On 2022-03-28 19:00, geoff wrote:
> On 29/03/2022 11:06 am, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2022-03-28 13:08, Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> Am 28.03.2022 um 11:31 schrieb Whisky-dave:
>>>
>>>> I can do that using flikr I can access all my photos, not only that
>>>> I can the same with all my videos
>>>> via youtube And if friends want to see them I don;t have to invite
>>>> them to travel accoss from the other side of London or the world.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Sure but you need a fast Internet connection. We are not there yet
>>> (lots of places with poor Internet connectivity, even in the USA)
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Really, I find that difficult to believe unless you're a movie
>>>> producer , even those
>>>> documentary makers seem to manage when they go to the galapagos
>>>> island or where ever
>>>> seem to manage.
>>>
>>> With 60 fps digital cameras and 256 GB SD cards it's easy to generate
>>> quickly a lot of data. Add to that image processing temporary files
>>> etc and quickly end up with a lot of data volume.
>>
>> Once the culls have been dropped, once the edits are made ... why keep
>> all the duds.  Send them to external storage.  That's what it's for.
>
> Or if they are really duds, delete them for good.

Indeed. A friend of mine is a pro and he has a program he uses solely
for image rejection. At events (name it - he probably does it) he can
shoot a couple thousand frames in a day w/o breaking a sweat. I've
watched him cull the raw images and he is brutally efficient. And that
pays off because he can focus on the bread winners.

He also does events where he has his daughter running edit and print on
site while he works the event with 2 cameras, all linked. Takes the
shot and they can have their prints within minutes of showing up at her
table. He's raked in several thousand dollars in a few hours at many of
these events.

--
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 Monday, March 28, 2022 at 6:03:52 PM UTC-4, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2022-03-27 21:03, -hh wrote:
> > On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 7:27:31 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> >> On 28/03/2022 11:10 am, Alfred Molon wrote:
> >>> Am 27.03.2022 um 19:43 schrieb Alan Browne:
> >>>> But your assertion that one needs 16 TB if local storage is absurd for
> >>>> the average user.
> >>>
> >>> If you can't upgrade an SSD, you better have a pretty high upper storage
> >>> limit.
> >>>
> >>> And I didn't say for the average user - I wrote "for me".
> >>
> >> But is what you feel that you would like to have actually what you
> >> really need ? Your choice I guess, but if it were me I'd be
> >> re-evaluating what approach is reasonable/rational ....
> >
> > And therein lies the rub: everyone who’s claimed that he doesn’t
> > need this has simply said, in effect, not much more than just a
> > “you’re wrong”. Until one understand the basis … and trades … of
>
> That's quite false. Those of us (several) with experience in computing
> have outlined various strategies to manage large sets of data in very
> simple, effective, safe ways that also contribute to backups as well.

Sorry, I didn't notice them in this thread; can you point to where these were
previously provided?

>
> There's no need to expensive SSD (high speed read/write storage at that)
> to store data unused and unseen for years at a time ... sheesh! I have
> that in 1 TB because the effort to tidy up doesn't happen very often.

Case in point, just which photo-centric DAM app does one recommend
for this workflow? For example, let's take Apple's "Photos" app: its
default configuration is "one big glom" of all of one's image files, which
pragmatically pushes to have them all consolidated onto a single media
source: just what is the effective workflow for breaking down into using
multiple Photos libraries while satisfying the use case here of having older
works functionally recombined into a single archive to manage?

> > their requirements (all of them, holistically), it is pretty damn foolish
> > to jump down their throat and summarily claim they’re wrong.
>
> If Mr. Molon had stated 2 or even 4 TB, I wouldn't have said a thing
> (even though it's probably still too much).
>
> We're talking about working storage here, not ones life accumulation of
> photos in all states raw to finished.

You have a point regarding how much is needed for 'working' vs 'life', but
that's not how I interpreted his requirement.
> 15 TB of raw photos would be some 600,000 images (depending on the
> camera of course). We all know as photographers that either we shoot
> a lot, fast and cull down to what is useful, or we shoot slow and
> deliberate and cull down a little to what is useful.

And all of the workflows between. Part of the dilemma that we have
in this new age of digital is that one needs to be more deliberative to
retain one's RAWs, particularly of non-keepers. In the film era, we
typically didn't proactively throw out all the non-keeper negatives, which
did enable subsequent retrospective sweeps back through old stuff
years & decades later. YMMV on if you're willing to lose this capability
of if you desire retaining it. For the latter, there's a cost to pay (of course).
> Keeping all the culls around working storage is not a very useful thing
> - esp. on expensive SSD's.

So your only complaint is the high cost of the enabling hardware
for their stated workflow requirement?

In perspective, the cost of a basic SSD is down to almost $100/TB, so
'needing' 10TB is ~$1K, or less than the cost of one body or lens.

Even Apple's high performance SSDs are ~$300/TB = $3K body/lens.

Compared to the price of the photo gear being used, a "SSD too expensive"
argument had merit a decade ago, but today, it is starting to get weak.

-hh

On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 18:08:17 UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote:
> Am 28.03.2022 um 11:31 schrieb Whisky-dave:
>
> > I can do that using flikr I can access all my photos, not only that I can the same with all my videos
> > via youtube And if friends want to see them I don;t have to invite them to travel accoss from the other side of London or the world.
> <snip>
>
> Sure but you need a fast Internet connection. We are not there yet (lots
> of places with poor Internet connectivity, even in the USA)

But I would never live in a place without a fast connection.
Sane as I;d never live in a plaxce without hot/cold running water or electricity.

>
> <snip>
> >> 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.
> >
> > Really, I find that difficult to believe unless you're a movie producer , even those
> > documentary makers seem to manage when they go to the galapagos island or where ever
> > seem to manage.
> With 60 fps digital cameras and 256 GB SD cards it's easy to generate
> quickly a lot of data. Add to that image processing temporary files etc
> and quickly end up with a lot of data volume.

But buying a larger SSD won't increase the speed of processing files.
My main reason to update my 2014 iMac isn't the size of the SSD at 500GB it's the 'speed' of the processor
doing 4K video it takes a few miniutes per track now. I was so used to doing HD and it'd take <30 seconds.
I'd like my next iMac to have a larger screen than 27" maybe 30-32 , I'd like it to be a bit quieter
as when the fans ramp up when I'm processing 4k movies one after another it gets a bit annoying and slightly worrying.

My largest time is spent uploading to youtube and then youtube processing from SD > HD > 4k
6, five min tracks I started uploading at about 10:30pm by 1am they were all on youtube
which hadn't fully processed them by 3am so I went to bed.

I've enough free space on my SSD ~100 GB for over an hours video and that's without having to delete the last
few gigs (as in concerts) I went to so that about 70mins worth or more of 4k video, the battery in my camera only lasts
80mins and I haven;t an SD card that can store 70 mins of video anyway, which would mean a 128+GB SD card.
Presently I can live without such a card having a few 64GB is enough.
I didn;t expect my camera to have a battery life of 3 or more hours when recording video, I was happy enough
to be able to use another battery(s) if I needed to.

> > Why not buy one with the correct size ?
> It may be cheaper to buy a PC with a small SSD and put a large one into it.

That's always the case and I've found it even cheaper to use flikr ~$50 a year for unlimited storage
and more convenient as I don't have to carry my computer to a friends house to show them my photos.
Remmber the good old days when a few people at most could flick through your photo album and you check to make sure
their hands weren't dirty.
When it comes to sharing/showing I'd have to work out how much it would cost me and the PC to go to Australia
so my ex flatmate could copy some of my photos , as hers got stolen after he house was broken into.

>
> <snip>
> --
> Alfred Molon
>
> Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
> https://groups.io/g/myolympus
> https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:24:08 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
> On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 18:08:17 UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote:
> > Am 28.03.2022 um 11:31 schrieb Whisky-dave:
> >
> > > I can do that using flikr I can access all my photos, not only that I can the same with all my videos
> > > via youtube And if friends want to see them I don;t have to invite them to travel accoss from the other side of London or the world.
> > <snip>
> >
> > Sure but you need a fast Internet connection. We are not there yet (lots
> > of places with poor Internet connectivity, even in the USA)
>
> But I would never live in a place without a fast connection.
> Sane as I;d never live in a plaxce without hot/cold running water or electricity.

Which can be easier said than done: one could choose a place to live today
that the infrastructure is fine for today's demands, but the "10 year" future
capability growth risk could be that it becomes inadequate. How does one
choose to manage / mitigate that type of risk? Moving to a new home is
going to be more expensive than buying an internal 8TB SSD.

