Likes: 57
Joined Feb 2008
Location: I live behind Graceland in a tool shed. I often meet the man early in the morning at Krispy Kreme.
Post edited over 4 years ago by Bearmann.
     
May 08, 2015 12:18 |  #6

It's looks like going from i5 to i7 results in a negligible increase in speed, plus you're giving up 8GB of RAM which could really slow you down if you are are RAM constrained.

http://www.xbitlabs.co​m …-i7-4790k-i5-4690k_6.html (external link)

To speed up the develop module, consider upgrading to Lightroom 6/CC assuming that you already have a video card installed.


Barry

http://b-r-s-photo.zenfolio.com (external link) (remove the dashes)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
thefranklin
Member
44 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2011
     
May 08, 2015 14:08 |  #7

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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Xyclopx
Goldmember
1,714 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 201
Joined Jul 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
     
May 08, 2015 15:44 |  #8

tim wrote in post #17547861 (external link)
960GB is excessive, 120GB or 240GB is enough for most people to put on their OS, programs, caches, and catalog. Samsung 850 (external link) is the best choice at the moment IMHO.

Internal disks can do 160MB/sec, ethernet/NAS can do around 80MB/sec. I recommend HGST Hard Drives (external link), BackBlaze rates them as the most reliable.

just fyi, i have a 500gb ssd for my main drive. it's 90% full and i put ZERO data on it. all data goes onto an external DAS/NAS. also I do not have that many applications installed. just 1/3 of the adobe suite, microsoft office stuff, and other bare essentials. and one big game (final fantasy xiv). that's 450gb used.

that said, i'm using an ibm and i heard macs are a little more efficient in that department so maybe that's the difference.

if i had to do this all over again, i'd totally get a 1gb ssd.


Dean Chiang (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Blog (external link) | Gear (external link)
My Photos (external link)
Instagram @xyclopx (external link) @feetandeyes (external link) @gastramour (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Xyclopx
Goldmember
1,714 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 201
Joined Jul 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Post edited over 4 years ago by Xyclopx.
     
May 08, 2015 15:50 |  #9

thefranklin wrote in post #17548643 (external link)
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.


Dean Chiang (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Blog (external link) | Gear (external link)
My Photos (external link)
Instagram @xyclopx (external link) @feetandeyes (external link) @gastramour (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,977 posts
Likes: 357
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
May 08, 2015 22:05 |  #10

Xyclopx wrote in post #17548740 (external link)
just fyi, i have a 500gb ssd for my main drive. it's 90% full and i put ZERO data on it. all data goes onto an external DAS/NAS. also I do not have that many applications installed. just 1/3 of the adobe suite, microsoft office stuff, and other bare essentials. and one big game (final fantasy xiv). that's 450gb used.

that said, i'm using an ibm and i heard macs are a little more efficient in that department so maybe that's the difference.

if i had to do this all over again, i'd totally get a 1gb ssd.

It'll be caches and windows updates, perhaps iTunes music, that sort of thing. My 120GB SSD has 43GB used, that has Windows 10, office, MySQL database, Photoshop CS6, and masses of other software.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,977 posts
Likes: 357
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
May 08, 2015 22:06 |  #11

jeffreynmandy wrote in post #17548189 (external link)
I'm wanting to future proof it a little with the 960gb ssd. I'd use that one for the boot drive. Since I'm cracking it open I may as well go ahead and put as much as I can.

It's your money, but to me it's a huge waste. Best get a 120GB boot/programs drive then a 250MB data drive, that way disk images (eg Macrium Reflect) are small.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EverydayGetaway
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,564 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 3737
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Bowie, MD
     
May 10, 2015 00:47 |  #12

jeffreynmandy wrote in post #17547710 (external link)
I'm looking at a used 2013 iMacs. I can't afford a new one. Windows is out of the question. Windows 8 sucks, I'm not going back.

Well, Windows 10 comes out in less than a couple of months... ;)

If you'd asked me a couple of months ago I'd have said the same thing in regards to going back to Windows... but I bought a PC to use as a gaming console of sorts and it's already replaced my late 2012 model i7 Mac Mini. Windows 7 isn't so bad once you figure out how it all works btw. I agree though, 8 sucks.

If you're sticking with Mac though, then I'd vote on getting the newer Mac. Upgrading your current one won't really increase it's resale value and USB 3 is worth the upgrade if you do a lot of file transfers... which, you're a photographer... so you do :lol:


Fuji X-Pro2 // Fuji X-T1 // Fuji X-100T // XF 18mm f2 // XF 35mm f1.4 // XF 60mm f2.4 // Rokinon 12mm f2 // Rokinon 21mm f1.4 // XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 // XF 55-200mm f3.5-4.8 // Rokinon 85mm f1.4 // Zhonghi Lensturbo ii // Various adapted MF lenses
flickr (external link) // Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,977 posts
Likes: 357
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
May 10, 2015 00:54 |  #13

I've been using Windows 10 tech preview for a few months... it's good. I personally find Mac OS confusing, it tries to isolate you too much from what's really going on, tries to protect you which takes away some of the power/options.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,364 views & 0 likes for this thread
Replace or upgrade mid 2011 iMac? Need storage.
FORUMS General Gear Talk Computers 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is 7DMalinois
869 guests, 301 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.