Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #53946 > unrolled thread

External HD Recommendation

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  External HD Recommendation Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> - 2013-12-28 09:21 -0800
    Re: External HD Recommendation William Hanna <whanna@invalid.invalid> - 2013-12-28 09:44 -0800
      Re: External HD Recommendation Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2013-12-29 09:37 -0800
        Re: External HD Recommendation Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> - 2013-12-29 10:08 -0800
          Re: External HD Recommendation android <here@there.was> - 2013-12-29 19:15 +0100
    Re: External HD Recommendation billy@MIX.COM - 2013-12-28 20:21 +0000
      Re: External HD Recommendation Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-12-28 14:59 -0800
        Re: External HD Recommendation Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> - 2013-12-28 15:28 -0800
          Re: External HD Recommendation nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-28 20:17 -0500
          Re: External HD Recommendation Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-12-28 17:34 -0800
            Re: External HD Recommendation nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-28 21:06 -0500
        Re: External HD Recommendation Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-29 04:18 +0000
        Re: External HD Recommendation Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-30 04:38 +0000
          Re: External HD Recommendation Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> - 2013-12-29 21:36 -0800
            Re: External HD Recommendation Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-12-30 01:58 -0800
            Re: External HD Recommendation J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-30 10:20 -0500
              Re: External HD Recommendation Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2013-12-31 07:32 -0800
                Re: External HD Recommendation J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-31 11:46 -0500
            Re: External HD Recommendation Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2013-12-30 09:37 -0800
              Re: External HD Recommendation Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-30 18:07 +0000
                Re: External HD Recommendation nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-30 13:13 -0500
                Re: External HD Recommendation Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2013-12-30 10:27 -0800
                  Re: External HD Recommendation J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-30 14:15 -0500
                    Re: External HD Recommendation Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-30 22:43 +0000
                      Re: External HD Recommendation nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-30 18:09 -0500
                      Re: External HD Recommendation J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-30 22:34 -0500
              Re: External HD Recommendation TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> - 2013-12-30 13:54 -0600
                Re: External HD Recommendation Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> - 2013-12-30 13:14 -0800
                Re: External HD Recommendation Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2013-12-30 14:49 -0800
            Re: External HD Recommendation Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-30 18:01 +0000
      Re: External HD Recommendation Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-29 03:59 +0000
        Re: External HD Recommendation George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-12-29 07:47 -0600
    Re: External HD Recommendation J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-28 17:52 -0500
    Re: External HD Recommendation Earl Grey <earl@t.net> - 2013-12-29 10:06 -0500
      Re: External HD Recommendation yellow label <here@there.was> - 2013-12-29 17:01 +0100
    Re: External HD Recommendation John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2013-12-29 16:27 -0500
      Re: External HD Recommendation J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-29 21:29 -0500
        Re: External HD Recommendation claudel@sonic.net (Claude V. Lucas) - 2013-12-30 12:36 +0000
          Re: External HD Recommendation TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> - 2013-12-30 08:55 -0600
        Re: External HD Recommendation John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2013-12-30 10:29 -0500
          Re: External HD Recommendation Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> - 2013-12-30 19:56 -0800
            Re: External HD Recommendation Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2013-12-31 19:18 +1100
              Re: External HD Recommendation Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-31 15:30 +0000
                Re: External HD Recommendation Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2013-12-31 07:34 -0800
                  Re: External HD Recommendation Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-01-01 17:51 +1100
                    Re: External HD Recommendation TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> - 2014-01-01 10:14 -0600
                    Re: External HD Recommendation Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-01 17:39 +0000
                      Re: External HD Recommendation Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-01-02 11:54 +1100
                        Re: External HD Recommendation Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-02 01:09 +0000
                          Re: External HD Recommendation Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-01-01 20:38 -0700
                            Re: External HD Recommendation Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-02 16:47 +0000
                          Re: External HD Recommendation Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-01-09 08:13 +1100
                            Re: External HD Recommendation Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-08 21:19 +0000
                        Re: External HD Recommendation Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-02 02:35 +0000
                Re: External HD Recommendation Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-01-01 17:47 +1100
                  Re: External HD Recommendation nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-01 02:24 -0500
                    Re: External HD Recommendation Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-01-02 02:38 +1100
                      Re: External HD Recommendation nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-01 11:55 -0500
                      Re: External HD Recommendation J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-01-01 13:34 -0500
                      Re: External HD Recommendation Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-01-01 19:01 -0800
                  Re: External HD Recommendation Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-01 09:45 +0000
                    Re: External HD Recommendation Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-01-02 02:28 +1100
                      Re: External HD Recommendation Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-01 15:36 +0000
                      Re: External HD Recommendation nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-01 11:55 -0500
    Re: External HD Recommendation TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> - 2013-12-29 16:00 -0600
      Re: External HD Recommendation Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-29 22:01 +0000
        Re: External HD Recommendation TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> - 2013-12-29 16:19 -0600
          Re: External HD Recommendation Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> - 2013-12-29 14:45 -0800

