Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Dragging files to the trashcan picture.....really hard....
Well... I found an info in one of the threads here stating that deleting files on SSD doesn't really get rid of them. Deleted files still exist (just not visible) and they take the disk's space.

I never tried any SSD but I use photo flash memory cards. Indeed I had problems with deleting files through computer. There are no problems when keeping card in my camera. But when I want to use the CF card as a computer portable drive I do have problems. Even if I delete files (on flash card through computer) the card seems empty but in reality it is not. For example, if I have a 2GB CF card and 1.5GB pictures on it, when I delete those pics (through computer) the card shows no files but I can add only 500MB of data and the card is full.
 
Hey there Martin County. Thanks for the tips. I might need more advice once I'm set up. Just to be sure before I go and do something stupid-by Home folder, you mean the little house with myusername next to it?

Yes. Not the one in Finder, but the one in your Preferences, Accounts file. Right click (or control click) on that and you should see the "Advanced" option (the one in a finder window won't give you an advanced option).

I must say I was thinking of installing XP and even bought Parallels 4.0 some months back. But after reading an article in Macworld about the possibility of viruses on the Windows partition, I have done nothing since I really would only be using 1 applications on Windows and left PC's 3 years ago due to Dell **** and all that virus software slowing everything I did! Haven't been happier since.!!

Right. It's only out of necessity that I went with this option. Certain needed programs are only available on Windows. And, since I was going to do it for them, I decided to finally solve the problem of how MS Office for Mac always had(has?) a few (minor) compatibility issues with files created on the Windows side and vice versa. So the combo of Parallels, Windows 7 and Office 2010 means that my Word, Power Point, and Excel files ARE 100% compatible with Windows-created versions.

next week plan to:

1. Get a HHD for cloning to put in safe deposit box-OK, but I lost everything due to Andrew years ago.

I just (finally) embraced time machine as a more regular backup option with this new Mac. It is better than expected.

Cloning is also an excellent option. And cloning then going off site is about as good as it gets.

2. Make sure I know how to take my 114GB of ripped music (still probably have another 20GB of vinyl to rip when I find a good vinyl-to-digital turntable. In other words do I take the Media folder (the real content) over to HDD and leave the Media Database on the SSD?

3. Make sure I take 6GB of recent photos over to the HDD safety since I have another 15GB of old photos to scan into a computer some day. I traveled the world for 20+ years and have many interesting shots I hope to preserve. These are the ones that Andrew did not take.

3. I have about 150GB of LD (low definition) videos to make sure they get on another hard drive from a LaCie 4TB mirrored external I have them on right now.

Time Machine is pretty much made for all of these needs. Use it and you should be covered.

4. I must think about your second sentence under #1 before I do that, but sounds very tempting. Right now my plans are to put my 256GB OWC SSD in the 2009 Mini (2.53) main bay and put a 500GB 7200 Momentus XT (Ok maybe over kill, but could prove nice to have if my Home folder was on the HDD like yours) in an OBHC where the SD currently sits and up the RAM to 8GB. OK so the CPU is C2D, but that's what I got.

My reasoning in that was solely related to this idea of maximizing reads from the SSD but minimizing writes. As I understand things, the folders in "home" are where the vast majority of a user's writes get written, so I didn't want "home" on the SSD. Basically, the effort is to write to the SSD as little as possible. There's probably a few other things to move to the hard drive, but this what I got out of much research.

Anyhow thanks for your kind reply. Maybe I will see you at the Catfish House on US1 one of these days or maybe Harry & the Natives. You must figure by now, I also live in Martin County. Congrats on your new iMac. From what threads I read on here, they sound pretty darn fast and the dual drives hit a home run. Did you go for the 2.93?:cool:

Yes. When I buy computers, I try to buy something that can go many years before it's time to change. So I pay up for a "max" spec, then use it for much longer than what seems typical (here anyway). The Mac this replaces was a PowerMac G4 Dual 1Ghz from around 2002. I'm pretty pleased to have squeezed 8 years out of that thing, and grew a thriving business with it. I also had a better Dell machine from around 2006, which is now also replaced within the wonders of Boot Camp and Parallels 5.

