On 2022-03-22 18:36, RichA wrote:
> They're just begging the controlling Europeans to being in a law to allow it.
>
> https://petapixel.com/2022/03/22/mac-studio-m1-ultra-teardown-removable-ssd-is-upgradable-but-blocked-by-apple/
>

Article: "Even though the Mac Studio does make a strong case for itself
as an incredible value from the perspective of power for the price, the
inability to upgrade storage is disappointing."

.....

The best of both worlds for one person is not going to be the best for
another person.

I may be ordering this machine (Mac Studio Max, not Ultra) with 32 or 64
GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD and that should be good for me for another 10
years just as this iMac has been good for the last 9 - coming up on 10
years.

Though on this machine I ordered it with 8 GB of RAM and then ordered 16
GB more from OWC (or similar) as Apple's RAM prices were (and still are)
way over the top.

And then I changed the HD in this machine - a bit arduous - near 45
minutes to do it (v. 10 minute job in a regular PC - or prior iMac at
about 20 minutes).

I will wait to see what the Mac Pro looks like (probably too expensive
for my needs) and hopefully a higher end Mx iMac than what is currently
offered (ie: an iMac with the M1 Max would be perfect).

--
Beginning in the 1970's, all birds in North America were replaced by
drones made to look and act like birds. By 2004, no real birds are to
be found. They are all drones. They all belong to the government.
They spy on everyone. All of the time. Birds are not real.

In article <18ed1da5-bc25-49e3-8e71-3caeac0790fbn@googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I may be ordering this machine (Mac Studio Max, not Ultra) with 32 or 64
> > GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD and that should be good for me for another 10
> > years just as this iMac has been good for the last 9 - coming up on 10
> > years.
>
> 1TB is nothing. Unless you only use it for the OS and some minor storage.

1tb is quite a bit, and for many people, more than enough.

also, the typical buyer of a mac studio will be connecting it to
auxiliary storage anyway, which hold massive amounts of video, audio,
etc.

> But, as long as you can plug-in auxiliary storage, even though USB-3 is inferior
> to an in-board hard drive.

no it isn't, since hard drives are slow and can barely saturate a usb 2
link.

the mac also has thunderbolt 4 which is much faster than usb 3, along
with 10gb ethernet.

On 2022-03-24 04:56, RichA wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 14:56:57 UTC-4, Alan Browne wrote:

>> I may be ordering this machine (Mac Studio Max, not Ultra) with 32 or 64
>> GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD and that should be good for me for another 10
>> years just as this iMac has been good for the last 9 - coming up on 10
>> years.
>
> 1TB is nothing. Unless you only use it for the OS and some minor storage. But, as long as you can plug-in auxiliary storage, even though USB-3 is inferior to an in-board hard drive.

1 TB is more than adequate for system and my "live" files - it's what I
have on this iMac. Older photography and video is stored externally and
USB 3 is plenty fast for that - esp. if it's just moving data "on board"
to work on it.

I have 24 TB of external HD's spinning at any given time, and 6 to 12 TB
of offline backup storage offsite. (Rotates every 2 months or so.)

And, extensive backup on DVD's (re-burned every 5 years though several
test sets are over 12 years old and still good. (Dark, cool, dry)).

For that matter, that 1TB is not only Mac OS and my "live" files but
also has 2 Windows (WinXP, Win 7) and 3 Linux "images" that I run under
Fusion.

Not clear where this will go on the Mx based Macs so far - but I won't
be getting rid of this iMac anytime soon either. It's not clear to me
that Parallels will run Windows (x86 translation|emulation) on the Mx
yet. Rosetta 2 performance for such TBS. Fusion won't attempt it from
what I can see (it will run ARM based Windows on the Mac Mx).

There are Linux distros for the Mx Macs of course and I can use those in
2 use cases. Not clear on one use case (my Linux dev environment for
embedded Rasp-Pi systems is very bespoke).)

--
Beginning in the 1970's, all birds in North America were replaced by
drones made to look and act like birds. By 2004, no real birds are to
be found. They are all drones. They all belong to the government.
They spy on everyone. All of the time. Birds are not real.

On Mar 24, 2022, Alan Browne wrote
(in article <Cd0%J.290056$Gojc.49332@fx99.iad>):

> Not clear where this will go on the Mx based Macs so far - but I won't
> be getting rid of this iMac anytime soon either. It's not clear to me
> that Parallels will run Windows (x86 translation|emulation) on the Mx
> yet. Rosetta 2 performance for such TBS. Fusion won't attempt it from
> what I can see (it will run ARM based Windows on the Mac Mx).