> >
> > <snip>
> > >> 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.
> > >
> > > Really, I find that difficult to believe unless you're a movie producer , even those
> > > documentary makers seem to manage when they go to the galapagos island or where ever
> > > seem to manage.
> >
> > With 60 fps digital cameras and 256 GB SD cards it's easy to generate
> > quickly a lot of data. Add to that image processing temporary files etc
> > and quickly end up with a lot of data volume.
>
> But buying a larger SSD won't increase the speed of processing files.
> My main reason to update my 2014 iMac isn't the size of the SSD at 500GB ...

But that 500GB SSD wasn't the base standard configuration for an iMac in 2014,
so it was a "future-proof" investment that you made back in 2014, to have gotten
this far in its useful lifespan.

> ... it's the 'speed' of the processor doing 4K video it takes a few miniutes per
> track now. I was so used to doing HD and it'd take <30 seconds.

Going from HD to 4K is another illustration of capability growth over time.

> I'd like my next iMac to have a larger screen than 27" maybe 30-32 , I'd like
> it to be a bit quieter as when the fans ramp up when I'm processing 4k movies
> one after another it gets a bit annoying and slightly worrying.

Is your plan for your next machine that it is never going to process anything
more than 4K video, or do you anticipate a desire for 8K video processing in
the future that you also want the next machine to be able to handle?
Because some of this thread is touching on futureproofing too.

> My largest time is spent uploading to youtube and then youtube processing
> from SD > HD > 4k 6, five min tracks I started uploading at about 10:30pm
> by 1am they were all on youtube which hadn't fully processed them by 3am
> so I went to bed.

I've looked at such calculations similarly too, for the prospects of using a
Cloud service for an off-site data backup. The challenge with that is that
even with a decent fiber connection, if a catastrophic crash occurs, the
amount of time required to pull down a complete backup can start to get
measured in days instead of just hours. Case in point, 5TB on a 300Mbps
fiber at 80% bandwidth utilization is 46 hours (~2 days), assuming no
additional problems encountered (throttling from ISP, Cloud service, etc).

>
> I've enough free space on my SSD ~100 GB for over an hours video and
> that's without having to delete the last few gigs (as in concerts) I went to
> so that about 70mins worth or more of 4k video, the battery in my camera
> only lasts 80mins and I haven;t an SD card that can store 70 mins of video
> anyway, which would mean a 128+GB SD card.

Overall, it seems that much of this conversation is a casualty of newer Mac
designs consolidating down to a single local drive, resulting in an effective
comingling of the discrete 'scratch' vs 'storage' requirements. It hasn't helped
how some of their 'easy to use' Apps assume a single local repository,
which is where things break down when the total capacity requirement stacks
up to be greater than what's available. It seems that Apple's solution has been
for them to sell you their Cloud storage.

> Presently I can live without such a card having a few 64GB is enough.
> I didn;t expect my camera to have a battery life of 3 or more hours when
> recording video, I was happy enough to be able to use another battery(s)
> if I needed to.

The philosophy of media card capacity trade-offs is a whole 'nuther topic!

> > > Why not buy one with the correct size ?
> >
> > It may be cheaper to buy a PC with a small SSD and put a large one into it.
>
> That's always the case and I've found it even cheaper to use flikr ~$50 a year
> for unlimited storage and more convenient as I don't have to carry my computer
> to a friends house to show them my photos.

Every approach has trades, of course.

> Remmber the good old days when a few people at most could flick through your
> photo album and you check to make sure their hands weren't dirty.

My memory was more along the lines of gagging them & tying them into a chair
while getting the slide projector & screen set up. /s

> When it comes to sharing/showing I'd have to work out how much it would cost
> me and the PC to go to Australia so my ex flatmate could copy some of my photos,
> as hers got stolen after he house was broken into.

And thus, the loss of a plausible excuse to take a week's holiday in Oz...

-hh

On 2022-03-29 08:24, Whisky-dave wrote:
> On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 18:08:17 UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote:
>> Am 28.03.2022 um 11:31 schrieb Whisky-dave:
>>
>>> I can do that using flikr I can access all my photos, not only that I can the same with all my videos
>>> via youtube And if friends want to see them I don;t have to invite them to travel accoss from the other side of London or the world.
>> <snip>
>>
>> Sure but you need a fast Internet connection. We are not there yet (lots
>> of places with poor Internet connectivity, even in the USA)
>
> But I would never live in a place without a fast connection.
> Sane as I;d never live in a plaxce without hot/cold running water or electricity.

While I wouldn't give up the later, I'd certainly give up the former for
more peace and quiet. I live in a pretty nice neighborhood, but a nice
little fermette would be nice to retire to.

That said, in the extra-urban areas around here 200 Mb/s is common and
that is plenty quick for my needs. (Here I have 120 Mb/s).

>>
>> <snip>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Really, I find that difficult to believe unless you're a movie producer , even those
>>> documentary makers seem to manage when they go to the galapagos island or where ever
>>> seem to manage.
>> With 60 fps digital cameras and 256 GB SD cards it's easy to generate
>> quickly a lot of data. Add to that image processing temporary files etc
>> and quickly end up with a lot of data volume.
>
> But buying a larger SSD won't increase the speed of processing files.

It may on the Studio because the SSD is particularly fast compared to
other SSD's. That will keep the processor loaded.

> My main reason to update my 2014 iMac isn't the size of the SSD at 500GB it's the 'speed' of the processor
> doing 4K video it takes a few miniutes per track now. I was so used to doing HD and it'd take <30 seconds.
> I'd like my next iMac to have a larger screen than 27" maybe 30-32 , I'd like it to be a bit quieter
> as when the fans ramp up when I'm processing 4k movies one after another it gets a bit annoying and slightly worrying.

This is where my 2012 iMac lacks: rendering video. Not even 4K but
1080p. I don't foresee even doing 4K - but time will tell.

Per various reports it's rare that you hear the fans on the Studio.

--
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 28.03.2022 um 19:15 schrieb Alan Browne:
> On 2022-03-28 12:54, Alfred Molon wrote:
>> Am 28.03.2022 um 00:47 schrieb Alan Browne:
>>>> If you can't upgrade an SSD, you better have a pretty high upper
>>>> storage limit.
>>>
>>> The upper limit is 8GB (currently).
>>>
>>> But few people need that.  You're defending a silly position.
>>
>> It's silly to insist that 1TB is sufficient for the next 10 years. Not
>> if you use modern digital cameras.
>
> The only photos I keep on my main store are _finished_ and useful
> photos.  As I can easily reject 50 - 100 photos before working on one as
> a finished product, all that raw data has no purpose being on my
> computer's main store.  But - it does get backed up and stored elsewhere.
>
> Data management: it's a thing.

Then you don't shoot so much.

BTW, a 4K video, even a short one, can easily take more than 1GB.
--
Alfred Molon

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

On 29/03/2022 11:46 pm, -hh wrote:
> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 6:03:52 PM UTC-4, Alan Browne wrote:
>>

In the film era, we
> typically didn't proactively throw out all the non-keeper negatives, which
> did enable subsequent retrospective sweeps back through old stuff
> years & decades later.

Yeah, but a lot more consideration went into things before making the
commitment of pushing the shutter ;- )

(Hopefully) resulting in far fewer duds and a more manageable library !

geoff

On 30/03/2022 3:08 am, -hh wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:24:08 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:

>
> Overall, it seems that much of this conversation is a casualty of newer Mac
> designs consolidating down to a single local drive, resulting in an effective
> comingling of the discrete 'scratch' vs 'storage' requirements. It hasn't helped
> how some of their 'easy to use' Apps assume a single local repository,
> which is where things break down when the total capacity requirement stacks
> up to be greater than what's available. It seems that Apple's solution has been
> for them to sell you their Cloud storage.

An other aspect - I don't know how common this is in the semi or pro
community - is that all of my 'serious' computers have a RAID-1
(mirrored) main drive (and one with mirrored separate data drive), for
some degree of hardware redundancy.

