Portable External harddrive or huge flash usb?

Donnie

Cat695 wrote: »

and your input into this thread so far is to pick at peoples mistakes.....VERY helpful

No, small brain, in your haste to become offended you missed my suggestion is post #16.

I missed iviv pointing out that your suggestion was Internal, so removed my post.

The other post was simply pointing out that his/her own suggestion did not fit his/her own remit.

Now go and take a cold shower.

Donnie

Leopard wrote: »

You're all wrong.

The best current solution is a 2.5" 320 GB, 7200 rpm, SATA drive mounted in a Firewire 800 enclosure.

Runs off a single lead, too.

Possibly double the price of my suggestion. What do you think are the likely performance gains, including if Firewire is not available?

Maybe you can price up a system.

Leopard

In your zeal to indulge your childish ego by having a petty cat-fight with others in this forum, you selfishly neglected to address what the OP was asking.

The OP neither indicated whether (s)he had a desktop or a laptop, nor whether (s)he was constrained by price.

With the usual presumption of a bigot, you also simply presumed that the OP has a PC and not a Mac.

You also appear to have ignored or overlooked the fact that the OP wants to run Photoshop. Which calls for speed.

Any modern Mac will have a Firewire (at least 400) port as standard. A PC tower can accommodate a PCI card with Firewire 800. A low end Mac laptop will have Firewire 400. A high end Mac laptop will have Firewire 800. A decent PC laptop will have an expansion port - either PCMCIA, CardBus or ExpressCard - which can accommodate a Firewire 800 card.

The OP wants to run Photoshop and did not indicate that price, as opposed to speed, was the priority. For some people (including the type of person who typically uses Photoshop) time and speed are more important than a few quid saved on buying a slow solution.

The future is eSATA and Firewire 3200. The present is Firewire 800 (and Gigabit Ethernet). The still adequate is Firewire 400. The slow is USB2.

Your suggested solution is sluggish, it consumes CPU power to function and it will not operate off a single USB lead. The OP may be wishing to use it with a PC laptop that does not have two USB2 ports spare (or at least located closely enough to accommodate a Y-lead).

Your assumption that the OP is so poor that (s)he cannot afford to adopt the fastest and most cost-effective (ultimately most Money Saving) solution - as opposed to the upfront cheapest - solution is presumptuous, insulting, ignorant and arrogant.

But, of course, that's what - conspicuously - you are.

Donnie

Leopard wrote: »

In your zeal to indulge your childish ego by having a petty cat-fight with others in this forum, you selfishly neglected to address what the OP was asking.

The OP neither indicated whether (s)he had a desktop or a laptop, nor whether (s)he was constrained by price.

With the usual presumption of a bigot, you also simply presumed that the OP has a PC and not a Mac.

You also appear to have ignored or overlooked the fact that the OP wants to run Photoshop. Which calls for speed.

Any modern Mac will have a Firewire (at least 400) port as standard. A PC tower can accommodate a PCI card with Firewire 800. A low end Mac laptop will have Firewire 400. A high end Mac laptop will have Firewire 800. A decent PC laptop will have an expansion port - either PCMCIA, CardBus or ExpressCard - which can accommodate a Firewire 800 card.

The OP wants to run Photoshop and did not indicate that price, as opposed to speed, was the priority. For some people (including the type of person who typically uses Photoshop) time and speed are more important than a few quid saved on buying a slow solution.

The future is eSATA and Firewire 3200. The present is Firewire 800 (and Gigabit Ethernet). The still adequate is Firewire 400. The slow is USB2.

Your suggested solution is sluggish, it consumes CPU power to function and it will not operate off a single USB lead. The OP may be wishing to use it with a PC laptop that does not have two USB2 ports spare (or at least located closely enough to accommodate a Y-lead).

Your assumption that the OP is so poor that (s)he cannot afford to adopt the fastest and most cost-effective (ultimately most Money Saving) solution - as opposed to the upfront cheapest - solution is presumptuous, insulting, ignorant and arrogant.

But, of course, that's what - conspicuously - you are.

Cat-fight? That's apt coming from someone who likens themselves to a leopard. Pathetic.

Starting your post with "you're all wrong" says it all.

From the OP

Flash drives are expensive atm, so a small, portable external drive might just be the only option.

So how does pointing out that the result of his/her research did not fit his/her remit indicate a 'cat fight'?

Seems the only one looking for a fight here is you, girl.

iviv

Leopard wrote: »

With the usual presumption of a bigot, you also simply presumed that the OP has a PC and not a Mac.

With the usual presumption of a mac zealot, you ignore some obvious points.

3.3% of Computers are macs.
The OP would likely have mentioned if they had a mac (Because who wouldn't take the chance to point out they have a mac!)