I am running Win 11 ARM based on my M1 MacBook under Parallels. It installed
easily, and works fine, except for sound issues. I cannot get any audio
interface to work with my DAW, although one DAW installs properly (and
another one will not even try to install). The issue appears to be drivers
for the interfaces, so keep in mind that not all software will install or
work on ARM based Windows, and drivers can be an issue. I haven’t had any
reason to try any photography work within Win 11, but I would assume that
there could be issues there, too.

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 4:56:24 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 14:56:57 UTC-4, Alan Browne wrote:
> > On 2022-03-22 18:36, RichA wrote:
> > > They're just begging the controlling Europeans to being in a law to allow it.
> > >
> > > https://petapixel.com/2022/03/22/mac-studio-m1-ultra-teardown-removable-ssd-is-upgradable-but-blocked-by-apple/
> > >
> > Article: "Even though the Mac Studio does make a strong case for itself
> > as an incredible value from the perspective of power for the price, the
> > inability to upgrade storage is disappointing."

My understanding is that the constraint is apparently associated with the "T2"
security chip being integrated into the onboard storage. Since Apple wants to
sell a Studio with up to 8TB onboard which requires two ports, the two are
thus both tied into the T2 chip, and thus, the observed behavior.

To have a DIY-esque upgrade capability will probably require two things.

The first is for the SSD hardware to be 3rd party sourced. If that will happen
will of course be dependent on the market to buy it, plus the second part.

The second will be some sort of software/firmware based upgrade protocol
where a machine is upgraded with all current memory being wiped & reset
as part of the T2 interface/protocol restrictions.

Probably what's more likely to come about would be for Apple to sell upgrade
kits (like what was done for the iMac Pro IIRC), and maybe for a 3rd party
reseller or two who will offers to sell new Studio systems with their upgrade
kit installed, and/or as an upgrade service. IIRC, there was someone who did
this for some desktop Macs ... can't recall anymore which ones/when.

> > I may be ordering this machine (Mac Studio Max, not Ultra) with 32 or 64
> > GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD and that should be good for me for another 10
> > years just as this iMac has been good for the last 9 - coming up on 10
> > years.
>
> 1TB is nothing. Unless you only use it for the OS and some minor storage.

It really comes down to one's use cases and plans. Personally, I see 512GB as
a near term pragmatic minimum, and 1TB as the longer term (5+ years) useful life.

> But, as long as you can plug-in auxiliary storage, even though USB-3 is inferior to an in-board hard drive.

Aux storage gets pricey too when you're doing better than spinning rust.
One of my systems is a 3TB RAID-0 on USB-C 3.2 so its capable of 10Gb/s:

<https://eshop.macsales.com/shop/external-drives/owc-mercury-elite-pro-dual/mini>

But as one can see, 4TB costs just north of $700. Much more than
what Apple charges per TB, but also not as fast either.

-hh

On 2022-03-24 04:56, RichA wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 March 2022 at 14:56:57 UTC-4, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2022-03-22 18:36, RichA wrote:
>>> They're just begging the controlling Europeans to being in a law to allow it.
>>>
>>> https://petapixel.com/2022/03/22/mac-studio-m1-ultra-teardown-removable-ssd-is-upgradable-but-blocked-by-apple/
>>>
>> Article: "Even though the Mac Studio does make a strong case for itself
>> as an incredible value from the perspective of power for the price, the
>> inability to upgrade storage is disappointing."
>>
>> ....
>>
>> The best of both worlds for one person is not going to be the best for
>> another person.
>>
>> I may be ordering this machine (Mac Studio Max, not Ultra) with 32 or 64
>> GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD and that should be good for me for another 10
>> years just as this iMac has been good for the last 9 - coming up on 10
>> years.
>
> 1TB is nothing. Unless you only use it for the OS and some minor storage.

Revisiting this ...

I have a Macbook Air with 128 GB of SSD and plenty of room for plenty of
big apps (MS Office, etc) and plenty of storage left for ordinary tasks.
Excellent road warrior machine if a bit big (v. the new MBA M1 I gave
to my SO).

Even on this iMac, _all_ of the applications (Apple and 3rd party) take
up about 40GB (not counting the OS).

The OS is about 9.4 GB (as installed / diskspace). (It does generate
caches and the "Library" is not included in that (in turn has both
system and apps files)).

Then other "unix/unix-ish" folders take another 1 GB (maybe - probably
less).

1TB is plenty when external drives are considered.

--
Beginning in the 1970's, all birds in North America were replaced by
drones made to look and act like birds. By 2004, no real birds are to
be found. They are all drones. They all belong to the government.
They spy on everyone. All of the time. Birds are not real.