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#54074

In article <slrnlc3diq.ed0.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> > Hard drives are more reliable now than ever before.
> 
> Simply not true. I still have a 100MB drive that works just fine in a
> Mac SE, and many drives in the under 100GB range all of which still
> work. The last time I booted my Apple //gs, the 20MB drive spun right up
> and loaded Prosel without a problem. In fact, I've never had a drive
> under 10GB fail. I've had many drives over 1TB fail, despite owning
> many more of the smaller drives.

a sample size of one is invalid.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54076

On 2013-12-30 18:07:22 +0000, Lewis said:

> In message <l9sb0f$98l$1@reader1.panix.com>
>   Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> wrote:
>> On 2013-12-30 05:36:52 +0000, Otto Pylot said:
> 
>>> In article <slrnlc1u6b.c4g.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
>>> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> They are all getting progressively worse though.
>>> 
>>> This sure doesn't instill a lot of confidence in using an external
>>> drive for backup.
> 
>> Don't buy it.  Hard drives are more reliable now than ever before.
> 
> Simply not true. I still have a 100MB drive that works just fine in a
> Mac SE, and many drives in the under 100GB range all of which still
> work. The last time I booted my Apple //gs, the 20MB drive spun right up
> and loaded Prosel without a problem. In fact, I've never had a drive
> under 10GB fail. I've had many drives over 1TB fail, despite owning
> many more of the smaller drives.

Anecdote.  Not statistically significant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54079

On 12/30/13, 1:27 PM, Bread wrote:
> On 2013-12-30 18:07:22 +0000, Lewis said:
>
>> In message <l9sb0f$98l$1@reader1.panix.com>
>>   Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> wrote:
>>> On 2013-12-30 05:36:52 +0000, Otto Pylot said:
>>
>>>> In article <slrnlc1u6b.c4g.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
>>>> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They are all getting progressively worse though.
>>>>
>>>> This sure doesn't instill a lot of confidence in using an external
>>>> drive for backup.
>>
>>> Don't buy it.  Hard drives are more reliable now than ever before.
>>
>> Simply not true. I still have a 100MB drive that works just fine in a
>> Mac SE, and many drives in the under 100GB range all of which still
>> work. The last time I booted my Apple //gs, the 20MB drive spun right up
>> and loaded Prosel without a problem. In fact, I've never had a drive
>> under 10GB fail. I've had many drives over 1TB fail, despite owning
>> many more of the smaller drives.
>
> Anecdote.  Not statistically significant.
>
According to the 2007 Google report, 70% of high-use disks and 86% of 
low-use disks still worked after 5 years.  They didn't mention size but 
did say the vintage and the manufacturer were known to matter.