Needless to say, the jump in performance in pretty much every dimension is stunning as opposed to owning- say- last years kit and "upgrading" to this years for a 4% speed increase, or a slight graphics card boost, etc.

Rather than using migration assistant, I decided to fresh install on an "as needed" basis, so I keep going back to the old Mac to get registration info and similar. The effect is a reminder of how great the new one is every time. Much faster. Much better screen. Dead silent. Runs Windows at the same time. OS X 10.6 vs. 10.5. Much better graphics. Better keyboard. Better mouse. Apparently much better energy management. Etc.

Last night I managed to get the last of the Windows necessities into the new Mac, so I can mostly retire the old Dell, which also means the old CRT monitor (yes, remember those?.. not exactly a flat screen or "Apple thin fixation" competitor) can be retired as well. Now I have a big desktop again on the physical desk (too, not just the one on the iMac screen). I set the old Mac to "screen sharing" so that I can access it from the new Mac should I need any additional files, etc.

In hindsight, 8 years was too long, but that length of time sure makes a new buy seem obviously worth it... in pretty much every way. Dual 1GHZ PPC vs. 2.93 i7 Quad Core, and all the related goodies seems as big a leap as going from a Commodore 64 to an Amiga in the 1980's.
 
Well... I found an info in one of the threads here stating that deleting files on SSD doesn't really get rid of them. Deleted files still exist (just not visible) and they take the disk's space.
That is no different in any way than a normal hard drive.

when I delete those pics (through computer) the card shows no files but I can add only 500MB of data and the card is full.
Thats a hardware defect, not a trait.
 
Yes. Not the one in Finder, but the one in your Preferences, Accounts file. Right click (or control click) on that and you should see the "Advanced" option (the one in a finder window won't give you an advanced option).


My reasoning in that was solely related to this idea of maximizing reads from the SSD but minimizing writes. As I understand things, the folders in "home" are where the vast majority of a user's writes get written, so I didn't want "home" on the SSD. Basically, the effort is to write to the SSD as little as possible. There's probably a few other things to move to the hard drive, but this what I got out of much research.

Just to be clear Preferences where exactly if not in Finder? Do I go to Accounts/Preferences/Advanced... under System Preferences?

Also you got your Mac with the SSD-so I guess as a stock drive it's still called Macintosh HD?

My question/concern comes from installing a replacement SSD in a Mac that has an HHD called "Macintosh HD". It never dawned on me if I should also call my new SSD the same-"Macintosh HD" to facilitate a switchover and make it helpful for all programs to look & use that drive. Am I missing something here?

Actually I wonder if cloning the original drive will give the new SSD drive a "Macintosh HD" name anyway?

I mostly write to Safari (bookmarks), Mail, Pages and Numbers, with some writing to iPhoto and iMovie, but seldom to these 2 latter ones. In this regard, your Home idea really looks the way to go.

Hey did you xbench that baby yet?;)
 
Well... I found an info in one of the threads here stating that deleting files on SSD doesn't really get rid of them. Deleted files still exist (just not visible) and they take the disk's space.

Partly correct. Deleting a file on an SSD - just like on a mechanical HD - simply removes the OS's pointer to the file and adds its space back to the unused space tally. The data itself is still on the disk (or in the flash RAM) and can be recovered using specialized recovery software. Or at least until it's over-written by something else.

So, the file is deleted and the free space is reclaimed but the bits themselves remain on the disk (SSD or HDD) for at least a little while.

SSDs do not work any differently - from a user's perspective - than an HDD. It's not necessary to overthink it.
 
Just to be clear Preferences where exactly if not in Finder? Do I go to Accounts/Preferences/Advanced... under System Preferences?