Eggs/basket ?

geoff

On 2022-03-29 06:46, -hh wrote:
> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 6:03:52 PM UTC-4, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2022-03-27 21:03, -hh wrote:
>>> On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 7:27:31 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
>>>> On 28/03/2022 11:10 am, Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>>> Am 27.03.2022 um 19:43 schrieb Alan Browne:
>>>>>> But your assertion that one needs 16 TB if local storage is absurd for
>>>>>> the average user.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can't upgrade an SSD, you better have a pretty high upper storage
>>>>> limit.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I didn't say for the average user - I wrote "for me".
>>>>
>>>> But is what you feel that you would like to have actually what you
>>>> really need ? Your choice I guess, but if it were me I'd be
>>>> re-evaluating what approach is reasonable/rational ....
>>>
>>> And therein lies the rub: everyone who’s claimed that he doesn’t
>>> need this has simply said, in effect, not much more than just a
>>> “you’re wrong”. Until one understand the basis … and trades … of
>>
>> That's quite false. Those of us (several) with experience in computing
>> have outlined various strategies to manage large sets of data in very
>> simple, effective, safe ways that also contribute to backups as well.
>
> Sorry, I didn't notice them in this thread; can you point to where these were
> previously provided?

Various replies by nospam and myself, probably others.

>
>>
>> There's no need to expensive SSD (high speed read/write storage at that)
>> to store data unused and unseen for years at a time ... sheesh! I have
>> that in 1 TB because the effort to tidy up doesn't happen very often.
>
> Case in point, just which photo-centric DAM app does one recommend
> for this workflow? For example, let's take Apple's "Photos" app: its
> default configuration is "one big glom" of all of one's image files, which
> pragmatically pushes to have them all consolidated onto a single media
> source: just what is the effective workflow for breaking down into using
> multiple Photos libraries while satisfying the use case here of having older
> works functionally recombined into a single archive to manage?

Not the issue with most here who drag home their gear get out the
card(s) and begin the import/sort procedure in whatever their s/w of
choice. A day's shooting is typically w/i a narrow subject set.

At least when I import and convert to DNG I can add basic re-naming and
date stamping to the file name.

I agree that managing large sets of photos on an iPhone can be messy,
but with a good finder layout, one can sort things to folders pretty
easily. Depends on the disparate nature of the images.

>>> their requirements (all of them, holistically), it is pretty damn foolish
>>> to jump down their throat and summarily claim they’re wrong.
>>
>> If Mr. Molon had stated 2 or even 4 TB, I wouldn't have said a thing
>> (even though it's probably still too much).
>>
>> We're talking about working storage here, not ones life accumulation of
>> photos in all states raw to finished.
>
> You have a point regarding how much is needed for 'working' vs 'life', but
> that's not how I interpreted his requirement.

His requirement seems more borne of ignorance in how to manage large
volumes of data over time.

>> 15 TB of raw photos would be some 600,000 images (depending on the
>> camera of course). We all know as photographers that either we shoot
>> a lot, fast and cull down to what is useful, or we shoot slow and
>> deliberate and cull down a little to what is useful.
>
> And all of the workflows between. Part of the dilemma that we have
> in this new age of digital is that one needs to be more deliberative to
> retain one's RAWs, particularly of non-keepers. In the film era, we
> typically didn't proactively throw out all the non-keeper negatives, which
> did enable subsequent retrospective sweeps back through old stuff
> years & decades later. YMMV on if you're willing to lose this capability
> of if you desire retaining it. For the latter, there's a cost to pay (of course).

Film strips (mine) are cut into 4 frames (35mm) or 3 frames (MF-120), so
duds and keepers are somewhat mixed....

That said, I have a mountain of film here and I shudder to think of
going through it and throwing stuff out. Even proof prints would be a
monster - slides too...

>> Keeping all the culls around working storage is not a very useful thing
>> - esp. on expensive SSD's.
>
> So your only complaint is the high cost of the enabling hardware
> for their stated workflow requirement?

The high cost of SSD to keep an image for 10 years. Most of which
should have gone to cull, and most of the rest to a lower cost external
store - also part of a backup plan.

Why not have 16 TB of powered up RAM storing everything? That would
really speed up retrieving an image one hasn't looked at in 15 years!

> In perspective, the cost of a basic SSD is down to almost $100/TB, so
> 'needing' 10TB is ~$1K, or less than the cost of one body or lens.
>
> Even Apple's high performance SSDs are ~$300/TB = $3K body/lens.

Apple to fish comparison.

>
> Compared to the price of the photo gear being used, a "SSD too expensive"
> argument had merit a decade ago, but today, it is starting to get weak.

Weaker - but still a poor use of it as working store. I don't care if
people use their money inefficiently, but heck, you can get a lot of
other things or experiences with that cash by being smarter about it.

--
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 2022-03-29 13:05, Alfred Molon wrote:
> Am 28.03.2022 um 19:15 schrieb Alan Browne:
>> On 2022-03-28 12:54, Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> Am 28.03.2022 um 00:47 schrieb Alan Browne:
>>>>> If you can't upgrade an SSD, you better have a pretty high upper
>>>>> storage limit.
>>>>
>>>> The upper limit is 8GB (currently).
>>>>
>>>> But few people need that.  You're defending a silly position.
>>>
>>> It's silly to insist that 1TB is sufficient for the next 10 years.
>>> Not if you use modern digital cameras.
>>
>> The only photos I keep on my main store are _finished_ and useful
>> photos.  As I can easily reject 50 - 100 photos before working on one
>> as a finished product, all that raw data has no purpose being on my
>> computer's main store.  But - it does get backed up and stored elsewhere.
>>
>> Data management: it's a thing.
>
> Then you don't shoot so much.

You have no clue how much I shoot.

> BTW, a 4K video, even a short one, can easily take more than 1GB.

I do lots of drone videos and can fill a 128 GB SD in a day or 3 w/o
trying very hard. But when a particular set is complete, off to the
external drives it goes - (I do cull out raw footage that is not very
good). And the better stuff burned to gold DVD.

And thus, 1 TB is ample, and the practice of offloading is also part of
the backup process.

--
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 2022-03-29 16:39, geoff wrote:
> On 30/03/2022 3:08 am, -hh wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:24:08 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
>
>>
>> Overall, it seems that much of this conversation is a casualty of
>> newer Mac
>> designs consolidating down to a single local drive, resulting in an
>> effective
>> comingling of the discrete 'scratch' vs 'storage' requirements.  It
>> hasn't helped
>> how some of their 'easy to use' Apps assume a single local repository,
>> which is where things break down when the total capacity requirement
>> stacks
>> up to be greater than what's available.  It seems that Apple's
>> solution has been
>> for them to sell you their Cloud storage.
>
> An other aspect - I don't know how common this is in the semi or pro
> community - is that all of my 'serious' computers have a RAID-1
> (mirrored) main drive (and one with mirrored separate data drive), for
> some degree of hardware redundancy.
>
> Eggs/basket ?

Why I rotate drives in and out of the house and keep many (not all)
backups at work. (The 3"rules and procedures" for this are not exactly
perfect I admit).

--
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 Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 4:27:44 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
> On 29/03/2022 11:46 pm, -hh wrote:
> > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 6:03:52 PM UTC-4, Alan Browne wrote:
> >>
>
> > In the film era, we
> > typically didn't proactively throw out all the non-keeper negatives, which
> > did enable subsequent retrospective sweeps back through old stuff
> > years & decades later.
>
> Yeah, but a lot more consideration went into things before making the
> commitment of pushing the shutter ;- )
>
> (Hopefully) resulting in far fewer duds and a more manageable library !
>

Yes, it was easier with film: finite resource made one more deliberative,
plus the technical elements for exposure perfection latitude were harder,
so a stronger gradient of fewer great shots to need to pick “the one” from.

The counterpoint with digital in how it offers a deeper magazine, plus
tech enabling more correct auto-exposures means more creative risk-taking,
more low yield grab shots, etc…stuff that we would risk wasting a film frame
for. In the end, makes the digital library potential bigger.

FWIW, I’ve found it to be surprising when I go back a few years and
review old stuff that had previously been culled out: it isn’t uncommon
to find new insights, and from that, a new/different thought to go consider
a different post-, be it on exposure, composition, balance, etc. And since
its non-destructive and “free” (except for ones time), these retrospectives
are another dimension to personal learning & craft building.

-hh

On Tuesday, 29 March 2022 at 15:10:37 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:24:08 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
> > On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 18:08:17 UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote:
> > > Am 28.03.2022 um 11:31 schrieb Whisky-dave:
> > >
> > > > I can do that using flikr I can access all my photos, not only that I can the same with all my videos
> > > > via youtube And if friends want to see them I don;t have to invite them to travel accoss from the other side of London or the world.
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > Sure but you need a fast Internet connection. We are not there yet (lots
> > > of places with poor Internet connectivity, even in the USA)
> >
> > But I would never live in a place without a fast connection.
> > Sane as I;d never live in a plaxce without hot/cold running water or electricity.
> Which can be easier said than done: one could choose a place to live today
> that the infrastructure is fine for today's demands, but the "10 year" future
> capability growth risk could be that it becomes inadequate.