Storage Reviews has some statistics on particular models.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54091

In message <l9sgou$ajl$1@dont-email.me> 
  J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 12/30/13, 1:27 PM, Bread wrote:
>> On 2013-12-30 18:07:22 +0000, Lewis said:
>>
>>> In message <l9sb0f$98l$1@reader1.panix.com>
>>>   Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> wrote:
>>>> On 2013-12-30 05:36:52 +0000, Otto Pylot said:
>>>
>>>>> In article <slrnlc1u6b.c4g.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
>>>>> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are all getting progressively worse though.
>>>>>
>>>>> This sure doesn't instill a lot of confidence in using an external
>>>>> drive for backup.
>>>
>>>> Don't buy it.  Hard drives are more reliable now than ever before.
>>>
>>> Simply not true. I still have a 100MB drive that works just fine in a
>>> Mac SE, and many drives in the under 100GB range all of which still
>>> work. The last time I booted my Apple //gs, the 20MB drive spun right up
>>> and loaded Prosel without a problem. In fact, I've never had a drive
>>> under 10GB fail. I've had many drives over 1TB fail, despite owning
>>> many more of the smaller drives.
>>
>> Anecdote.  Not statistically significant.
>>
> According to the 2007 Google report, 70% of high-use disks and 86% of 
> low-use disks still worked after 5 years.  They didn't mention size but 
> did say the vintage and the manufacturer were known to matter.

And a 30% failure rate at 5 years is rather high.

-- 
"A synonym is a word you use when you can't spell the word you first
thought of." - Burt Bacharach

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54093

In article <slrnlc3tpd.ed0.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> > According to the 2007 Google report, 70% of high-use disks and 86% of 
> > low-use disks still worked after 5 years.  They didn't mention size but 
> > did say the vintage and the manufacturer were known to matter.
> 
> And a 30% failure rate at 5 years is rather high.

5 years is beyond the useful life of a drive. you'll outgrow its
capacity by then.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54104

On 12/30/13, 5:43 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <l9sgou$ajl$1@dont-email.me>
>    J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 12/30/13, 1:27 PM, Bread wrote:
>>> On 2013-12-30 18:07:22 +0000, Lewis said:
>>>
>>>> In message <l9sb0f$98l$1@reader1.panix.com>
>>>>    Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 2013-12-30 05:36:52 +0000, Otto Pylot said:
>>>>
>>>>>> In article <slrnlc1u6b.c4g.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
>>>>>> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They are all getting progressively worse though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This sure doesn't instill a lot of confidence in using an external
>>>>>> drive for backup.
>>>>
>>>>> Don't buy it.  Hard drives are more reliable now than ever before.
>>>>
>>>> Simply not true. I still have a 100MB drive that works just fine in a
>>>> Mac SE, and many drives in the under 100GB range all of which still
>>>> work. The last time I booted my Apple //gs, the 20MB drive spun right up
>>>> and loaded Prosel without a problem. In fact, I've never had a drive
>>>> under 10GB fail. I've had many drives over 1TB fail, despite owning
>>>> many more of the smaller drives.
>>>
>>> Anecdote.  Not statistically significant.
>>>
>> According to the 2007 Google report, 70% of high-use disks and 86% of
>> low-use disks still worked after 5 years.  They didn't mention size but
>> did say the vintage and the manufacturer were known to matter.
>
> And a 30% failure rate at 5 years is rather high.
>
I checked a couple of WD drives in the Storage Review Survey.

The AC13200, 3.2GB came out in 1998.  Of 29 reported, 9 (31%) failed 
within 6 years, 7 were taken out of service, and 13 evidently are still 
in use.

The WD7406D came, 74GB, came out in 2003.  Of 782 reported, 11 (1.4%) 
failed, 15 were taken out of service, and 756 are evidently still in use.

I don't know if bigger, newer drives are made better.  The Google report 
said reliability depends on the brand and the year.  My next disk will 
be a WD7406D!  An antique like that will probably set me back thousands 
of dollars, but reliability is priceless.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54082

On 2013-12-30 17:37:19 +0000, Bread said:

> The thing is that the SuperDuper clones require more intervention on my 
> part and
> the least reliable part of my backup system/workflow is *me*.  Crashplan and
> Time Machine just happen.