Yes

Also you got your Mac with the SSD-so I guess as a stock drive it's still called Macintosh HD?

No, it's called Mac SSD

My question/concern comes from installing a replacement SSD in a Mac that has an HHD called "Macintosh HD". It never dawned on me if I should also call my new SSD the same-"Macintosh HD" to facilitate a switchover and make it helpful for all programs to look & use that drive. Am I missing something here?

I don't believe OS X cares what the main hard drive is called. For example, you could rename it HobeSound and it will still work just fine.

Actually I wonder if cloning the original drive will give the new SSD drive a "Macintosh HD" name anyway?

I don't clone too much, but my guess is yes. However, as soon as it is done, you could rename it and it should work fine.

Hey did you xbench that baby yet?;)

No, I don't get into that stuff too much. I'm sure others have already done it... probably in the "owners thread".
 
OS X doesn't care what you name the hard drives, but FYI, from the factory my SSD was called "Macintosh HD" and my mechanical HD was called "Macintosh HD 2"
 
OS X doesn't care what you name the hard drives, but FYI, from the factory my SSD was called "Macintosh HD" and my mechanical HD was called "Macintosh HD 2"

Now that's weird since HobeSound's is called Mac SSD. Wonder why they're different unless one of you changed the name (s).:confused:
 
Now that's weird since HobeSound's is called Mac SSD. Wonder why they're different unless one of you changed the name (s).:confused:

Every Mac I've ever bought has had the boot drive named "Macintosh HD." Going back almost two decades now.

You, of course, are free to change the name to anything you wish.
 
Every Mac I've ever bought has had the boot drive named "Macintosh HD." Going back almost two decades now.

You, of course, are free to change the name to anything you wish.

So if I clone my original drive to a new one it should end up being called Macintosh HD, like the original in there now, then the 2nd drive no doubt will stay the way I formatted it. Yes?

Does that make sense?
 
So if I clone my original drive to a new one it should end up being called Macintosh HD, like the original in there now, then the 2nd drive no doubt will stay the way I formatted it. Yes?

Does that make sense?

Not really... not sure I'm following you. But if you clone your hard drive on to another, it'll be just that - a clone.

You can name the drive anything you want. Your apps will not care, even if you change the name of the drive after you've installed everything.
 
I just wanted to add that another advantage to having your system on an SSD drive is that the swap file is then on that drive. This means that when your disk pages out to the swap file (because you've run out of ram), the access time is much faster than with a mechanical disk. Therefore, when you are working with large files, you're not as hampered by being short on ram with the swap file on an SSD.
 
Not really... not sure I'm following you. But if you clone your hard drive on to another, it'll be just that - a clone.

You can name the drive anything you want. Your apps will not care, even if you change the name of the drive after you've installed everything.

Correct-a clone is a clone period.

I only mentioned this because I plan to point some apps to a new second drive, while it is still out of the machine as an external before installing it.

Once that is accomplished, I then plan to clone the main drive from the original drive after having moved as much data as possible to the drive which will I call the 2nd drive-#2.

Maybe that is a crazy way to go about it.

I do like Hobe Sound's idea to just take Home over to drive #2 leaving very little on the SSD-drive #1.

If I do that then I suppose I could leave #2 empty and move Home to #2, move Applications data/files to #2 and leave OSX & Applications on #1.

Then go back and make sure to point Applications to their respective data files. I'm going crazy trying to get this right so I do not screw it up too badly.:eek:
 
Correct-a clone is a clone period.
I do like Hobe Sound's idea to just take Home over to drive #2 leaving very little on the SSD-drive #1.

I followed Lloyd Chamber's recommendations about dividing system/apps/home folder on one drive, large content files on another drive. He doesn't recommend moving the entire home folder, and from personal experience, I agree that it can cause problems (the system created new local home folders on the system drive when it lost connection to the second drive. It took me hours to figure out what had happened, and some work to fix).

