Hard Disk Upgrade for iMac

[gazfocus]

In the new iMac's are the hard drives notebook or desktop hard drives? I would like to get something close to 750GB if I chose to go for an iMac but obviously couldn't if it's a notebook drive.

Also, does anyone know if it's easy to replace the hard drive? Are there any instructions about for doing this on the new aluminium iMacs?

Thanks guys/girls

 

[Theatrics]

I'm not sure about that. I know that they have to use a suction cup to pull the glass off of the iMac and thats how they access the inner components. So it would probably be expensive. You could give an apple store a call and I'm sure whoever you get on the phone could tell you if they do so. I have a 320GB HD in my iMac and a 500GB western digital external mybook HD. I use it for time machine and extra storage. Just a thought.

 

[WildCowboy]

They are desktop drives. Apple offers options up to 750 GB in the 20-inch model and 1 TB in the 24-inch model.

Here is a guide to the surgery...it's a bit of work, but should be doable.

 

[gazfocus]

They are desktop drives. Apple offers options up to 750 GB in the 20-inch model and 1 TB in the 24-inch model.

Here is a guide to the surgery...it's a bit of work, but should be doable.

Jeez, I'm leaning more and more towards buying a Mac Pro every!!

Apple charge £160 to updrade from the 320GB to 750GB which is pretty close to the price of a 1TB from a 3rd party.

I would be tempted to have a go myself, but I'd then have the expense of buying a heavy duty suction cup, and I know from experience with interchangeable facias on mobile phones that once you take the cover off, you'll always have dust in between the cover and the screen (and I certainly don't want this on a brand new iMac )

Damn!

What are your thoughts on network storage etc?

 

[Jimmdean]

There's really no point of manually upgrading the drive at all - just use an external drive as either a data drive or the boot drive. You'd have FW800, FW400 and even USB2 to choose from. The more data you have, the more sense it makes to not have all that data on a drive that is very difficult to get to should it (or any part of the computer) fail. Last thing you want is to manually upgrade to 750+GB, then have some $2.00 part fail and you have to decide whether to remove that drive again before sending to Apple or take the chance on shipping all that data away and having something funny happen...

 

[gazfocus]

There's really no point of manually upgrading the drive at all - just use an external drive as either a data drive or the boot drive. You'd have FW800, FW400 and even USB2 to choose from. The more data you have, the more sense it makes to not have all that data on a drive that is very difficult to get to should it (or any part of the computer) fail. Last thing you want is to manually upgrade to 750+GB, then have some $2.00 part fail and you have to decide whether to remove that drive again before sending to Apple or take the chance on shipping all that data away and having something funny happen...

I'm not looking to upgrade the internal drive for data. The data will be on a G4 PowerMac (running as a server).

My issue is, I have some...let's say...large programs. I have Logic Studio (85GB for full install) and Final Cut Studio (121GB for full install). That means that 200GB are going to be used by just 2 packages, let alone OSX itself, Mac Office 2008 (when it's available), and all the other software I might need.

Therefore, I don't see 320GB being close to enough, and 750GB will be good even if it's just to have that breathing space.

 

[Toups]

NAS would be another good alternative, especially for those using the Wifi with the iMac, which would leave the LAN port open and give you the ability to connect a NAS drive at 100 or 1000mb which would provide transfers much faster than USB/Firewire400/800

 

[gazfocus]

NAS would be another good alternative, especially for those using the Wifi with the iMac, which would leave the LAN port open and give you the ability to connect a NAS drive at 100 or 1000mb which would provide transfers much faster than USB/Firewire400/800

Are the new iMac's fitted with gigabit ethernet ports then? Would be amazing if that's the case

 

[Jimmdean]

NAS would be another good alternative, especially for those using the Wifi with the iMac, which would leave the LAN port open and give you the ability to connect a NAS drive at 100 or 1000mb which would provide transfers much faster than USB/Firewire400/800

Not so much for a single drive. Once you get to FW400 you've pretty much exceeded the speed that the drive can actually supply data.

 

[Toups]

Yes, per the Apple Website at http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html the iMac is indeed equipted with 10/100/1000Mbps ethernet port.

On the topic of Firewire vs Ethernet, "real world" USB tops out at approximately 33MBps, Firewire 400 tops out at approximate 40MBps and Firewire 800 at approximately 65MBps due to interface limitations. I have a used many single drive NAS systems for work, most with SATA or or SATAII drives top out at 75 or 120MBps respectively.

With all of that said, on an iMac, I will agree you would not see much of a gain over a Firewire 800 drive, but NAS would give you more flexibility to interface to other systems, as well as the ability to share a single drive as storage medium for more than one system simultaneously. Also, keep in mind that Firewire is an Apple specification, while used on many systems today, it still commands a price premium aroun $50 more than USB and $30 more than 10/100/1000Mbps Ethernet.

 

[gazfocus]

Yes, per the Apple Website at http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html the iMac is indeed equipted with 10/100/1000Mbps ethernet port.

On the topic of Firewire vs Ethernet, "real world" USB tops out at approximately 33MBps, Firewire 400 tops out at approximate 40MBps and Firewire 800 at approximately 65MBps due to interface limitations. I have a used many single drive NAS systems for work, most with SATA or or SATAII drives top out at 75 or 120MBps respectively.

With all of that said, on an iMac, I will agree you would not see much of a gain over a Firewire 800 drive, but NAS would give you more flexibility to interface to other systems, as well as the ability to share a single drive as storage medium for more than one system simultaneously. Also, keep in mind that Firewire is an Apple specification, while used on many systems today, it still commands a price premium aroun $50 more than USB and $30 more than 10/100/1000Mbps Ethernet.

Thanks Toups. I think I will look at some form a NAS. Is there any device or enclosure that allows 2 drives to be recognised as 2 drives but connected with one ethernet cable?

Thanks again. All the advice is great.

 

[Toups]

Thanks Toups. I think I will look at some form a NAS. Is there any device or enclosure that allows 2 drives to be recognised as 2 drives but connected with one ethernet cable?

Thanks again. All the advice is great.

You can partition the physical drive as multiple smaller drives or one larger, and only map the actual drives you need to the system.

For example, you have a NAS with 3 drive partitions, you can map 1 or 2 or 3 drives to a single system or map a single drive to each system in a network enviroment. Let me know if you need more help, its actually pretty strait forward