I'm puzzled by the statement that SuperDuper! clones require more 
intervention. I have two SuperDuper! clones produced automatically in 
the middle of the night and no intervention on my part is required.

-- 
James Leo Ryan - Austin, Texas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54086

In article <bie1b9Fdib8U1@mid.individual.net>, TaliesinSoft
<taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> On 2013-12-30 17:37:19 +0000, Bread said:
> 
> > The thing is that the SuperDuper clones require more intervention on my 
> > part and
> > the least reliable part of my backup system/workflow is *me*.  Crashplan and
> > Time Machine just happen.
> 
> I'm puzzled by the statement that SuperDuper! clones require more 
> intervention. I have two SuperDuper! clones produced automatically in 
> the middle of the night and no intervention on my part is required.

Well thanks again everyone for contributing. This has certainly been
more of an education than I had planned and why I still love Usenet.
This is just for home use and I bi-annually burn to CD/DVD pics,
important docs, etc. anyway. The upcoming jump from Snow Leopard to
Mavericks made me start to think about cloning my Air just in case
something bad happens or doesn't go right and I lose something and need
to boot externally. The free WD Bookend (or what ever it's called)
works perfectly and even booting via USB 2.0 only takes a bit over 60
seconds so that's not bad. I'll just keep in safe in a drawer and just
use it when I need it. Have a safe New Year's Eve everyone!

-- 
Deja Moo: I've seen this bullshit before. Please respond to: scasse@invalid.net
replacing invalid with sonic.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54092

On 2013-12-30 19:54:17 +0000, TaliesinSoft said:

> On 2013-12-30 17:37:19 +0000, Bread said:
> 
>> The thing is that the SuperDuper clones require more intervention on my 
>> part and
>> the least reliable part of my backup system/workflow is *me*.  Crashplan and
>> Time Machine just happen.
> 
> I'm puzzled by the statement that SuperDuper! clones require more 
> intervention. I have two SuperDuper! clones produced automatically in 
> the middle of the night and no intervention on my part is required.

Inasmuch as I specifically want my clones *not* plugged in all the 
time, it requires me to pull out drives and swap them and such.

And in the case of the laptop, as opposed to the desktop, such plugging 
and unplugging would not even be optional - it's the only way, whereas 
Time Machine and Crashplan both work all across the network entirely in 
the background.

(And, yes, I'm aware that SD! can go to a network-mounted drive and/or 
disk image, but in practice, I've never found that to be successful or 
time-efficient).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54072

In message <291220132136524546%otto@bogus.address.com> 
  Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnlc1u6b.c4g.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> In message <vilain-E2F745.14592728122013@news.individual.net> 
>>   Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
>> > In article <l9nbrf$qqu$1@reader2.panix.com>, billy@MIX.COM wrote:
>> 
>> >> Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> writes:
>> >> 
>> >> > Ok, it's a new subject related to my previous question about backing up
>> >> > to a bootable external. With the exception of the WD My Passport Slim,
>> >> > what would you all recommend for an external HD?
>> >> 
>> >> I really like these (just bought my 7th one) -
>> >> 
>> >> http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/firewire/on-the-go
>> >> 
>> >> They have a large heatsink (hard to see in the photos) for the drive
>> >> that works very well.  These used to be supplied with Seagate drives
>> >> but now come mostly with Hitachi drives, which also seem to be ok, 
>> >> but it'll be a while longer before I can say that for sure.
>> >> 
>> >> Billy Y..
>> 
>> > Seagates and Western Digital drives have caused me nothing but trouble. 
>> > I bought a 1GB Seagate and it died within a week of doing a full clone 
>> > backup. Took it back to Frys and they wouldn't take it back because I 
>> > didn't buy their extended warrantee.  I had to send it back to Seagate.  
>> > 6 weeks later after dealing with UPS, I get the replacement that had the 
>> > same problem.  I tossed the drive and won't buy Seagate ever again.
>> 
>> I haven't had any trouble with Seagate drives EXCEPT for their drives
>> sold in enclosures, all of which are complete and utter shit. I had a
>> 3TB USB 3.0 Seagate that would not mount at all until I ripped it out of
>> the case (destroying the case in the process) and put it into another
>> enclosure.
>> 
>> I stopped buying WD years ago, but still buy bare drive Seagate or
>> Toshiba or Hitachi.
>> 
>> They are all getting progressively worse though.