In article <a6242f65-1f3d-43c8-8545-e8ee5a0ecf1dn@googlegroups.com>,
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> My understanding is that the constraint is apparently associated with the "T2"
> security chip being integrated into the onboard storage. Since Apple wants to
> sell a Studio with up to 8TB onboard which requires two ports, the two are
> thus both tied into the T2 chip, and thus, the observed behavior.

apple silicon macs do not have a t2 chip because its functionality is
part of the processor itself.

> To have a DIY-esque upgrade capability will probably require two things.
>
> The first is for the SSD hardware to be 3rd party sourced. If that will happen
> will of course be dependent on the market to buy it, plus the second part.
>
> The second will be some sort of software/firmware based upgrade protocol
> where a machine is upgraded with all current memory being wiped & reset
> as part of the T2 interface/protocol restrictions.

already been done.

On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 6:31:51 PM UTC-4, nospam wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
> > My understanding is that the constraint is apparently associated with the "T2"
> > security chip being integrated into the onboard storage. Since Apple wants to
> > sell a Studio with up to 8TB onboard which requires two ports, the two are
> > thus both tied into the T2 chip, and thus, the observed behavior.
>
> apple silicon macs do not have a t2 chip because its functionality is
> part of the processor itself.

Point remains unchanged that Apple hasn't removed its T2-based lockdowns.

> > To have a DIY-esque upgrade capability will probably require two things.
> >
> > The first is for the SSD hardware to be 3rd party sourced. If that will happen
> > will of course be dependent on the market to buy it, plus the second part.
> >
> > The second will be some sort of software/firmware based upgrade protocol
> > where a machine is upgraded with all current memory being wiped & reset
> > as part of the T2 interface/protocol restrictions.
>
> already been done.

Internal by Apple & for Apple, of course. But what's offered on the cheap by
3rd Party providers that's within the reach of mortal DIY'ers for this application?

-hh

In article <bc10088a-1e7a-4ca0-afc9-654d443a56c1n@googlegroups.com>,
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> >
> > > My understanding is that the constraint is apparently associated with the
> > > "T2"
> > > security chip being integrated into the onboard storage. Since Apple
> > > wants to
> > > sell a Studio with up to 8TB onboard which requires two ports, the two
> > > are
> > > thus both tied into the T2 chip, and thus, the observed behavior.
> >
> > apple silicon macs do not have a t2 chip because its functionality is
> > part of the processor itself.
>
> Point remains unchanged that Apple hasn't removed its T2-based lockdowns.

what you call a lockdown is additional security, which is very
important these days.

it is no longer possible to move an ssd (or an hd for older devices) to
another mac or pc or into an external enclosure and copy its contents.
nor is it possible for a buyer of a used mac to access the data of the
previous owner. those exploits are *closed*, and is a very good thing.

the tradeoff is that you can't easily upgrade after purchase, but since
almost nobody actually does that, almost nobody cares.

> > > To have a DIY-esque upgrade capability will probably require two things.
> > >
> > > The first is for the SSD hardware to be 3rd party sourced. If that will
> > > happen
> > > will of course be dependent on the market to buy it, plus the second
> > > part.
> > >
> > > The second will be some sort of software/firmware based upgrade protocol
> > > where a machine is upgraded with all current memory being wiped & reset
> > > as part of the T2 interface/protocol restrictions.
> >
> > already been done.
>
> Internal by Apple & for Apple, of course.

i didn't say internal by apple.

> But what's offered on the cheap by
> 3rd Party providers that's within the reach of mortal DIY'ers for this application?

third parties have done it, without needing anything special. it does
erase everything because new keys are generated.

the only issue is sourcing the parts. if there is demand, there will be
supply, like anything else.

Am 23.03.2022 um 19:56 schrieb Alan Browne:
> I may be ordering this machine (Mac Studio Max, not Ultra) with 32 or 64
> GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD and that should be good for me for another 10
> years

For me, if it has to be good for another 10 years and is not
upgradeable, it has to have at least a 16 TB SSD. 1 TB is simply a joke.

I don't want to rely on external bricks attached by cables.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

In article <vjB%J.5637$Lc1.4931@fx12.ams1>, Alfred Molon
<alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > I may be ordering this machine (Mac Studio Max, not Ultra) with 32 or 64
> > GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD and that should be good for me for another 10
> > years
>
> For me, if it has to be good for another 10 years and is not
> upgradeable, it has to have at least a 16 TB SSD. 1 TB is simply a joke.

a 16 tb ssd is going to be *very* expensive and not anything anyone
actually needs for internal storage.

10 years is also a very long time for a computer. by then, just about
all of it will be outdated and in need of replacement (assuming it
hasn't failed). also at that time, 16 tb will be affordable, quite
possibly even considered to be 'small', as are the 128gb and 256gb ssds
from 10 years ago.