True but unlikely. I think living in London I'm far more likely to be able to get the fastest speed possible
than if I moved to the isle of Skye or the galopogos islands.

> How does one
> choose to manage / mitigate that type of risk? Moving to a new home is
> going to be more expensive than buying an internal 8TB SSD.

Some people move home more times than some people buy a new computer.
Price doesn't come into it.

> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > >> 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.
> > > >
> > > > Really, I find that difficult to believe unless you're a movie producer , even those
> > > > documentary makers seem to manage when they go to the galapagos island or where ever
> > > > seem to manage.
> > >
> > > With 60 fps digital cameras and 256 GB SD cards it's easy to generate
> > > quickly a lot of data. Add to that image processing temporary files etc
> > > and quickly end up with a lot of data volume.
> >
> > But buying a larger SSD won't increase the speed of processing files.
> > My main reason to update my 2014 iMac isn't the size of the SSD at 500GB ...
>
> But that 500GB SSD wasn't the base standard configuration for an iMac in 2014,
> so it was a "future-proof" investment that you made back in 2014, to have gotten
> this far in its useful lifespan.

yes and I couldn't buy a large enough SSD so I could have all my videos, photos, music on my internal drive,
even in 2014 when I was doing SD & HD.
I was future-proofing for about 4 years and that was it.
When I fist had a Macplus I had no idea just one of my picvtures of a cat would take up more space
than I had on a floppy drive ;-)

>
> > ... it's the 'speed' of the processor doing 4K video it takes a few miniutes per
> > track now. I was so used to doing HD and it'd take <30 seconds.
> Going from HD to 4K is another illustration of capability growth over time.

Not sure I see the point in goinf to 8K but having just bought a VR heasset can;t help but think
I'd liike to create content for it.

> > I'd like my next iMac to have a larger screen than 27" maybe 30-32 , I'd like
> > it to be a bit quieter as when the fans ramp up when I'm processing 4k movies
> > one after another it gets a bit annoying and slightly worrying.
> Is your plan for your next machine that it is never going to process anything
> more than 4K video, or do you anticipate a desire for 8K video processing in
> the future that you also want the next machine to be able to handle?

Handle in what context my 2014 can handle 4K it has a 5k screen too.

> Because some of this thread is touching on futureproofing too.

I try futureproofing for the foreseeable, and that doens't including keeping everything I do on the internal drive.

> For me 10 years is just too far into the future.
Just going to one music gig a month is about 40GB per month.
So a 1TB would last me about 2 years if I did nothing else.
So there's no way I plan to keep all my videos on the internal SSD.
My .ACC music is about 40GB but I don;t buy that much music now, photos
take up about 80GB

> > My largest time is spent uploading to youtube and then youtube processing
> > from SD > HD > 4k 6, five min tracks I started uploading at about 10:30pm
> > by 1am they were all on youtube which hadn't fully processed them by 3am
> > so I went to bed.
> I've looked at such calculations similarly too, for the prospects of using a
> Cloud service for an off-site data backup. The challenge with that is that
> even with a decent fiber connection, if a catastrophic crash occurs, the
> amount of time required to pull down a complete backup can start to get
> measured in days instead of just hours. Case in point, 5TB on a 300Mbps
> fiber at 80% bandwidth utilization is 46 hours (~2 days), assuming no
> additional problems encountered (throttling from ISP, Cloud service, etc).

Well I haven't had such a crash in over 20+ years but then I use a Mac and don't run windows

What I do after copying my files to the internal drive from the SD card from my camera.
I usually then send the files to youtube.
I then listen to them or get the setlist from the band and edit the track names.
I can have the video open and rename it at the same time. (but not whiloe it;s uploading to yuotube as youtube
loses the 'link' but the Mac is OK with it.
Then copying/archive the files to an external HD which takes on average about 20-30mins per gig (concert )
There's no way I'd use a cloud backup for such things except as an extreme emergency or last resort,
something I've never had to do since my first Mac computer in about 1995.

If your computer & software is that unrealible I'd find something to do about it.
Just how often to you need to do such a thing ?

> >
> > I've enough free space on my SSD ~100 GB for over an hours video and
> > that's without having to delete the last few gigs (as in concerts) I went to
> > so that about 70mins worth or more of 4k video, the battery in my camera
> > only lasts 80mins and I haven;t an SD card that can store 70 mins of video
> > anyway, which would mean a 128+GB SD card.
> Overall, it seems that much of this conversation is a casualty of newer Mac
> designs consolidating down to a single local drive, resulting in an effective
> comingling of the discrete 'scratch' vs 'storage' requirements. It hasn't helped
> how some of their 'easy to use' Apps assume a single local repository,
> which is where things break down when the total capacity requirement stacks
> up to be greater than what's available. It seems that Apple's solution has been
> for them to sell you their Cloud storage.

Never caused me any problems.
But some people must have every movie they watch on a DVD or on a HD
I had most of start trek on VHS but after buying it and wathing it a couple of times they all sat on shelves taking up space.
No I have most of it on an external drive. Within 5 mins I can have almost any episode
from an external drive onto a USB stick in my TV .
I don't need them on my internal drive.
You sound like a women who wants to take all her 100 pairs of shoes in a suitcase for a weekend away !

> > Presently I can live without such a card having a few 64GB is enough.
> > I didn;t expect my camera to have a battery life of 3 or more hours when
> > recording video, I was happy enough to be able to use another battery(s)
> > if I needed to.
> The philosophy of media card capacity trade-offs is a whole 'nuther topic!

Not really.
you'd never buy a camera hoping it'll still be ok in 10 years time by just adding new lenses.
One of the main reasons for going from my canon EOS M3 to M6 mkII was for 4k video
I doubt I'll be able to by any gadget that will convert my M6 mk2 to 8K video.
If I really want 8k I'll have to buy a new camera than that is that.

> > > > Why not buy one with the correct size ?
> > >
> > > It may be cheaper to buy a PC with a small SSD and put a large one into it.
> >
> > That's always the case and I've found it even cheaper to use flikr ~$50 a year
> > for unlimited storage and more convenient as I don't have to carry my computer
> > to a friends house to show them my photos.
> Every approach has trades, of course.
> > Remmber the good old days when a few people at most could flick through your
> > photo album and you check to make sure their hands weren't dirty.
> My memory was more along the lines of gagging them & tying them into a chair
> while getting the slide projector & screen set up. /s

On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 10:03:58 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
> On Tuesday, 29 March 2022 at 15:10:37 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:24:08 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
> > > On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 18:08:17 UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote:
> > > > Am 28.03.2022 um 11:31 schrieb Whisky-dave:
> > > >
> > > > > I can do that using flikr I can access all my photos, not only that I can the same with all my videos
> > > > > via youtube And if friends want to see them I don;t have to invite them to travel accoss
> > > > > from the other side of London or the world.
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > Sure but you need a fast Internet connection. We are not there yet (lots
> > > > of places with poor Internet connectivity, even in the USA)
> > >
> > > But I would never live in a place without a fast connection.
> > > Sane as I;d never live in a plaxce without hot/cold running water or electricity.
> >
> > Which can be easier said than done: one could choose a place to live today
> > that the infrastructure is fine for today's demands, but the "10 year" future
> > capability growth risk could be that it becomes inadequate.
>
> True but unlikely. I think living in London I'm far more likely to be able to get the
> fastest speed possible than if I moved to the isle of Skye or the galopogos islands.

Understood. Point really was to recognize that everyone's current & future conditions
are subject to change, and that there can be some unpleasant surprises at times.

For example, awhile back my wife was starting to look at retirement properties and
we found a promising looking place in the countryside... until we noticed that the
listing said "Electricity Available". In looking further into what that meant, it was two
things: the first was that there would be an additional expense to run power lines.
But the second was that it didn't list telephone, internet, or cableTV as "available",
which meant those services weren't available at any cost: one would only be able
to rely on cellular/satellite...which would be a step backwards vs current capability,
and probably worse for future capability growth.

> > How does one choose to manage / mitigate that type of risk? Moving to a
> > new home is going to be more expensive than buying an internal 8TB SSD.
>
> Some people move home more times than some people buy a new computer.
> Price doesn't come into it.

Of course; generalized comments doesn't exclude exceptions.

> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > > >> 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > Really, I find that difficult to believe unless you're a movie producer , even those
> > > > > documentary makers seem to manage when they go to the galapagos island or where ever
> > > > > seem to manage.
> > > >
> > > > With 60 fps digital cameras and 256 GB SD cards it's easy to generate
> > > > quickly a lot of data. Add to that image processing temporary files etc
> > > > and quickly end up with a lot of data volume.
> > >
> > > But buying a larger SSD won't increase the speed of processing files.
> > > My main reason to update my 2014 iMac isn't the size of the SSD at 500GB ...
> >
> > But that 500GB SSD wasn't the base standard configuration for an iMac in 2014,
> > so it was a "future-proof" investment that you made back in 2014, to have gotten
> > this far in its useful lifespan.
>
> yes and I couldn't buy a large enough SSD so I could have all my videos, photos,
> music on my internal drive, even in 2014 when I was doing SD & HD.

At least directly from Apple.

> I was future-proofing for about 4 years and that was it.

A good point, as part of the question is what makes sense for the "how far out"
in terms of futureproof planning. Personally, I look for 5+ years, but with the
caveat that historically this was more for desktops which could have updates.

> When I fist had a Macplus I had no idea just one of my picvtures of a cat would
> take up more space than I had on a floppy drive ;-)

I wish that I'd taken a photo of my Mac+ before I replaced it with a IIvx ... it looked
pretty rediculous with a pile of something like ~5 external HDD's ... each one was
something like ... 10MB?

> > > ... it's the 'speed' of the processor doing 4K video it takes a few miniutes per
> > > track now. I was so used to doing HD and it'd take <30 seconds.
> >
> > Going from HD to 4K is another illustration of capability growth over time.
>
> Not sure I see the point in goinf to 8K but having just bought a VR heasset can;t
> help but think I'd liike to create content for it.

Understood; I only used 8K as an example of what a capability growth 'need'
might be; VR is another existing example.

> > > I'd like my next iMac to have a larger screen than 27" maybe 30-32 , I'd like
> > > it to be a bit quieter as when the fans ramp up when I'm processing 4k movies
> > > one after another it gets a bit annoying and slightly worrying.
> >
> > Is your plan for your next machine that it is never going to process anything
> > more than 4K video, or do you anticipate a desire for 8K video processing in
> > the future that you also want the next machine to be able to handle?
>
> Handle in what context my 2014 can handle 4K it has a 5k screen too.

But perhaps not VR? Point still is that technology marches on, such that
we know its only a matter of time until current hardware gets left behind.
Challenge is in making good guesses ... neither over- nor under- spending ...
for matching what's for sale today for one's needs, both of today's and
for how they may change, over the next X years.

> > Because some of this thread is touching on futureproofing too.
>
> I try futureproofing for the foreseeable, and that doens't including
> keeping everything I do on the internal drive.

Problem I have is that my current choice of DAM for photography
(Photos) isn't particularly conducive to fragmenting its storage
repository into 2+ pieces. Technically, there are some options,
but I've been admittedly lazy and just thrown an SSD RAID-0 at it.

>
> For me 10 years is just too far into the future.

Its a long stretch, sure, but it does somewhat (perhaps not intentionally?)
acknowledge that migration between hardware solutions is a "tax" which
needs to be paid too, so there's the cost-benefit of paying a bit more so
as to stretch out useful lifespans so that one only has to do two migrations
per decade instead of three. A lot of the question here comes back again
to personal preferences on what form one prefers the "payment" to be in
(eg, $ for hardware vs personal touch labor, etc).

> > > My largest time is spent uploading to youtube and then youtube processing
> > > from SD > HD > 4k 6, five min tracks I started uploading at about 10:30pm
> > > by 1am they were all on youtube which hadn't fully processed them by 3am
> > > so I went to bed.
> >
> > I've looked at such calculations similarly too, for the prospects of using a
> > Cloud service for an off-site data backup. The challenge with that is that
> > even with a decent fiber connection, if a catastrophic crash occurs, the
> > amount of time required to pull down a complete backup can start to get
> > measured in days instead of just hours. Case in point, 5TB on a 300Mbps
> > fiber at 80% bandwidth utilization is 46 hours (~2 days), assuming no
> > additional problems encountered (throttling from ISP, Cloud service, etc).
>
> Well I haven't had such a crash in over 20+ years but then I use a Mac and don't run windows
> [...]
> If your computer & software is that unrealible I'd find something to do about it.
> Just how often to you need to do such a thing ?

Its not. I've had one crash over ~30 years, couple of years ago now, which tested
my backups. Nothing lost, but it identified where my backup strategies would benefit
from some improvements. Paying for Cloud would be one potential solution; my
thoughts are that its bandwidth limit is a trade-off that wouldn't make it my first choice.

FWIW, this kind of relates back to a backup discussion from my wife's Corporate IT
team from way back - - they were doing incremental (eg nightly) remote site backups
to a remote site and what they had found in their contingency planning was that at the
time, if a mainframe went down & required a full backup to restore, it was higher net
bandwidth to have the physical magnetic tapes sent FedEx overnight than to push
the same data back electronically. FWIW, I don't really recall much more details than
this, but that their facility was consuming a couple of petabytes in the early 1990s.

On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:39:11 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 10:03:58 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 29 March 2022 at 15:10:37 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:24:08 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
> > > > On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 18:08:17 UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote:
> > > > > Am 28.03.2022 um 11:31 schrieb Whisky-dave:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I can do that using flikr I can access all my photos, not only that I can the same with all my videos
> > > > > > via youtube And if friends want to see them I don;t have to invite them to travel accoss
> > > > > > from the other side of London or the world.
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure but you need a fast Internet connection. We are not there yet (lots
> > > > > of places with poor Internet connectivity, even in the USA)
> > > >
> > > > But I would never live in a place without a fast connection.
> > > > Sane as I;d never live in a plaxce without hot/cold running water or electricity.
> > >
> > > Which can be easier said than done: one could choose a place to live today
> > > that the infrastructure is fine for today's demands, but the "10 year" future
> > > capability growth risk could be that it becomes inadequate.
> >
> > True but unlikely. I think living in London I'm far more likely to be able to get the
> > fastest speed possible than if I moved to the isle of Skye or the galopogos islands.
> Understood. Point really was to recognize that everyone's current & future conditions
> are subject to change, and that there can be some unpleasant surprises at times.

Yes but some things become more predictable.
It's unlikely that laptops and tablets will have removable internal drives or have a way
of changing the graphics card or memory.
Even microsofts surface models are glued together and even less upgradable and more expensive that Apple.
Most people now just buy a laptop less and less are building their own PC.

Noticed this with car too, when I was a kid at the weekends you'd see those with cars
tinkering about underneath them , I just don't see that anymore.

People also kept the same clothes for years and repaired them now most don't seem to keep or wear the same outfit
more than a couple of times.

> For example, awhile back my wife was starting to look at retirement properties and
> we found a promising looking place in the countryside... until we noticed that the
> listing said "Electricity Available". In looking further into what that meant, it was two
> things: the first was that there would be an additional expense to run power lines.
> But the second was that it didn't list telephone, internet, or cableTV as "available",
> which meant those services weren't available at any cost: one would only be able
> to rely on cellular/satellite...which would be a step backwards vs current capability,
> and probably worse for future capability growth.

That wouldn't suprise me, I'd sort of expect that.
I doubt you'll find many retirment properties in the city centres with easy access to nightclubs,
good public transport and a vibrant night life.

> > > How does one choose to manage / mitigate that type of risk? Moving to a
> > > new home is going to be more expensive than buying an internal 8TB SSD.
> >
> > Some people move home more times than some people buy a new computer.
> > Price doesn't come into it.
> Of course; generalized comments doesn't exclude exceptions.
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > >> 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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Really, I find that difficult to believe unless you're a movie producer , even those
> > > > > > documentary makers seem to manage when they go to the galapagos island or where ever
> > > > > > seem to manage.
> > > > >
> > > > > With 60 fps digital cameras and 256 GB SD cards it's easy to generate
> > > > > quickly a lot of data. Add to that image processing temporary files etc
> > > > > and quickly end up with a lot of data volume.
> > > >
> > > > But buying a larger SSD won't increase the speed of processing files.
> > > > My main reason to update my 2014 iMac isn't the size of the SSD at 500GB ...
> > >
> > > But that 500GB SSD wasn't the base standard configuration for an iMac in 2014,
> > > so it was a "future-proof" investment that you made back in 2014, to have gotten
> > > this far in its useful lifespan.
> >
> > yes and I couldn't buy a large enough SSD so I could have all my videos, photos,
> > music on my internal drive, even in 2014 when I was doing SD & HD.
> At least directly from Apple.

Or from anywhere as an intenal drive.

> > I was future-proofing for about 4 years and that was it.
> A good point, as part of the question is what makes sense for the "how far out"
> in terms of futureproof planning. Personally, I look for 5+ years, but with the
> caveat that historically this was more for desktops which could have updates.