> This sure doesn't instill a lot of confidence in using an external
> drive for backup. I just used CCC to clone my HD to the WD "bookend"
> drive that was just given to me. I'll try to boot from it tomorrow but 
> don't expect any problems. It almost seems like I should get another
> drive and clone that as well, just in case. But how many do you really
> need to keep your important data safe? One could sure go crazy with
> this.

How important is it?

For reasonably important data you should have at least 4 copies of it.
One is you 'live' copy, then you have two local backups and the 4th is
an off-site backup.

If the data is REALLY important, then add more off-site and local
backups.

-- 
You could save people. You could get there in the nick of time. And
something could snap its fingers and say, no , it has to be that way.
Let me tell you how it has to be. This is how the legend goes. --Soul
Music

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53995

On 2013-12-28, billy@MIX.COM <billy@MIX.COM> wrote:
> Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> writes:
>
>> Ok, it's a new subject related to my previous question about backing up
>> to a bootable external. With the exception of the WD My Passport Slim,
>> what would you all recommend for an external HD?
>
> I really like these (just bought my 7th one) -
>
> http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/firewire/on-the-go
>
> They have a large heatsink (hard to see in the photos) for the drive
> that works very well.  These used to be supplied with Seagate drives
> but now come mostly with Hitachi drives, which also seem to be ok, 
> but it'll be a while longer before I can say that for sure.

I have two of these and love them. I bought mine empty and put my own
drives into them. They are quite small, bus powered with an option to
use wired power, and came with handy carrying cases to hold everything
you need. I have found that some 7200 RPM drives tend to make the heat
sink pretty warm, but that's a minor thing. Overall, these enclosures
have been a pleasure.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54006

On 12/28/13 9:59 PM, in article bi9l14Fflh8U1@mid.individual.net, "Jolly
Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2013-12-28, billy@MIX.COM <billy@MIX.COM> wrote:
>> Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Ok, it's a new subject related to my previous question about backing up
>>> to a bootable external. With the exception of the WD My Passport Slim,
>>> what would you all recommend for an external HD?
>> 
>> I really like these (just bought my 7th one) -
>> 
>> http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/firewire/on-the-go
>> 
>> They have a large heatsink (hard to see in the photos) for the drive
>> that works very well.  These used to be supplied with Seagate drives
>> but now come mostly with Hitachi drives, which also seem to be ok,
>> but it'll be a while longer before I can say that for sure.
> 
> I have two of these and love them. I bought mine empty and put my own
> drives into them. They are quite small, bus powered with an option to
> use wired power, and came with handy carrying cases to hold everything
> you need. I have found that some 7200 RPM drives tend to make the heat
> sink pretty warm, but that's a minor thing. Overall, these enclosures
> have been a pleasure.

Let me just say "Dittos" to the above two testimonies. Haven't found
anything more versatile.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53978

On 12/28/13, 12:21 PM, Otto Pylot wrote:
> Ok, it's a new subject related to my previous question about backing up
> to a bootable external. With the exception of the WD My Passport Slim,
> what would you all recommend for an external HD? Needs are simple, just
> backing up my HD before installation of Mavericks, probably backed up
> with CCC, and then the occasional  back up. The drive needs to be
> bootable and the capacity could be as low as 500GB. I'd also like to
> keep the cost at $100 or lower. The primary laptop is a mid-2011
> MacBook Air. Thanks.
>
I don't know enough to make a recommendation, but I bought a USB 3.0 WD 
Elements drive in 2012 for Time Machine.  It's bootable in that it has a 
Recovery volume.