> I don't want to rely on external bricks attached by cables.

you're going to need power, which can also provide data and connect to
storage.

another option is use wifi, which is faster than gigabit ethernet and
can connect to network storage for as much space as needed.

On 2022-03-26 05:48, Alfred Molon wrote:
> Am 23.03.2022 um 19:56 schrieb Alan Browne:
>> I may be ordering this machine (Mac Studio Max, not Ultra) with 32 or
>> 64 GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD and that should be good for me for
>> another 10 years
>
> For me, if it has to be good for another 10 years and is not
> upgradeable, it has to have at least a 16 TB SSD. 1 TB is simply a joke.
>
> I don't want to rely on external bricks attached by cables.

The external drives also contain backups of the system SSD. Lot's of
redundancies too.

Why pay a lot of money for 16 TB of SSD when the vast majority of that
will be ignored for years and years at a time? Huge waste of money.

1 TB is more than ample for my needs - indeed I've been looking at what
is loaded now and can easily throw out 150 - which would leave me 350 GB
of spare space.

--
Beginning in the 1970's, all birds in North America were replaced by
drones made to look and act like birds. By 2004, no real birds are to
be found. They are all drones. They all belong to the government.
They spy on everyone. All of the time. Birds are not real.

Am 26.03.2022 um 18:23 schrieb Alan Browne:
> On 2022-03-26 05:48, Alfred Molon wrote:
>> Am 23.03.2022 um 19:56 schrieb Alan Browne:
>>> I may be ordering this machine (Mac Studio Max, not Ultra) with 32 or
>>> 64 GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD and that should be good for me for
>>> another 10 years
>>
>> For me, if it has to be good for another 10 years and is not
>> upgradeable, it has to have at least a 16 TB SSD. 1 TB is simply a joke.
>>
>> I don't want to rely on external bricks attached by cables.
>
> The external drives also contain backups of the system SSD.  Lot's of
> redundancies too.
>
> Why pay a lot of money for 16 TB of SSD when the vast majority of that
> will be ignored for years and years at a time?  Huge waste of money.
>
> 1 TB is more than ample for my needs - indeed I've been looking at what
> is loaded now and can easily throw out 150 - which would leave me 350 GB
> of spare space.

In my case, 1 TB is far too small, especially if you can't upgrade it.
I have a growing library of images and occasionally I check/use these
images, even if they were taken 20 years ago.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

In article <GcM%J.1066$4c1.260@fx13.ams1>, Alfred Molon
<alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >> For me, if it has to be good for another 10 years and is not
> >> upgradeable, it has to have at least a 16 TB SSD. 1 TB is simply a joke.
> >>
> >> I don't want to rely on external bricks attached by cables.
> >
> > The external drives also contain backups of the system SSD.  Lot's of
> > redundancies too.
> >
> > Why pay a lot of money for 16 TB of SSD when the vast majority of that
> > will be ignored for years and years at a time?  Huge waste of money.
> >
> > 1 TB is more than ample for my needs - indeed I've been looking at what
> > is loaded now and can easily throw out 150 - which would leave me 350 GB
> > of spare space.
>
> In my case, 1 TB is far too small, especially if you can't upgrade it.

then get 2, 4 or 8 tb. it's your money.

> I have a growing library of images and occasionally I check/use these
> images, even if they were taken 20 years ago.

occasional use does not need to be on an internal ssd.

connect an external drive, either directly attached or on the network,
which for a desktop computer, is not an issue whatsoever.

since power is required, an additional cable is not an issue, or just
use wifi to connect to a network share.

On 27/03/2022 11:11 am, Alfred Molon wrote:
> Am 26.03.2022 um 18:23 schrieb Alan Browne:
>> On 2022-03-26 05:48, Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> Am 23.03.2022 um 19:56 schrieb Alan Browne:
>>>> I may be ordering this machine (Mac Studio Max, not Ultra) with 32
>>>> or 64 GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD and that should be good for me for
>>>> another 10 years
>>>
>>> For me, if it has to be good for another 10 years and is not
>>> upgradeable, it has to have at least a 16 TB SSD. 1 TB is simply a joke.
>>>
>>> I don't want to rely on external bricks attached by cables.
>>
>> The external drives also contain backups of the system SSD.  Lot's of
>> redundancies too.
>>
>> Why pay a lot of money for 16 TB of SSD when the vast majority of that
>> will be ignored for years and years at a time?  Huge waste of money.
>>
>> 1 TB is more than ample for my needs - indeed I've been looking at
>> what is loaded now and can easily throw out 150 - which would leave me
>> 350 GB of spare space.
>
> In my case, 1 TB is far too small, especially if you can't upgrade it.
> I have a growing library of images and occasionally I check/use these
> images, even if they were taken 20 years ago.

Why would you insist on having this library on an internal drive ?