For me the only differnce between a laptop and a desktop is screen size and therefor portability and price.

> > When I fist had a Macplus I had no idea just one of my picvtures of a cat would
> > take up more space than I had on a floppy drive ;-)
> I wish that I'd taken a photo of my Mac+ before I replaced it with a IIvx ... it looked
> pretty rediculous with a pile of something like ~5 external HDD's ... each one was
> something like ... 10MB?

Nothing wrong with external HDs, at work we had a 400MB connected to our unix metheus computer
it was about the size of a fridge.

Now we only store app and OS on the internal drive everything the students do is on networked drive.
Everyone of my labs 92 PCs is connected to a network drives, where everything is backup.
Probaly a bit expensive for a home users but the principle of not using the intenal drive for users files
(unless backed up regually) is a good practice.

> > > > ... it's the 'speed' of the processor doing 4K video it takes a few miniutes per
> > > > track now. I was so used to doing HD and it'd take <30 seconds.
> > >
> > > Going from HD to 4K is another illustration of capability growth over time.
> >
> > Not sure I see the point in goinf to 8K but having just bought a VR heasset can;t
> > help but think I'd liike to create content for it.
> Understood; I only used 8K as an example of what a capability growth 'need'
> might be; VR is another existing example.

Whatever I do I don't plan on keeping the whole of my lifes computing on an internal drive.
An internal drive is for immidiate use, & apps/utilities and processing nothing more.

> > > > I'd like my next iMac to have a larger screen than 27" maybe 30-32 , I'd like
> > > > it to be a bit quieter as when the fans ramp up when I'm processing 4k movies
> > > > one after another it gets a bit annoying and slightly worrying.
> > >
> > > Is your plan for your next machine that it is never going to process anything
> > > more than 4K video, or do you anticipate a desire for 8K video processing in
> > > the future that you also want the next machine to be able to handle?
> >
> > Handle in what context my 2014 can handle 4K it has a 5k screen too.
> But perhaps not VR?

No but as with VR I doubt I'll ever get around to it, any more than I got around to kirlian photography
in the 80s or 3D photography in the 90s.

> Point still is that technology marches on, such that
> we know its only a matter of time until current hardware gets left behind.

For em that's when I NEED to upgrade presently I don;t NEED to.
I do 3D printing on my 2011 iMac at work, I can';t get the very latest CURA app due to the OS
but I don't think I'm missing much as yet. I do need to understand more about supports in 3D printing

> Challenge is in making good guesses ... neither over- nor under- spending ...
> for matching what's for sale today for one's needs, both of today's and
> for how they may change, over the next X years.

which is why I went for the SSD in my 2014 iMac rather than the 1TB fusion that was offered.
I knew that read/writing to SSD for movies would be more advantous than having 1 TB fusion or standard 2TB HD,
or whatever I could have for a bit more money. I decided against a higher spec graphics card as I had no
intetion of connecting a 2nd or 3rd monitor. And as for see the smoke in a 1st or 3rd person shoot-em up
just doesn;t interest me I prefer better game play than OTT graphics.
If I wanted the best in graphics I'd buy a really high end PC costing more than a Mac and upgrade
the graphics card every year or so.

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 11:06:49 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:39:11 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 10:03:58 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 29 March 2022 at 15:10:37 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:24:08 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 18:08:17 UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote:
> > > > > > Am 28.03.2022 um 11:31 schrieb Whisky-dave:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I can do that using flikr I can access all my photos, not only that I can the same with all my videos
> > > > > > > via youtube And if friends want to see them I don;t have to invite them to travel accoss
> > > > > > > from the other side of London or the world.
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sure but you need a fast Internet connection. We are not there yet (lots
> > > > > > of places with poor Internet connectivity, even in the USA)
> > > > >
> > > > > But I would never live in a place without a fast connection.
> > > > > Sane as I;d never live in a plaxce without hot/cold running water or electricity.
> > > >
> > > > Which can be easier said than done: one could choose a place to live today
> > > > that the infrastructure is fine for today's demands, but the "10 year" future
> > > > capability growth risk could be that it becomes inadequate.
> > >
> > > True but unlikely. I think living in London I'm far more likely to be able to get the
> > > fastest speed possible than if I moved to the isle of Skye or the galopogos islands.
> >
> > Understood. Point really was to recognize that everyone's current & future conditions
> > are subject to change, and that there can be some unpleasant surprises at times.
>
> Yes but some things become more predictable.
> It's unlikely that laptops and tablets will have removable internal drives or have a way
> of changing the graphics card or memory.

Agreed, the industry trend has become much more "disposable", which is why we have
these debates on how much to hand-wring about spending extra upfront in order to
try to 'future-proof' it some.

> Noticed this with car too, when I was a kid at the weekends you'd see those
> with cars tinkering about underneath them , I just don't see that anymore.

Yes, that too .. plus there's been tech changes which have dramatically decreased
the amount of day-to-day maintenance. I can recall my father "checking the car out"
for a run over to see the grandparents - a distance of 90 miles. Today, that is less
than what some people have as their daily commute to work.

> > For example, awhile back my wife was starting to look at retirement properties and
> > we found a promising looking place in the countryside... until we noticed that the
> > listing said "Electricity Available". In looking further into what that meant, it was two
> > things: the first was that there would be an additional expense to run power lines.
> > But the second was that it didn't list telephone, internet, or cableTV as "available",
> > which meant those services weren't available at any cost: one would only be able
> > to rely on cellular/satellite...which would be a step backwards vs current capability,
> > and probably worse for future capability growth.
>
> That wouldn't suprise me, I'd sort of expect that.

Coming from a more developed region, it was a "OMG!" surprise of a moment that
we're glad that we caught, so as to not have it be an unpleasant surprise later.

> I doubt you'll find many retirment properties in the city centres with easy access
> to nightclubs, good public transport and a vibrant night life.

Actually, a more urban with "walkability" and mass transit infrastructure is also
something we're considering now more. After that scouting trip, I actually found
an old, small department store (30,000 ft^2) on the main street of a small town
at a firesale price (US$0.5M) which got me thinking about its possibilities. Basically,
to take the ground floor and make it small retail shops to rent out, then convert the
2nd floor (1st floor in UK) into a condo for us, and convert the top floor into small
condo rental units for a small local college (assumes zoning approvals). Plus it had
a "basement" level with a drive in (yes, indoor) loading dock, so indoor secure parking
for 5-6 automobiles too. Wife thought I was more than a bit insane. My research found
that the reason why the building was so cheap was because it needed around US$1M
for structural stabilization and asbestos removal. A quick look at Zillow today and I
see that it was sold, fixed up & is now worth $1.75M, so my swag was quite close.

> > > > But that 500GB SSD wasn't the base standard configuration for an iMac in 2014,
> > > > so it was a "future-proof" investment that you made back in 2014, to have gotten
> > > > this far in its useful lifespan.
> > >
> > > yes and I couldn't buy a large enough SSD so I could have all my videos, photos,
> > > music on my internal drive, even in 2014 when I was doing SD & HD.
> >
> > At least directly from Apple.
>
> Or from anywhere as an internal drive.

Oh, there were SSD's available in 2014, but at roughly $700 for 1TB, they
weren't commonplace yet.

<https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/191934-the-best-ssds-of-2014-a-buyers-guide>

> > > I was future-proofing for about 4 years and that was it.
> >
> > A good point, as part of the question is what makes sense for the "how far out"
> > in terms of futureproof planning. Personally, I look for 5+ years, but with the
> > caveat that historically this was more for desktops which could have updates.
>
> For me the only differnce between a laptop and a desktop is screen size and
> therefor portability and price.

Yes, laptops have 'caught up' with desktop performance within the past few years
for mainstream performance .. there's still a gap in the higher end of power users,
even as the power user population has become a smaller pond because the tech
is a "more than enough" for mainstream. Overall, this is effectively why we're now
considering 5+ year lifecycles instead of just ~3 years (or less: the early days of
PCs had business cases for performance which justified hardware replacements
deployments cycles as frequent as every 12-18 months in some industries).

> Now we only store app and OS on the internal drive everything the students do
> is on networked drive. Everyone of my labs 92 PCs is connected to a network
> drives, where everything is backup. Probaly a bit expensive for a home users
> but the principle of not using the intenal drive for users files (unless backed up
> regually) is a good practice.