I don't know the difference between Elements and Passport Slim.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54007

On 12/28/13, 12:21 PM, Otto Pylot wrote:
> Ok, it's a new subject related to my previous question about backing up
> to a bootable external. With the exception of the WD My Passport Slim,
> what would you all recommend for an external HD? Needs are simple, just
> backing up my HD before installation of Mavericks, probably backed up
> with CCC, and then the occasional  back up. The drive needs to be
> bootable and the capacity could be as low as 500GB. I'd also like to
> keep the cost at $100 or lower. The primary laptop is a mid-2011
> MacBook Air. Thanks.
>

These days, hard drives-- like most computer components, are essentially 
commodities. The major brands are all fine. Even the worst of them are 
very good. You can't go wrong.

Buy by price-- unless you like to throw money away. One TB models are 
routinely on sale at Newegg, etc., for $59 with free shipping, no tax. 
"Regular" prices are usually around $70.

Oh, and don't be fooled by the "Formatted for Mac" sales pitch in some 
HD ads. 30 seconds using Disk Utility will reformat most any drive for a 
Mac.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54008

In article <l9pdpm$h4s$1@news.albasani.net>, Earl Grey <earl@t.net> 
wrote:

> On 12/28/13, 12:21 PM, Otto Pylot wrote:
> > Ok, it's a new subject related to my previous question about backing up
> > to a bootable external. With the exception of the WD My Passport Slim,
> > what would you all recommend for an external HD? Needs are simple, just
> > backing up my HD before installation of Mavericks, probably backed up
> > with CCC, and then the occasional  back up. The drive needs to be
> > bootable and the capacity could be as low as 500GB. I'd also like to
> > keep the cost at $100 or lower. The primary laptop is a mid-2011
> > MacBook Air. Thanks.
> >
> 
> These days, hard drives-- like most computer components, are essentially 
> commodities. The major brands are all fine. Even the worst of them are 
> very good. You can't go wrong.
> 
> Buy by price-- unless you like to throw money away. One TB models are 
> routinely on sale at Newegg, etc., for $59 with free shipping, no tax. 
> "Regular" prices are usually around $70.
> 
> Oh, and don't be fooled by the "Formatted for Mac" sales pitch in some 
> HD ads. 30 seconds using Disk Utility will reformat most any drive for a 
> Mac.

Remember that USB2 ain't as fast as USB3 that's slower than Thunderbolt. 
If you wanna reuse it 4 TimeMachine or something...
-- 
teleportation kills

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54019

Otto Pylot wrote:
> With the exception of the WD My Passport Slim,
> what would you all recommend for an external HD? Needs are simple, just
> backing up my HD before installation of Mavericks, probably backed up
> with CCC, and then the occasional  back up. The drive needs to be
> bootable and the capacity could be as low as 500GB. I'd also like to
> keep the cost at $100 or lower.

My recommendations will be different that most others.

I would suggest you buy a USB3/SATA docking station and one or more 
"bare drives" to use with it.

If you're unsure of what a USB3/SATA dock is, go to amazon and enter 
"usb3 sata dock" into the search box, and you'll see MANY choices.

I happen to like the products from plugable.com. A few samples:
http://plugable.com/products/USB3-SATA-U3
(above accepts either 2.5" or 3.5" drives)
and
http://plugable.com/products/pss-dd1
(above accepts TWO 2.5" drives)

(Disclaimer: I've no financial interest in plugable other than being a 
satisfied, paying customer)

The advantages of a dock are:
- easy to install and remove a drive, and swap drives if necessary
- bootable, behave same as would an "externally-enclosed" drive

If there are disadvantages, I guess they would be:
- not as easily portable as an externally-enclosed drive
- don't appear as elegant "on the desk" as does an enclosed drive