Presumably (hopefully) you also have it backed up on external drive(s) -
aren't these adequate for your purpose ?

geoff

Am 27.03.2022 um 07:01 schrieb geoff:
> On 27/03/2022 11:11 am, Alfred Molon wrote:
>> Am 26.03.2022 um 18:23 schrieb Alan Browne:
>>> On 2022-03-26 05:48, Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>> Am 23.03.2022 um 19:56 schrieb Alan Browne:
>>>>> I may be ordering this machine (Mac Studio Max, not Ultra) with 32
>>>>> or 64 GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD and that should be good for me for
>>>>> another 10 years
>>>>
>>>> For me, if it has to be good for another 10 years and is not
>>>> upgradeable, it has to have at least a 16 TB SSD. 1 TB is simply a
>>>> joke.
>>>>
>>>> I don't want to rely on external bricks attached by cables.
>>>
>>> The external drives also contain backups of the system SSD.  Lot's of
>>> redundancies too.
>>>
>>> Why pay a lot of money for 16 TB of SSD when the vast majority of
>>> that will be ignored for years and years at a time?  Huge waste of
>>> money.
>>>
>>> 1 TB is more than ample for my needs - indeed I've been looking at
>>> what is loaded now and can easily throw out 150 - which would leave
>>> me 350 GB of spare space.
>>
>> In my case, 1 TB is far too small, especially if you can't upgrade it.
>> I have a growing library of images and occasionally I check/use these
>> images, even if they were taken 20 years ago.
>
> Why would you insist on having this library on an internal drive ?
>
> Presumably (hopefully) you also have it backed up on external drive(s) -
> aren't these adequate for your purpose  ?

Obviously I have backups.

On the one hand it's a convenience thing, being able to access the
images at a mouse click, i.e. not having to walk to another room,
fetching an external drive and connecting it by cable to the computer.

The other thing is that when I travel it's better not to have to carry
around an additional HDD just to be able to access the images.

In any case, even if you rely on external drives, there is a certain
amount of "core data" which needs to be quickly accessible and 1TB is
simply absurdly small nowadays.

When I buy a new PC or notebook, they first thing I usually do is to
replace the SSD with a larger one. If a device such as the Apple
prevents you from doing so, it's a no-go for me.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 27/03/2022 11:22 pm, Alfred Molon wrote:
> Am 27.03.2022 um 07:01 schrieb geoff:
>> On 27/03/2022 11:11 am, Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> Am 26.03.2022 um 18:23 schrieb Alan Browne:
>>>> On 2022-03-26 05:48, Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>>> Am 23.03.2022 um 19:56 schrieb Alan Browne:
>>>>>> I may be ordering this machine (Mac Studio Max, not Ultra) with 32
>>>>>> or 64 GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD and that should be good for me for
>>>>>> another 10 years
>>>>>
>>>>> For me, if it has to be good for another 10 years and is not
>>>>> upgradeable, it has to have at least a 16 TB SSD. 1 TB is simply a
>>>>> joke.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't want to rely on external bricks attached by cables.
>>>>
>>>> The external drives also contain backups of the system SSD.  Lot's
>>>> of redundancies too.
>>>>
>>>> Why pay a lot of money for 16 TB of SSD when the vast majority of
>>>> that will be ignored for years and years at a time?  Huge waste of
>>>> money.
>>>>
>>>> 1 TB is more than ample for my needs - indeed I've been looking at
>>>> what is loaded now and can easily throw out 150 - which would leave
>>>> me 350 GB of spare space.
>>>
>>> In my case, 1 TB is far too small, especially if you can't upgrade it.
>>> I have a growing library of images and occasionally I check/use these
>>> images, even if they were taken 20 years ago.
>>
>> Why would you insist on having this library on an internal drive ?
>>
>> Presumably (hopefully) you also have it backed up on external drive(s)
>> - aren't these adequate for your purpose  ?
>
> Obviously I have backups.
>
> On the one hand it's a convenience thing, being able to access the
> images at a mouse click,

NAS ?

i.e. not having to walk to another room,
> fetching an external drive and connecting it by cable to the computer.

Keep the external drive in thew same room, or don't be so f'n lazy !

>
> The other thing is that when I travel it's better not to have to carry
> around an additional HDD just to be able to access the images.

Presumably not a problem to carry other larger things with you when you
travel. Its not like it will be huge !
>
> In any case, even if you rely on external drives, there is a certain
> amount of "core data" which needs to be quickly accessible and 1TB is
> simply absurdly small nowadays.

Yo must have a huge amount of essential core data you need that cannot
wait 30 seconds to connect an external drive.

>
> When I buy a new PC or notebook, they first thing I usually do is to
> replace the SSD with a larger one. If a device such as the Apple
> prevents you from doing so, it's a no-go for me.

