MBP 1tb vs 2tb

[resonansphere]

Need recommendation on whether to get a 1tb or 2tb hard drive for the new MBP.

I plan to use Parallels, Bootcamp, Photoshop, visual studio, Python and maybe some more.
I check the file sizes of those, and none of them is very big in size, except partitioning seems to take a big chunk of space, but running Windows on a Mac is not really necessary.

Don’t have a lot of photos and videos. Don’t really want to buy an external hard drive.

I want to keep the laptop for at least 3 years. Do you think if I should upgrade to 2tb Or just get 1tb?

 

[tmoerel]

Need recommendation on whether to get a 1tb or 2tb hard drive for the new MBP.

I plan to use Parallels, Bootcamp, Photoshop, visual studio, Python and maybe some more.
I check the file sizes of those, and none of them is very big in size, except partitioning seems to take a big chunk of space, but running Windows on a Mac is not really necessary.

Don’t have a lot of photos and videos. Don’t really want to buy an external hard drive.

I want to keep the laptop for at least 3 years. Do you think if I should upgrade to 2tb Or just get 1tb?

Well, 1Tb should be enough as there is no more bootcamp on the new M1 macs. Also parallels is a lot less useful as you can only run ARM Windows and no Intel Windows. And a parallels VM can easily be run from an external SSD.

 

[Mike Boreham]

Need recommendation on whether to get a 1tb or 2tb hard drive for the new MBP.

I plan to use Parallels, Bootcamp, Photoshop, visual studio, Python and maybe some more.
I check the file sizes of those, and none of them is very big in size, except partitioning seems to take a big chunk of space, but running Windows on a Mac is not really necessary.

Don’t have a lot of photos and videos. Don’t really want to buy an external hard drive.

I want to keep the laptop for at least 3 years. Do you think if I should upgrade to 2tb Or just get 1tb?

No one can answer this for you. The best way of addressing it is looking at your current usage.

How much total data do you have? (Size of the apps themselves is irrelevant)
Where is it? (internal or external)
How much data do you really want to have on board without recourse to an external?
How much are you willing to spend to avoid needing an external? (Internal storage is much more expensive)

Personally I would avoid partitioning the internal on a Silcon Mac. Put your user data in the appropriate user folders where Apple expects them to be.

As previous reply you won't be using Bootcamp. A Parallels VM is more space efficient because it is expanding. Note you can only run Windows ARM.

Some people are quite happy with a 256TB internal and use big externals (I use a 4TB Crucial X6 SSD which is tiny, smaller than a Sam T).

Don't forget to factor in backup drives in your purchasing decision.

 

[Significant1]

Personally I would avoid partitioning the internal on a Silcon Mac.

No problem, if you stick to apfs volumes instead of partitions, since they will share the same available space within their container.

 

[matram]

My rule of thumb is order double what you are currently using.

As others have said the apps do not use up space. For me it is a few virtual macines at 100 GB each and 400 GB of ”raw” images that consume most of the space.

DaisyDisk is a good app to see the current disk usage.

 

[Mike Boreham]

No problem, if you stick to apfs volumes instead of partitions, since they will share the same available space within their container.

Yes I understand that, but there are few threads (EG) around from people who put data on separate volumes (so that they had three APFS volumes in the Container), and got into trouble formatting/reinstalling. This shouldn't matter if you only delete the volume group as Apple advise. Increasingly with macOS, doing things our own non-standard-ways-that-worked-before leads to problems. All IMHO of course which is why I prefaced it "Personally"

PS Another possible example that I don't know the answer to.....
-user creates separate data volume in the internal Container.
-Puts all his Music media files on it (linked to Music Library)
Does the new "Delete all data and settings" feature delete the Music lib media on the separate volume? It is user data, but it also on a separate volume so user might expect it to be safe. The feature is supposed to be a quick way of returning a Mac to factory condition for sale, so it shouldn't leave any data on the internal drive. Just an example of why I increasingly feel best to do things as Apple expect.

 

[Significant1]

Yes I understand that, but there are few threads (EG) around from people who put data on separate volumes (so that they had three APFS volumes in the Container), and got into trouble formatting/reinstalling. This shouldn't matter if you only delete the volume group as Apple advise. Increasingly with macOS, doing things our own non-standard-ways-that-worked-before leads to problems. All IMHO of course which is why I prefaced it "Personally"

PS Another possible example that I don't know the answer to.....
-user creates separate data volume in the internal Container.
-Puts all his Music media files on it (linked to Music Library)
Does the new "Delete all data and settings" feature delete the Music lib media on the separate volume? It is user data, but it also on a separate volume so user might expect it to be safe. The feature is supposed to be a quick way of returning a Mac to factory condition for sale, so it shouldn't leave any data on the internal drive. Just an example of why I increasingly feel best to do things as Apple expect.

I didn't disagree about using the intended folders for the media. But there are other reasons to have more volumes. E.g. you have different macOS installations. Now that bootcamp is not supported, there is not much reason to use real partition on the internal drive versus volumes.

 

[resonansphere]

Well, 1Tb should be enough as there is no more bootcamp on the new M1 macs. Also parallels is a lot less useful as you can only run ARM Windows and no Intel Windows. And a parallels VM can easily be run from an external SSD.

Ah, didn’t know there is ARM Windows.

 

[resonansphere]

No one can answer this for you. The best way of addressing it is looking at your current usage.

How much total data do you have? (Size of the apps themselves is irrelevant)
Where is it? (internal or external)
How much data do you really want to have on board without recourse to an external?
How much are you willing to spend to avoid needing an external? (Internal storage is much more expensive)

Personally I would avoid partitioning the internal on a Silcon Mac. Put your user data in the appropriate user folders where Apple expects them to be.

As previous reply you won't be using Bootcamp. A Parallels VM is more space efficient because it is expanding. Note you can only run Windows ARM.

Some people are quite happy with a 256TB internal and use big externals (I use a 4TB Crucial X6 SSD which is tiny, smaller than a Sam T).

Don't forget to factor in backup drives in your purchasing decision.

I would like not to buy an external hard drive because I try to keep things minimalist, but maybe it’s unavoidable in the future.

 

[resonansphere]

My rule of thumb is order double what you are currently using.

As others have said the apps do not use up space. For me it is a few virtual macines at 100 GB each and 400 GB of ”raw” images that consume most of the space.

DaisyDisk is a good app to see the current disk usage.

If you don’t mind, can you tell what are the “raw” images that take up so much space.

 

[matram]

If you don’t mind, can you tell what are the “raw” images that take up so much space.

In my case NEF files from my Nikon camera.

Raw files contain the original sensor information from the camera. Each image is about 60 MB. This allows more advanced postprocessing than a JPG file which has been compressed with loss of original sensor information.

 

[Mike Boreham]

I would like not to buy an external hard drive because I try to keep things minimalist, but maybe it’s unavoidable in the future.

Only you can know that.

But suppose for example, that the total amount of data you really want to load is 1.5 TB. Then a 2TB would do this. Decision made.

But if the total amount you really want to have available is 2.3TB, you would have to use an external....so you might as well get a 1TB internal and a bigger external.

(Of course if it is 2.3TB you could get a 4TB internal but you said it's between 1TB and 2TB)