If you're not open to the idea of a "docked drive", you might also 
consider buying this enclosure:
http://oyendigital.com/hard-drives/store/U32-M.html
.... and putting the bare drive of your choice into it.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54026

On 12/29/13, 4:27 PM, John Albert wrote:
> Otto Pylot wrote:
>> With the exception of the WD My Passport Slim,
>> what would you all recommend for an external HD? Needs are simple, just
>> backing up my HD before installation of Mavericks, probably backed up
>> with CCC, and then the occasional  back up. The drive needs to be
>> bootable and the capacity could be as low as 500GB. I'd also like to
>> keep the cost at $100 or lower.
>
> My recommendations will be different that most others.
>
> I would suggest you buy a USB3/SATA docking station and one or more
> "bare drives" to use with it.
>
> If you're unsure of what a USB3/SATA dock is, go to amazon and enter
> "usb3 sata dock" into the search box, and you'll see MANY choices.
>
> I happen to like the products from plugable.com. A few samples:
> http://plugable.com/products/USB3-SATA-U3
> (above accepts either 2.5" or 3.5" drives)
> and
> http://plugable.com/products/pss-dd1
> (above accepts TWO 2.5" drives)
>
> (Disclaimer: I've no financial interest in plugable other than being a
> satisfied, paying customer)
>
> The advantages of a dock are:
> - easy to install and remove a drive, and swap drives if necessary
> - bootable, behave same as would an "externally-enclosed" drive
>
> If there are disadvantages, I guess they would be:
> - not as easily portable as an externally-enclosed drive
> - don't appear as elegant "on the desk" as does an enclosed drive
>
> If you're not open to the idea of a "docked drive", you might also
> consider buying this enclosure:
> http://oyendigital.com/hard-drives/store/U32-M.html
> .... and putting the bare drive of your choice into it.
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

I like your approach.  A few years ago, I bought a disk from OWC 
(Macsales).  I could have bought the enclosure and disk separately, but 
I bought them together.  One morning the enclosure failed to light. 
That's when I discovered the mistake of buying them together. I thought 
the disk was okay, but opening the enclosure would void the warranty.

If I mailed the whole thing back and my internal drive crashed while it 
was gone, I might never get my backup files.  Besides, I'd be putting my 
personal data in the hands of strangers.

The wall wart had failed.  Tech support wouldn't tell me if wall-wart 
failures could usually be fixed with a new wall wart.  To avoid sending 
off my backup files, I bought another wall wart from them.  In a few 
hours of use, the enclosure failed although the wall wart was still good.

So I sent the whole thing back under warranty.  It came back with a 
checklist saying everything worked.  Without even connecting it to my 
computer, I plugged in the wall wart and turned on the enclosure.  It 
was still dead.  I contacted tech support.  They said if I sent it back, 
the result would be the same.  They would not stand behind their warranty.

So I bought an enclosure and a disk.  Not from OWC, of course.  If the 
enclosure fails, my disk will remain safe.  If the disk fails, I'll 
quickly replace it.

A dock would be even better, making it easy to keep a backup away from 
the computer.

I've come to like 2.5" disks.  Are there advantages to 3.5" disks?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54053