I'm with you on that.

geoff

In article <AVW%J.4083$4Og.3207@fx08.ams1>, Alfred Molon
<alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >> In my case, 1 TB is far too small, especially if you can't upgrade it.
> >> I have a growing library of images and occasionally I check/use these
> >> images, even if they were taken 20 years ago.
> >
> > Why would you insist on having this library on an internal drive ?
> >
> > Presumably (hopefully) you also have it backed up on external drive(s) -
> > aren't these adequate for your purpose  ?
>
> Obviously I have backups.
>
> On the one hand it's a convenience thing, being able to access the
> images at a mouse click, i.e. not having to walk to another room,
> fetching an external drive and connecting it by cable to the computer.

leave the drives connected and/or use a nas.

also, if you have to walk to another room to connect an external drive,
then your backups are not automatic nor are they current. that's bad.

> The other thing is that when I travel it's better not to have to carry
> around an additional HDD just to be able to access the images.

the cloud solves that problem, including your own private cloud which
can easily be configured on your own nas, eliminating any concern about
privacy.

> In any case, even if you rely on external drives, there is a certain
> amount of "core data" which needs to be quickly accessible and 1TB is
> simply absurdly small nowadays.

nonsense. 1tb is not 'absurdly small'.

it's more than enough for nearly everyone, especially for a desktop
computer which has *very* high speed peripheral connects, including
10gb-e & thunderbolt 4.

business users will connect to various network servers and likely want
*less* than 1tb locally.

> When I buy a new PC or notebook, they first thing I usually do is to
> replace the SSD with a larger one.

buy it preconfigured and save a step.

you're also assuming it cannot be done. it *can* be done, just not with
off the shelf (and slower) ssds. instead, it uses raw nand chips, with
the ssd controller being part of the processor itself, one reason why
the bandwidth is much faster than an aftermarket ssd.

> If a device such as the Apple
> prevents you from doing so, it's a no-go for me.

it can be configured with as much as 8tb internal, as much as you can
afford externally and is also faster and more capable than anything in
its price range and size.

those who expect to be using more than 8tb, namely video production,
will be connecting to a san over 10gb-e (standard, not an extra card)
and not need more than 8tb internal, if they need anywhere close to
that.

On 2022-03-26 18:11, Alfred Molon wrote:
> Am 26.03.2022 um 18:23 schrieb Alan Browne:
>> On 2022-03-26 05:48, Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> Am 23.03.2022 um 19:56 schrieb Alan Browne:
>>>> I may be ordering this machine (Mac Studio Max, not Ultra) with 32
>>>> or 64 GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD and that should be good for me for
>>>> another 10 years
>>>
>>> For me, if it has to be good for another 10 years and is not
>>> upgradeable, it has to have at least a 16 TB SSD. 1 TB is simply a joke.
>>>
>>> I don't want to rely on external bricks attached by cables.
>>
>> The external drives also contain backups of the system SSD.  Lot's of
>> redundancies too.
>>
>> Why pay a lot of money for 16 TB of SSD when the vast majority of that
>> will be ignored for years and years at a time?  Huge waste of money.
>>
>> 1 TB is more than ample for my needs - indeed I've been looking at
>> what is loaded now and can easily throw out 150 - which would leave me
>> 350 GB of spare space.
>
> In my case, 1 TB is far too small, especially if you can't upgrade it.
> I have a growing library of images and occasionally I check/use these
> images, even if they were taken 20 years ago.

Precisely the sort of stuff that should not clutter your main storage.
Burn it to gold DVD's instead and keep them in a cool, dark, dry place.
Will outlive you and then some.

For rapid access, external hard disks.

It's nonsense to use main SSD for the longer term.

--
Beginning in the 1970's, all birds in North America were replaced by
drones made to look and act like birds. By 2004, no real birds are to
be found. They are all drones. They all belong to the government.
They spy on everyone. All of the time. Birds are not real.

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 9:00:22 AM UTC-4, nospam wrote:
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>
> > >> In my case, 1 TB is far too small, especially if you can't upgrade it.
> > >> I have a growing library of images and occasionally I check/use
> > >> these images, even if they were taken 20 years ago.
> > >
> > > Why would you insist on having this library on an internal drive ?
> > >
> > > Presumably (hopefully) you also have it backed up on external drive(s) -
> > > aren't these adequate for your purpose ?
> >
> > Obviously I have backups.
> >
> > On the one hand it's a convenience thing, being able to access the
> > images at a mouse click, i.e. not having to walk to another room,
> > fetching an external drive and connecting it by cable to the computer.