Just taking these two points means that in all probability we are dealing with a Windows PC. You could have simply asked if they were running a mac, instead of going off on a rant about how macs are the best thing since sliced bread.

II_D2_II

^^ lol^^
just get what i said and thank me lol

Leopard

Donnie wrote: »

Cat-fight? That's apt coming from someone who likens themselves to a leopard. Pathetic.

Donnie wrote: »

No, small brain, in your haste to become offended you missed my suggestion is post #16.

Donnie wrote: »

Now go and take a cold shower.

Led to:

Donnie wrote: »

Seems the only one looking for a fight here is you, girl.

QED.


Moving on, however, to Mastermind:

iviv wrote: »

With the usual presumption of a mac zealot, you ignore some obvious points.

3.3% of Computers are macs.
The OP would likely have mentioned if they had a mac (Because who wouldn't take the chance to point out they have a mac!)

Just taking these two points means that in all probability we are dealing with a Windows PC. You could have simply asked if they were running a mac, instead of going off on a rant about how macs are the best thing since sliced bread.

The majority of those who use Photoshop - which is what the OP does - do so on a Mac.

But neither the OP nor I went "off on a rant about how macs are the best thing since sliced bread" (sic). We left you to do that.

(And I can think of many things better than sliced bread, even if you can't. Firewire, for a start.)

The OP's question, and my answer to it, had nothing whatsoever to do with extolling the virtues of the type of computer involved: it was about what would be the best type of external hard drive (for his/her needs) to attach to it.

Using Photoshop calls for a fast hard drive. And the OP also wants a portable hard drive. Hence my pointing out that a portable Firewire 800 drive would be best - taking into account the fact that it needs only a single lead to connect and to power it, and also has other advantages over USB2.

But thank you for demonstrating publicly your incapacity for reasoned argument: that in itself was useful.

Hopefully, Cat695's mother will let him out to play later today and then the two of you can spend another constructive afternoon slinging mud at each other.

II_D2_II

Leopard wrote: »

Led to:



QED.


Moving on, however, to Mastermind:



The majority of those who use Photoshop - which is what the OP does - do so on a Mac.

But neither the OP nor I went "off on a rant about how macs are the best thing since sliced bread" (sic). We left you to do that.

(And I can think of many things better than sliced bread, even if you can't. Firewire, for a start.)

The OP's question, and my answer to it, had nothing whatsoever to do with extolling the virtues of the type of computer involved: it was about what would be the best type of external hard drive (for his/her needs) to attach to it.

Using Photoshop calls for a fast hard drive. And the OP also wants a portable hard drive. Hence my pointing out that a portable Firewire 800 drive would be best - taking into account the fact that it needs only a single lead to connect and to power it, and also has other advantages over USB2.

But thank you for demonstrating publicly your incapacity for reasoned argument: that in itself was useful.

Hopefully, Cat695's mother will let him out to play later today and then the two of you can spend another constructive afternoon slinging mud at each other.

erm just like to say that when i used photoshop i used to use a PC :cool:

Donnie

It seems in your haste to appear intelligent, you missed the fact that my post to you was in fact to glean further information.

I actually was interested in the performance benefits and I'm sure the OP would like to see a likely combination, together with costs and availability.

So, try to keep a cool head and stay on track.

Leopard wrote: »

Led to:



QED.


Moving on, however, to Mastermind:



The majority of those who use Photoshop - which is what the OP does - do so on a Mac.

But neither the OP nor I went "off on a rant about how macs are the best thing since sliced bread" (sic). We left you to do that.

(And I can think of many things better than sliced bread, even if you can't. Firewire, for a start.)

The OP's question, and my answer to it, had nothing whatsoever to do with extolling the virtues of the type of computer involved: it was about what would be the best type of external hard drive (for his/her needs) to attach to it.

Using Photoshop calls for a fast hard drive. And the OP also wants a portable hard drive. Hence my pointing out that a portable Firewire 800 drive would be best - taking into account the fact that it needs only a single lead to connect and to power it, and also has other advantages over USB2.

But thank you for demonstrating publicly your incapacity for reasoned argument: that in itself was useful.

Hopefully, Cat695's mother will let him out to play later today and then the two of you can spend another constructive afternoon slinging mud at each other.

Leopard

Donnie wrote: »

It seems in your haste to appear intelligent, you missed the fact that my post to you was in fact to glean further information.

I actually was interested in the performance benefits and I'm sure the OP would like to see a likely combination, together with costs and availability.

So, try to keep a cool head and stay on track.

It seems in your haste to start issuing instructions to people, you overlooked THIS thread, in which your questions had already been answered comprehensively (by me).