Will 256GB SSD be enough storage for most people?

[disasterdrone]

Just for general usage (like watching movies, listening to music, MS word, etc.) - do you think 256GB will be enough?

I hear some people say that 256GB is too small for them, and I honestly don't see how that's so small. Are they like professional photoshop users or something?

Also, is the SSD on the late 2013 MBP with retina upgradable?

It depends. Everyone is different. Some people have a lot of music, others not.
I know people who are happy with 128, personally I'm not happy with less than a terabyte and a half.

 

[maflynn]

After nearly five years the 120 GB HDD on my computer is not even half full.

Between my iTunes library and my Aperture library, I can easily fill up a 120GB drive, but you're right, it all depends on each person. I think however as files grow, its easier to fill up drives today.

Since storage is not easily upgraded on the retina based MBPs and the MBAs, I think getting more then you need is a safer bet for the future.

 

[brdeveloper]

256GB is enough for a programmer/project manager/journalist who doesn't have any hobbies or a big music library. Otherwise, you'll have to think about what to store in your SSD while you keep an external HD for your video/music libraries.

When you get a SSD, you're paying for I/O performance. Filling it with MP3 or AVI files or .dmg downloads you made months ago is wasting its precious and expensive bytes.

 

[maflynn]

Filling it with MP3 or AVI files or .dmg downloads you made months ago is wasting its precious and expensive bytes.

Unless MP3s and AVIs are what's important to you

I'd rather use my storage for my music then other things

 

[IronManFanatic]

The thing that always worries me about not storing all your files on your main machine is the lack of backup. If you are storing most of your files on an external hard drive because you opted for a smaller than needed drive in your main machine, then you have to basically have two external drives to ensure your files are backed up. It's just a pain in the arse.

I always lean towards my main machine having enough space for everything. That way, I can have everything with me when I need it and one external is all I need simply for a backup drive.

NAS box with RAID is the way to go.

I completely agree with this and share the philosophy. I like my MacBook to accommodate all of my files (apart from when I used to do a significant amount of video editing - I used an external firewire HDD for scratch/render/original files).

However, all documents, music, etc is on my main machine and is backed up onto my external drive regularly. I think it's the safest option short of having a RAID backup solution (which is overkill for most in my opinion) and means you always have access to your files, wherever you are.

For me, 320GB would be the minimum.

I thought of this philosophy when I was taking back my sealed 256GB model for the 512GB. However, I think storing everything on your main machine probably isn't the brightest idea, since it's the machine you're most likely to regularly use, thus it's more likely to break from wear-and-tear or an accident, and also, PCI-e is the most expensive (and fastest) available consumer-grade secondary storage today. In a way, yes, it can serve as your primary + backup machine (if you've stored your content elsewhere), but with the price difference of $350 between the 256 and 512, I could easily get around 4TBs worth of portable USB 3.0 drives. At the end of the day, it comes down to convenience and whether you see the value in it. If you're the type that doesn't mind dealing with plugging in external drives when needed, then go with the 256, else 512. (This point can be negated with some affordable wireless NAS).

Personally, I think 256 is more than enough for a primary drive (especially in the age of the Cloud). I'm considering going back down to the 256 GB model, (and I shoot a tonne of photos and occasional videos). I already have a 128GB SSD + 1TB HDD in my Desktop, + a 2TB external, I should probably start looking into NAS w/ a raid setup, and managing my storage a bit more efficiently, atm, it's a bit everywhere. At least with a RAID setup, you can know that everything is continuously backed up in one physical box - I just haven't deemed my archives important enough for that 'instant-backup' experience. If my 2TB archived drive dies tomorrow (which I rarely power on any ways), well, I'll just have to scout my main computers if I ever need something I had before - a very inefficient way of doing things. My most important files are usually backed up on Dropbox or Google Drive any ways (which also gets replicated 3 times on different drives of their servers).