It is a quite understandable use case for one to want to have one's
personal digital image library centralized into a single DAM tool, and
to have the capability of relative ease-of-use to be able to search within
it from end to end for a specific topic/etc without it taking too long.
That puts both a "size" and "performance" requirements onto this setup.

> > The other thing is that when I travel it's better not to have to carry
> > around an additional HDD just to be able to access the images.
>
> the cloud solves that problem, including your own private cloud which
> can easily be configured on your own nas, eliminating any concern about
> privacy.

It may solve the size, but not necessarily the bandwidth performance.
What's the I/O rate? Does it require nothing less than a 10Gbe connection?
And does it cost less than an ~8TB internal SSD? Probably not.

> > In any case, even if you rely on external drives, there is a certain
> > amount of "core data" which needs to be quickly accessible and 1TB is
> > simply absurdly small nowadays.
>
> nonsense. 1tb is not 'absurdly small'.

An interesting statement to make on a digital photography centric group,
where discussions can easily center around the data consumption of RAW
files from a 20+MP dSLR, particularly since it is USENET, so the posters are
more often old dogs who've owned data-hungry dSLRs for 20+ years to have
accumulated a lot of personal digital image data in need of storage and
management...

> it's more than enough for nearly everyone, especially for a desktop
> computer which has *very* high speed peripheral connects, including
> 10gb-e & thunderbolt 4.

Sure .. if said population is everyone outside of rec.photo.digital /s

>
> those who expect to be using more than 8tb, namely video production,
> will be connecting to a san over 10gb-e (standard, not an extra card)
> and not need more than 8tb internal, if they need anywhere close to
> that.

Digital video has even higher data consumption demands than still
photography, but for a home hobbyist looking to do some of both
with even just a "few projects" perspective will chew through some TBs.
As such, for a use case looking at 8K becoming commonplace for them
within the next ~5 years, over 4TB local may very well be a pragmatically
wise choice ... question comes down to if a 'commodity' NVME interface
is going to be good enough, or if Apple's higher performing local storage
performance is merited.

Bottom line remains that while there's generalized "motherhood" statements
that are okay, the specific use cases of the individual is what drives their
specific need/priorities, with the appropriate trade-offs thereof.
Case in point, I know that my own use cases are not mainstream, but that
doesn't mean that I'm obligated to only consider mainstream solutions.

-hh

Am 27.03.2022 um 12:34 schrieb geoff:
> On 27/03/2022 11:22 pm, Alfred Molon wrote:
>> Am 27.03.2022 um 07:01 schrieb geoff:
>>> On 27/03/2022 11:11 am, Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>> Am 26.03.2022 um 18:23 schrieb Alan Browne:
>>>>> On 2022-03-26 05:48, Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>>>> Am 23.03.2022 um 19:56 schrieb Alan Browne:
>>>>>>> I may be ordering this machine (Mac Studio Max, not Ultra) with
>>>>>>> 32 or 64 GB of RAM and 1 TB of SSD and that should be good for me
>>>>>>> for another 10 years
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For me, if it has to be good for another 10 years and is not
>>>>>> upgradeable, it has to have at least a 16 TB SSD. 1 TB is simply a
>>>>>> joke.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't want to rely on external bricks attached by cables.
>>>>>
>>>>> The external drives also contain backups of the system SSD.  Lot's
>>>>> of redundancies too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why pay a lot of money for 16 TB of SSD when the vast majority of
>>>>> that will be ignored for years and years at a time?  Huge waste of
>>>>> money.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1 TB is more than ample for my needs - indeed I've been looking at
>>>>> what is loaded now and can easily throw out 150 - which would leave
>>>>> me 350 GB of spare space.
>>>>
>>>> In my case, 1 TB is far too small, especially if you can't upgrade it.
>>>> I have a growing library of images and occasionally I check/use
>>>> these images, even if they were taken 20 years ago.
>>>
>>> Why would you insist on having this library on an internal drive ?
>>>
>>> Presumably (hopefully) you also have it backed up on external
>>> drive(s) - aren't these adequate for your purpose  ?
>>
>> Obviously I have backups.
>>
>> On the one hand it's a convenience thing, being able to access the
>> images at a mouse click,
>
> NAS ?

Could be an idea. But a NAS would have to be always on, connected to the
home WLAN. And there is the risk that some hacker could break into the
network and get access to TB of data.

<snip>

> Presumably not a problem to carry other larger things with you when you
> travel. Its not like it will be huge !

Yes, but still a brick connected by a cable to your laptop. I'm sick and
tired of external bricks.

In any case, it's absurd that a company prevents you from upgrading the SSD.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 2022-03-27 13:04, Alfred Molon wrote:

>>
>> NAS ?
>
> Could be an idea. But a NAS would have to be always on, connected to the
> home WLAN. And there is the risk that some hacker could break into the
> network and get access to TB of data.