It is, but what I'll point out is that your strategy of consolidation to a server was
probably motivated more by its productivity gain potential: your touch labor is
on just a single (& big) node to be maintained for backups, rather than having
to repeat that work 92 times across 92 (small) discrete nodes. The bang-for-
the-buck calculus changes when you go from 1:92 to 1:1 (or 1:2, etc) in a home.

> > > > > ... it's the 'speed' of the processor doing 4K video it takes a few miniutes
> > > > > per track now. I was so used to doing HD and it'd take <30 seconds.
> > > >
> > > > Going from HD to 4K is another illustration of capability growth over time.
> > >
> > > Not sure I see the point in goinf to 8K but having just bought a VR heasset can;t
> > > help but think I'd liike to create content for it.
> >
> > Understood; I only used 8K as an example of what a capability growth 'need'
> > might be; VR is another existing example.
>
> Whatever I do I don't plan on keeping the whole of my lifes computing on an internal drive.
> An internal drive is for immidiate use, & apps/utilities and processing nothing more.

The observation is that "inventory tracking" is always going to be an overhead cost, and
a more complex system (eg, multiple storage site) will cost more than a less complex
system. From this, the question is how is that higher overhead cost being justified today?
Its probably based on media cost, namely (cost per TB of SSD) vs (cost per TB of HDD).
The ramifications of this are that once the storage media costs get cheap enough, the
cost justification for spending extra overhead for "which closet?" tracking won't be as
strong of a justification, which means that it is at risk of being abandoned in favor of
a simpler system that incurs lower tracking overhead ... ie, a single destination.

On 2022-03-31 19:39:08 +0000, -hh said:

> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 10:03:58 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 29 March 2022 at 15:10:37 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:24:08 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
>>>> On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 18:08:17 UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>>> Am 28.03.2022 um 11:31 schrieb Whisky-dave:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I can do that using flikr I can access all my photos, not only that I
>>>>>> can the same with all my videos
>>>>>> via youtube And if friends want to see them I don;t have to invite them
>>>>>> to travel accoss
>>>>>> from the other side of London or the world.
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure but you need a fast Internet connection. We are not there yet (lots
>>>>> of places with poor Internet connectivity, even in the USA)
>>>>
>>>> But I would never live in a place without a fast connection.
>>>> Sane as I;d never live in a plaxce without hot/cold running water or
>>>> electricity.
>>>
>>> Which can be easier said than done: one could choose a place to live today
>>> that the infrastructure is fine for today's demands, but the "10 year" future
>>> capability growth risk could be that it becomes inadequate.
>>
>> True but unlikely. I think living in London I'm far more likely to be
>> able to get the
>> fastest speed possible than if I moved to the isle of Skye or the
>> galopogos islands.
>
> Understood. Point really was to recognize that everyone's current &
> future conditions
> are subject to change, and that there can be some unpleasant surprises
> at times.
>
> For example, awhile back my wife was starting to look at retirement
> properties and
> we found a promising looking place in the countryside... until we
> noticed that the
> listing said "Electricity Available". In looking further into what
> that meant, it was two
> things: the first was that there would be an additional expense to run
> power lines.
> But the second was that it didn't list telephone, internet, or cableTV
> as "available",
> which meant those services weren't available at any cost: one would
> only be able
> to rely on cellular/satellite...which would be a step backwards vs
> current capability,
> and probably worse for future capability growth.

Living where I do, near Lake Nacimiento, on a gated community 13 miles
West of Paso Robles, California I get to be well away from an urban
center, and have no loss of technolgical connectivity. Back in 1993
Charter/Spectrum which was then owned by Paul Allen of MS ran fiber
optic cable the 13+ miles from Paso Robles to releive us from the
tedium of dial up.

That said, I bought myself a 14" MacBook Pro M1Max, with 10-core CPU,
24-core GPU, 16-core Neural Engine, 64GB unified memory, & 2TB SSD.

As for travel, after my 2020 trip which resulted in a race to get home
because of the C-19 lockdown/shutdown I have been somewhat reluctant to
travel again. That said, I have my seat on KLM paid for to test the
waters for a trip to South Africa in July. This time business class.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On Saturday, 2 April 2022 at 8:29:22 am UTC+10, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2022-03-31 19:39:08 +0000, -hh said:
>
> > On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 10:03:58 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, 29 March 2022 at 15:10:37 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:24:08 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 18:08:17 UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote:
> >>>>> Am 28.03.2022 um 11:31 schrieb Whisky-dave:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I can do that using flikr I can access all my photos, not only that I
> >>>>>> can the same with all my videos
> >>>>>> via youtube And if friends want to see them I don;t have to invite them
> >>>>>> to travel accoss
> >>>>>> from the other side of London or the world.
> >>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sure but you need a fast Internet connection. We are not there yet (lots
> >>>>> of places with poor Internet connectivity, even in the USA)
> >>>>
> >>>> But I would never live in a place without a fast connection.
> >>>> Sane as I;d never live in a plaxce without hot/cold running water or
> >>>> electricity.
> >>>
> >>> Which can be easier said than done: one could choose a place to live today
> >>> that the infrastructure is fine for today's demands, but the "10 year" future
> >>> capability growth risk could be that it becomes inadequate.
> >>
> >> True but unlikely. I think living in London I'm far more likely to be
> >> able to get the
> >> fastest speed possible than if I moved to the isle of Skye or the
> >> galopogos islands.
> >
> > Understood. Point really was to recognize that everyone's current &
> > future conditions
> > are subject to change, and that there can be some unpleasant surprises
> > at times.
> >
> > For example, awhile back my wife was starting to look at retirement
> > properties and
> > we found a promising looking place in the countryside... until we
> > noticed that the
> > listing said "Electricity Available". In looking further into what
> > that meant, it was two
> > things: the first was that there would be an additional expense to run
> > power lines.
> > But the second was that it didn't list telephone, internet, or cableTV
> > as "available",
> > which meant those services weren't available at any cost: one would
> > only be able
> > to rely on cellular/satellite...which would be a step backwards vs
> > current capability,
> > and probably worse for future capability growth.
> Living where I do, near Lake Nacimiento, on a gated community 13 miles
> West of Paso Robles, California I get to be well away from an urban
> center, and have no loss of technolgical connectivity. Back in 1993
> Charter/Spectrum which was then owned by Paul Allen of MS ran fiber
> optic cable the 13+ miles from Paso Robles to releive us from the
> tedium of dial up.
>
> That said, I bought myself a 14" MacBook Pro M1Max, with 10-core CPU,
> 24-core GPU, 16-core Neural Engine, 64GB unified memory, & 2TB SSD.
>
> As for travel, after my 2020 trip which resulted in a race to get home
> because of the C-19 lockdown/shutdown I have been somewhat reluctant to
> travel again. That said, I have my seat on KLM paid for to test the
> waters for a trip to South Africa in July. This time business class.

Have a fantastic time! Are you taking the drone? From a cursory glance it looks like South Africa has reasonably sensible rules for recreational drones.

Ahhh, business class! I remember business class. That was from the days when my employer paid for my travel (and allowed me to keep the frequent flyer points for personal/family use). :-)

Cheers,
Magani
>
> --
> Regards,
> Savageduck

Am 02.04.2022 um 00:29 schrieb Savageduck:
> As for travel, after my 2020 trip which resulted in a race to get home
> because of the C-19 lockdown/shutdown I have been somewhat reluctant to
> travel again. That said, I have my seat on KLM paid for to test the
> waters for a trip to South Africa in July. This time business class.

I believe here in Germany a retired police officer wouldn't be able to
afford a business class flight to South Africa (not out of the pension
money he gets from the government).
--
Alfred Molon

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

On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 6:31:11 AM UTC-4, Alfred Molon wrote:
> Am 02.04.2022 um 00:29 schrieb Savageduck:
> > [hh writing about travel]
> > As for travel, after my 2020 trip which resulted in a race to get home
> > because of the C-19 lockdown/shutdown I have been somewhat reluctant
> > to travel again. That said, I have my seat on KLM paid for to test the
> > waters for a trip to South Africa in July. This time business class.

July's just around the corner .. be interested to hear what places are on
your list. I had the luck a few years ago of an itinerary add-on in SA for
a few days of Safari (spent in Pilanesberg NP) ; if you were looking for
a private guide I'd be recommending the one we found, but during CoVid,
he decided to retire and move to UK to be back near family.

> I believe here in Germany a retired police officer wouldn't be able to
> afford a business class flight to South Africa (not out of the pension
> money he gets from the government).

It depends on how long one has been saving for such a trip, plus all of
the other factors that go into a personal budget & retirement savings.