In article <l9qlqs$s4l$1@dont-email.me>, J Burns  <burns4@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On 12/29/13, 4:27 PM, John Albert wrote:
>> Otto Pylot wrote:
>>> With the exception of the WD My Passport Slim,
>>> what would you all recommend for an external HD? Needs are simple, just
>>> backing up my HD before installation of Mavericks, probably backed up
>>> with CCC, and then the occasional  back up. The drive needs to be
>>> bootable and the capacity could be as low as 500GB. I'd also like to
>>> keep the cost at $100 or lower.
>>
>> My recommendations will be different that most others.
>>
>> I would suggest you buy a USB3/SATA docking station and one or more
>> "bare drives" to use with it.
>>
>> If you're unsure of what a USB3/SATA dock is, go to amazon and enter
>> "usb3 sata dock" into the search box, and you'll see MANY choices.
>>
>> I happen to like the products from plugable.com. A few samples:
>> http://plugable.com/products/USB3-SATA-U3
>> (above accepts either 2.5" or 3.5" drives)
>> and
>> http://plugable.com/products/pss-dd1
>> (above accepts TWO 2.5" drives)
>>
>> (Disclaimer: I've no financial interest in plugable other than being a
>> satisfied, paying customer)
>>
>> The advantages of a dock are:
>> - easy to install and remove a drive, and swap drives if necessary
>> - bootable, behave same as would an "externally-enclosed" drive
>>
>> If there are disadvantages, I guess they would be:
>> - not as easily portable as an externally-enclosed drive
>> - don't appear as elegant "on the desk" as does an enclosed drive
>>
>> If you're not open to the idea of a "docked drive", you might also
>> consider buying this enclosure:
>> http://oyendigital.com/hard-drives/store/U32-M.html
>> .... and putting the bare drive of your choice into it.
>>
>> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
>
>I like your approach.  A few years ago, I bought a disk from OWC 
>(Macsales).  I could have bought the enclosure and disk separately, but 
>I bought them together.  One morning the enclosure failed to light. 
>That's when I discovered the mistake of buying them together. I thought 
>the disk was okay, but opening the enclosure would void the warranty.
>
>If I mailed the whole thing back and my internal drive crashed while it 
>was gone, I might never get my backup files.  Besides, I'd be putting my 
>personal data in the hands of strangers.
>
>The wall wart had failed.  Tech support wouldn't tell me if wall-wart 
>failures could usually be fixed with a new wall wart.  To avoid sending 
>off my backup files, I bought another wall wart from them.  In a few 
>hours of use, the enclosure failed although the wall wart was still good.
>
>So I sent the whole thing back under warranty.  It came back with a 
>checklist saying everything worked.  Without even connecting it to my 
>computer, I plugged in the wall wart and turned on the enclosure.  It 
>was still dead.  I contacted tech support.  They said if I sent it back, 
>the result would be the same.  They would not stand behind their warranty.
>
>So I bought an enclosure and a disk.  Not from OWC, of course.  If the 
>enclosure fails, my disk will remain safe.  If the disk fails, I'll 
>quickly replace it.
>
>A dock would be even better, making it easy to keep a backup away from 
>the computer.
>
>I've come to like 2.5" disks.  Are there advantages to 3.5" disks?

I've had less than optimal warranty experience with OWC as well.

Might as well buy on the 'bay...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54054

I guess I might be called a backup freak, but too many are the times 
I've heard people at the Genius Bar groaning when they are told it 
would cost as much as a couple grand to rescue *some* of their data 
from a failed but not backed up drive.

In my case, call it overkill if you wish, I perform two nightly 
bootable clones to LaCie drives using SuperDuper!, a TimeMachine backup 
to a third LaCie drive, and a CrashPlan backup to the cloud which is 
updated at 15 minute intervals.

I have, on a few instances, restored from a SuperDuper! clone, and 
have, also restored a prior version of a file using TimeMachine. I've 
yet to need to do a restore using CrashPlan.

Perhaps a a bit of overkill, but the total cost is small when compared 
to the comfort it provides!

-- 
James Leo Ryan - Austin, Texas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#54057

J Burns wrote:
>
> I've come to like 2.5" disks.  Are there advantages to 3.5" disks?

That's a very good question.

My take (and it could certainly be wrong):
I'm thinking that 2.5" drives have come a long way, in that they've 
reached a point where they may actually be "more rugged" than 3.5" 
drives. My rationale is that 2.5" drives are designed to go into 
laptops, and designed to endure the jolts and bumps to which laptops are 
subject.

I've had 3.5" drives fail. But I haven't had a failed 2.5" drive yet.

And the capacity of 2.5" drives has increased enough, to the point where 
they are now viable as "backup drives". And easily moved around and 
stored...

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web