With a proper home VPN setup, not likely other than user config error.

>> Presumably not a problem to carry other larger things with you when
>> you travel. Its not like it will be huge !
>
> Yes, but still a brick connected by a cable to your laptop. I'm sick and
> tired of external bricks.
>
> In any case, it's absurd that a company prevents you from upgrading the
> SSD.

It will likely be upgradeable but require a reset with Apple supplied
tools. To be seen - and likely - given that there is an open SSD port
in the system being discussed.

But your assertion that one needs 16 TB if local storage is absurd for
the average user. I have tons of video and photos - but it's mainly
stored externally. When I travel I don't need access to all the raw files.

IAC, the computer being discussed is not even portable! It's a desktop
system.

--
Beginning in the 1970's, all birds in North America were replaced by
drones made to look and act like birds. By 2004, no real birds are to
be found. They are all drones. They all belong to the government.
They spy on everyone. All of the time. Birds are not real.

In article <cb9d5a81-4088-41be-961e-31c65ec4e1f8n@googlegroups.com>,
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

>
> > > In any case, even if you rely on external drives, there is a certain
> > > amount of "core data" which needs to be quickly accessible and 1TB is
> > > simply absurdly small nowadays.
> >
> > nonsense. 1tb is not 'absurdly small'.
>
> An interesting statement to make on a digital photography centric group,
> where discussions can easily center around the data consumption of RAW
> files from a 20+MP dSLR, particularly since it is USENET, so the posters are
> more often old dogs who've owned data-hungry dSLRs for 20+ years to have
> accumulated a lot of personal digital image data in need of storage and
> management...

putting 20+ years of photos on an internal volume of a single computer
is incredibly dumb.

that should be on a nas, which itself provides redundancy in case of
drive failure, offers access from multiple devices on the lan and
optionally the internet, plus is automatically backed up without user
interaction either to another nas or to the cloud or both.

> Case in point, I know that my own use cases are not mainstream, but that
> doesn't mean that I'm obligated to only consider mainstream solutions.

with rare exception, apple targets mainstream use instead of every
possible use case.

the number of people who actually need 16 tb on an internal volume
while stubbornly refusing all other solutions is small enough to not
matter and can easily be ignored. no device will satisfy everyone. if a
mac doesn't fit someone's needs, then buy something else. one less
person in line for those who do want it.

In article <SO00K.7991$3b1.4307@fx14.ams1>, Alfred Molon
<alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >>> Why would you insist on having this library on an internal drive ?
> >>>
> >>> Presumably (hopefully) you also have it backed up on external
> >>> drive(s) - aren't these adequate for your purpose  ?
> >>
> >> Obviously I have backups.
> >>
> >> On the one hand it's a convenience thing, being able to access the
> >> images at a mouse click,
> >
> > NAS ?
>
> Could be an idea. But a NAS would have to be always on, connected to the
> home WLAN.

both wired and wireless lan.

> And there is the risk that some hacker could break into the
> network and get access to TB of data.

a very tiny risk, and something they can do right now to your desktop
or laptop.

it's even easier when you connect to them, saving them the effort to
hack into your network. simply visit a malicious web site or click on a
link in a phishing email and you will easily be pwned.

there is also the risk that someone could break into your house and
steal your computer along with any external drives. that's what
encryption is for, and in the unlikely case someone does steal your
stuff, they'll find themselves with computers they can't use (or resell
since they're a brick) and drives that must be reformatted.

> > Presumably not a problem to carry other larger things with you when you
> > travel. Its not like it will be huge !
>
> Yes, but still a brick connected by a cable to your laptop. I'm sick and
> tired of external bricks.

the mac in question is a desktop where external drives or other
peripherals are not an issue.

laptops can also be powered via a usb-c port which also provides
connectivity to hard drives, external displays, etc. only *one* cable.
that can also be done for desktops but not a significant benefit.

> In any case, it's absurd that a company prevents you from upgrading the SSD.

given that very few people upgrade and the advantage is much faster
bandwidth with much higher reliability, it's not at all absurd.

In article <kn10K.353694$t2Bb.220576@fx98.iad>, Alan Browne
<bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:

> It will likely be upgradeable but require a reset with Apple supplied
> tools. To be seen - and likely - given that there is an open SSD port
> in the system being discussed.

it's already been done *without* any apple tools.

the only issue is that third parties have yet to manufacture the cards,
which are just raw nand chips.

> But your assertion that one needs 16 TB if local storage is absurd for
> the average user. I have tons of video and photos - but it's mainly
> stored externally. When I travel I don't need access to all the raw files.

exactly, and access can be done via the internet if it's really needed.

> IAC, the computer being discussed is not even portable! It's a desktop
> system.

yep.