See his recommendations here.
 
I followed Lloyd Chamber's recommendations about dividing system/apps/home folder on one drive, large content files on another drive. He doesn't recommend moving the entire home folder, and from personal experience, I agree that it can cause problems (the system created new local home folders on the system drive when it lost connection to the second drive. It took me hours to figure out what had happened, and some work to fix).

See his recommendations here.

Hey, thanks that's a great article. I'l of course have to read it 3-4 times before "getting it", but it will help immensely. :D
 
Man can that guy Lloyd write. I've been going through many of his articles most of the night. Good food for thought. Glad I picked OWC SSD's even before I read his articles and tests vs. Crucial and Intel.

Now I'm thinking of cleaning up my OS before going any further as he suggests.

Have you also done that? Did it make a big difference for your speeds.

Maybe if I'm planning on 2 internal drives anyway, I could reduce the size of the Boot/Application drive and increase the size of the data drive.

I know it depends on my use and needs, but there's not much he says that's arguable.:confused:
 
Give it another year. In 5 years the HD's will be dead.

It will be a lot more than 5 years before SSDs replace HDDs (if they ever truly do).

Flash drive capacities have been expanding dramatically in recent years, but this article says that's about to change, in part because of the limits of current lithography technology. Meanwhile, disk drive densities will continue to grow, which the author says will mean many years before solid state drives replace hard drives — if they ever do. From the article: 'The bottom line is that there are limits to how small things can get with current technology. Flash densities are going to have data density growth problems, just as other storage technologies have had over the last 30 years. This should surprise no one. And the lithography problem for flash doesn't end there. Jeff Layton, Enterprise Technologist for HPC at Dell, notes that as lithography gets smaller, NAND has more and more troubles — the voltages don't decrease, so the probability of causing an accidental data corruption of a neighboring NAND goes up. "So at some point, you just can't reduce the size and hope to not have data corruption," notes Layton.

Great read for those interested: http://www.enterprisestorageforum.com/article.php/3894671
 
I'm not questioning the SSD technology and I'm confident that it will get cheaper and cheaper, more people will buy it and it has the potential to replace HDDs; but I think many people make the mistake of believing that SSDs will make their computers generally work better. That is not the case. Apart from applications, certain files launching quicker, there are no dramatic differences.

In a way, if we save a few seconds on loading each applications, that hardly makes the hundreds of dollars/pounds/euros/etc worthwhile. Besides, the disadvantages of the SSD (apart from the silly prices) will appear later on. I'm looking forward to the complaining from people who wasted a small fortune on storage to see their 'investment' diminish in a few years.

Some people have the money to waste on SSD, and they do provide a big improvement. For example, I just installed a SSD in my wife's PC and installed Win 7 and PS CS3 on it. Tasks that used to run very slow on her PC now run much quicker. If/when the SSD slows down or larger drives become available at similar prices I'll toss this one in the trash and get her a new one.

I think I remember seeing some other anti-SSD posts by you on another thread. What's your beef with SSD?
 
It will be a lot more than 5 years before SSDs replace HDDs (if they ever truly do).

Bet yer wrong! I still can remember back when everyone (including me, I think) were saying how there was no WAY floppy disks would ever go away. Already Intel is coming out with a 300GB SDD.

5 years? I give it 3-4 years.
 
Bet yer wrong! I still can remember back when everyone (including me, I think) were saying how there was no WAY floppy disks would ever go away. Already Intel is coming out with a 300GB SDD.

5 years? I give it 3-4 years.

Hey, some servers still use floppy disks to boot...
 
Bet yer wrong! I still can remember back when everyone (including me, I think) were saying how there was no WAY floppy disks would ever go away. Already Intel is coming out with a 300GB SDD.

5 years? I give it 3-4 years.

Read the article. It's a limit of the flash technology (which will be a huge hurdle) while traditional HDDs will only get bigger and cheaper.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.