In any event, I understand quite well what Savageduck is alluding to with
paying for business class on longer flights. I usually try to stick with the
frugality of coach seats, but I know that there's already some itineraries
where I'll have to bite the bullet to pay to ride upfront. I've been banking
FFM's for quite awhile to soften that blow.

-hh

On 2022-04-02 10:31:05 +0000, Alfred Molon said:

> Am 02.04.2022 um 00:29 schrieb Savageduck:
>> As for travel, after my 2020 trip which resulted in a race to get home
>> because of the C-19 lockdown/shutdown I have been somewhat reluctant to
>> travel again. That said, I have my seat on KLM paid for to test the
>> waters for a trip to South Africa in July. This time business class.
>
> I believe here in Germany a retired police officer wouldn't be able to
> afford a business class flight to South Africa (not out of the pension
> money he gets from the government).

My State of California (CalPers) pension is established at 3% per year
of final salary at retirement for my category employee (Health &
Safet). Throughout my career I was also able to invest in a tax
deferred investment fund which grew substantially over time. Finally I
was also able to buy 5 years of service credit. That means, in total I
receive a max of 90% of my final salary at retirement, which due to my
rank was $100+K/year. Since I was a State employee on a State pension
plan I did not qualify for Federal Social Security, only my pension. I
have been retired for 13 years, and for each of 12 of those years I
have received a cost of living pension allowance (COLA). I have full
medical & dental coverage. My home, and my car are paid for, my living
expenses are not extravagant, and I am able to save to cover various
stuff such as a drone, a new MBP, and a business class air fare to
spoil myself for my first travel since my 2020 COVID travel fiasco. At
73 going on a trip that has me in a plane for 25+ hours each way, I
like the idea of being comfortable.

BTW: KLM World Business Class SFO-AMS-CPT return CPT-AMS-SFO was
$7,578.57 and I can afford that. Economy Plus for the same trip would
be about $2,000.
--
Regards,
Savageduck

Am 02.04.2022 um 16:18 schrieb Savageduck:
> KLM World Business Class SFO-AMS-CPT return CPT-AMS-SFO was $7,578.57
> and I can afford that. Economy Plus for the same trip would be about
> $2,000.

Munich to Cape Town return costs 677 Euro (with KLM via AMS; I entered
8.6-29.6 in skyscanner). The cheapest flight is 576 Euro (two stops on
the return leg). Economy class obviously.

Business class costs 2061 Euro (MUC-AMS-CPT, return is CPT-JNB-CDG-MUC).

It's amazing that flights in the USA are so expensive.
--
Alfred Molon

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

On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 12:15:13 PM UTC-4, Alfred Molon wrote:
> Am 02.04.2022 um 16:18 schrieb Savageduck:
> > KLM World Business Class SFO-AMS-CPT return CPT-AMS-SFO was $7,578.57
> > and I can afford that. Economy Plus for the same trip would be about
> > $2,000.
>
> Munich to Cape Town return costs 677 Euro (with KLM via AMS; I entered
> 8.6-29.6 in skyscanner). The cheapest flight is 576 Euro (two stops on
> the return leg). Economy class obviously.
>
> Business class costs 2061 Euro (MUC-AMS-CPT, return is CPT-JNB-CDG-MUC).
>
> It's amazing that flights in the USA are so expensive.

You do realize that it is also twice as far, right? And that’s before
noting that his specific itinerary is more of a dogleg thru EU, so
it’s closer to 3x the distance.

Likewise, having fewer flight changes will also usually
have a cost premium too…to do west coast of US all the
way to SA with only one flight change is pretty impressive.

Plus there’s also factors of demand vs availability, etc:
Corporations will maximize their profit opportunities

-hh

On Apr 2, 2022, Alfred Molon wrote
(in article <cE_1K.32406$Lc1.31253@fx12.ams1>):

> Am 02.04.2022 um 16:18 schrieb Savageduck:
> > KLM World Business Class SFO-AMS-CPT return CPT-AMS-SFO was $7,578.57
> > and I can afford that. Economy Plus for the same trip would be about
> > $2,000.
>
> Munich to Cape Town return costs 677 Euro (with KLM via AMS; I entered
> 8.6-29.6 in skyscanner). The cheapest flight is 576 Euro (two stops on
> the return leg). Economy class obviously.
>
> Business class costs 2061 Euro (MUC-AMS-CPT, return is CPT-JNB-CDG-MUC).
>
> It's amazing that flights in the USA are so expensive.

Well I am not flying Munich to Cape Town, and there are a whole bunch of add-ons beyond the actual ticket price with USA bookings. I have never bought any airline ticket in the EU, so I wouldn’t know if the same applies there. Try the same thing for a flight from SFO to CPT via AMS round-trip.

Here is the actual break down of my KLM cost for my trip:
<https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-DCwd9gX/0/e50e1d63/X2/i-DCwd9gX-X2.jpg>

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On Apr 1, 2022, Magani wrote
(in article<93a8f33c-8f41-401f-9a46-fba8c1d54a59n@googlegroups.com>):

> On Saturday, 2 April 2022 at 8:29:22 am UTC+10, Savageduck wrote:
> > On 2022-03-31 19:39:08 +0000, -hh said:
> >
> > > On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 10:03:58 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, 29 March 2022 at 15:10:37 UTC+1, -hh wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:24:08 AM UTC-4, Whisky-dave wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, 28 March 2022 at 18:08:17 UTC+1, Alfred Molon wrote:
> > > > > > > Am 28.03.2022 um 11:31 schrieb Whisky-dave:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I can do that using flikr I can access all my photos, not only that I
> > > > > > > > can the same with all my videos
> > > > > > > > via youtube And if friends want to see them I don;t have to invite them
> > > > > > > > to travel accoss
> > > > > > > > from the other side of London or the world.
> > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sure but you need a fast Internet connection. We are not there yet (lots
> > > > > > > of places with poor Internet connectivity, even in the USA)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But I would never live in a place without a fast connection.
> > > > > > Sane as I;d never live in a plaxce without hot/cold running water or
> > > > > > electricity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which can be easier said than done: one could choose a place to live today
> > > > > that the infrastructure is fine for today's demands, but the "10 year" future
> > > > > capability growth risk could be that it becomes inadequate.
> > > >
> > > > True but unlikely. I think living in London I'm far more likely to be
> > > > able to get the
> > > > fastest speed possible than if I moved to the isle of Skye or the
> > > > galopogos islands.
> > >
> > > Understood. Point really was to recognize that everyone's current&
> > > future conditions
> > > are subject to change, and that there can be some unpleasant surprises
> > > at times.
> > >
> > > For example, awhile back my wife was starting to look at retirement
> > > properties and
> > > we found a promising looking place in the countryside... until we
> > > noticed that the
> > > listing said "Electricity Available". In looking further into what
> > > that meant, it was two
> > > things: the first was that there would be an additional expense to run
> > > power lines.
> > > But the second was that it didn't list telephone, internet, or cableTV
> > > as "available",
> > > which meant those services weren't available at any cost: one would
> > > only be able
> > > to rely on cellular/satellite...which would be a step backwards vs
> > > current capability,
> > > and probably worse for future capability growth.
> > Living where I do, near Lake Nacimiento, on a gated community 13 miles
> > West of Paso Robles, California I get to be well away from an urban
> > center, and have no loss of technolgical connectivity. Back in 1993
> > Charter/Spectrum which was then owned by Paul Allen of MS ran fiber
> > optic cable the 13+ miles from Paso Robles to releive us from the
> > tedium of dial up.
> >
> > That said, I bought myself a 14" MacBook Pro M1Max, with 10-core CPU,
> > 24-core GPU, 16-core Neural Engine, 64GB unified memory, & 2TB SSD.
> >
> > As for travel, after my 2020 trip which resulted in a race to get home
> > because of the C-19 lockdown/shutdown I have been somewhat reluctant to
> > travel again. That said, I have my seat on KLM paid for to test the
> > waters for a trip to South Africa in July. This time business class.
>
> Have a fantastic time! Are you taking the drone? From a cursory glance it looks like South Africa has reasonably sensible rules for recreational drones.

I will be taking the drone, I just hope I will be able to fit some air time in with what I will be doing.
>
> Ahhh, business class! I remember business class. That was from the days when my employer paid for my travel (and allowed me to keep the frequent flyer points for personal/family use). :-)

I have flown business class several times on KLM, Delta, United,& once on Ethiopian. I usually fly economy plus which delivers a tad more leg room. The last Time I flew Business class was on an upgrade on Ethiopian Airways in January 2019 from LAX to Addis Ababa via Lomé in Togo. The rest of that trip was in economy plus.

--
Regards,
Savageduck