Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Install everything to "Macintosh HD"?

A

ArthurDaley

macrumors regular
Original poster
Feb 29, 2008
159
0
It seems that Mac programs require 1/3rd extra space over the PC counterparts (everything from small stuff like Firefox to larger stuff like Adove Photoshop).

This means that I've under-partitioned in size terms the "MacIntish HD" drive (which I think of as the C: drive).

I've just tried installing FCP but it requires 50gig! Holy hell.

So is this for norm for all? I mean just to install to "Macintosh HD" and have massive hard drives? I partitioned 70gig and now I will see if I can work out how to merge in a 30gig partition (hopefully I can merge partitions somehow without data loss?). But even 100 gig at this rate will not be enough. Even worse iMovie seems decided my library must be on "Macintosh HD" and I have a terabyte of video to work with?!?!

TKS in advance.
 
Partitioning...

Are you installing ALL of FCP?
Try cutting down on the components, there's bound to be some clip-art of a theme you're never going to use & even if you do you can add them later.

As for your video, isn't it better to keep the program & the file you're working with on separate disks? AFAIK it increases the write speeds + works like some kind of scratch disk.
 
I only have the one partition on my computer just for that reason, there's no telling how much space you'll need.

Most people just go with the one partition.
And yes, it's normal for programs to take up more space than you would think.
 
coledog said:
And yes, it's normal for programs to take up more space than you would think.
I'll admit I didn't know that FCP required that much space!
Click to expand...

Final Cut Pro is pretty damn massive though. According to the specs however only the 4GB of the applications themselves have to be on Macintosh HD, the rest can be on another disc...
 
In on the oposite end of that, it makes more sense that it would be faster on the same drive.

Example: copy a largish file from Macintosh HD to Data. Same drive, 2 partitions. It'll take a few and show the progress bar at the top. But if you copy a file from one folder to another on the same partition its done almost immediately.
 
coledog said:
In on the oposite end of that, it makes more sense that it would be faster on the same drive.
example: copy a largish file from Macimtish HD to Data. Same drive, 2 partitions. It'll take a few and show the progress bar at the top. But if you copy a file from one folder to another on the same partition its done almost immediately.
Click to expand...
That's because all you're doing is changing the address, not moving the file.
 
Exactly...

When you're editing with FCP or CS3 you're applying an effect/rendering the file as opposed to just moving it about.
Having the two actual drives instead of a partition allows for quicker access to the platters.
 
so dilemma is either chew up my main MBP drive with 50 gig of FCP or install it to the external drive which is also hosting the video and I guess therefore take a performance hit since the data and program will be on the same disk. Then again maybe FCP puts a lot into the 4gig on the Macintosh HD drive that is used most often. Who knows! I think the only realistic option is to install everything to external drive.

FCP only seems to want the disk in the MBP - it spat back "You cannot install Final Cut Studio on this volume. This software must be installed on the running system." when I selected the firewire 80 external drive.
 
The application has to go on Macintosh HD, the tutorials and samples can go elsewhere.

This won't slow down the program significantly, if at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back