02-26-2012, 12:07 PM
[quote name='joachim' timestamp='1330256329' post='16179']
Considering TimeMachine I used it twice in the last month to rescue my work laptop. That got bitten by CUI when upgrading to Mac OSX 10.7.3. Without TimeMachine it would have been a disaster ...[/quote]
CUI?
[quote name='joachim' timestamp='1330256329' post='16179']
While am totally with you that an SSD helps performance, I am not sure now is the time to switch from spinning disks to SSD. If an SSD is large, it is 256 GB. My image archive is beyond 500 GB. So the ORF files I am manipulating sit on the other disk anyway. So honest question: How should I use an SSD in that situation?
[/quote]
Well, yes, I was thinking desktop machines here. A SSD in a mobile computer only makes sense if you can get along with the limited capacity. Usually that's only the case if it's not the main machine.
In an iMac or Mac Pro, however, the SSD could handle the OS and applications and a second classic HDD store the data. That's how I have set it up on my main machine. A Mac Mini Server could be set up like this, too (but would maybe be a little limited for imaging work due to its graphics card). While the data handling does not benefit directly from the SSD, booting and launching applications is still a magnitude faster. The Macbook Air needs less than 20 seconds to boot (EFI/BIOS time not included) to a fully functional desktop, including all restored apps running before the shutdown. PS CS5 starts in 3 (!) seconds. Well, from cache, so when used before. Otherwise it might well be 5 seconds <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
Another issue not mentioned, yet: malware. There is currently only a limited selection of actual malware available that runs on or specifically attacks OS X. Unlike Windows, it's perfectly fine to run a Mac without any additional protection (on a Windows machine connected to the net, this would be suicide). The amount of CPU clock cycles saved for this purpose adds to the perceived speed of a Mac. Things may well change in the future, due to the increased popularity of the Mac platform, but OTOH Apple seems to be actively adressing security with the next release of OS X (gatekeeper, signed and certified applications).
-- Markus
Considering TimeMachine I used it twice in the last month to rescue my work laptop. That got bitten by CUI when upgrading to Mac OSX 10.7.3. Without TimeMachine it would have been a disaster ...[/quote]
CUI?
[quote name='joachim' timestamp='1330256329' post='16179']
While am totally with you that an SSD helps performance, I am not sure now is the time to switch from spinning disks to SSD. If an SSD is large, it is 256 GB. My image archive is beyond 500 GB. So the ORF files I am manipulating sit on the other disk anyway. So honest question: How should I use an SSD in that situation?
[/quote]
Well, yes, I was thinking desktop machines here. A SSD in a mobile computer only makes sense if you can get along with the limited capacity. Usually that's only the case if it's not the main machine.
In an iMac or Mac Pro, however, the SSD could handle the OS and applications and a second classic HDD store the data. That's how I have set it up on my main machine. A Mac Mini Server could be set up like this, too (but would maybe be a little limited for imaging work due to its graphics card). While the data handling does not benefit directly from the SSD, booting and launching applications is still a magnitude faster. The Macbook Air needs less than 20 seconds to boot (EFI/BIOS time not included) to a fully functional desktop, including all restored apps running before the shutdown. PS CS5 starts in 3 (!) seconds. Well, from cache, so when used before. Otherwise it might well be 5 seconds <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> Another issue not mentioned, yet: malware. There is currently only a limited selection of actual malware available that runs on or specifically attacks OS X. Unlike Windows, it's perfectly fine to run a Mac without any additional protection (on a Windows machine connected to the net, this would be suicide). The amount of CPU clock cycles saved for this purpose adds to the perceived speed of a Mac. Things may well change in the future, due to the increased popularity of the Mac platform, but OTOH Apple seems to be actively adressing security with the next release of OS X (gatekeeper, signed and certified applications).
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
opticallimits.com