Google| Subject | Re: mac sales down |
| From | -hh |
| Date | 05/17/2008 13:23 (05/17/2008 04:23) |
| Message-ID | <98553791-ddcd-4587-a70a-0fdbedaf2ef9@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.sys.mac.advocacy |
| Follows | Mitch |
Mitch <mi...@hawaii.rr>wrote:
MitchTrue enough, but that's simply a different dimension.
Bad maintenance and organization are no blame against the OS. If someone stores all mails and attachments, they don't understand what they are doing. That's a ridiculous place to store files. People should know better than to keep all mail, and should definitely know better than to keep every attachment there.
So, HH, I'd suggest a year's worth of heavy e-mail should be closer to 100-500 MB per year assuming someone keeps only what they need. Ten seems so far gone it would be like just letting it store everything, and if you're going to do that, just archive every year. Don't make the program deal with an ever-increasing load.My illustration of 10GB was based on the assumption that everything is kept. The point was that it required 10 years of 'keeping everything' (in a heavy use environment) to accumulate to the point that Steve was referring to for his use ... which we later learned wasn't email anyway.
As far as Steve's huge library, it seems something quite exceptional is being stored, and it is inappropriate to criticize the OS if he's keeping something clearly not part of Apple's plans in there.As Steve posted in his reply to you, the OS doesn't apparently allow a choice, but not that it really matters; the size of the HD is a finite limiting factor, and if X GB need to be stored "someplace" on a single Y GB sized drive, then the total amount of capacity that is used is "X/Yths", regardless of what subdirectory it happens to be in.
I know Music-program users like to keep huge instrument and sound libraries, but obviously building up those in the system is no criticism of the way the system runs.It is the question of the 'adequacy' of a particular set of hardware for a particular application. In Steve's case, with 100GB worth of music-related stuff, a 120GB sized HD is inadequate capacity for him, regardless of it is packaged inside of a mini case or a full blown tower.
And insofar as Steve's specific issue that the App really want this data to only be stored in the /Library/ folder, I would personally expect that it could be manually overridden with an Alias that points to another HD.
All my iWeb files come to 1.6 GB; that is probably much more than most people. Again, no commentary against the OS, since that weight comes from how much just that one feature is used. Nothing else is very large, (but I notice that my Sing that iTunes! lyrics/covers folder is 75 MB!)My iWeb listing under /Library/ is negligibly small; I found that my entire /Library/ folder is under 7GB, and that includes the 1GB worth of mail that I already mentioned. Elsewhere, my iWeb data files total to around 1GB, but the culprit there is that since I don't use .mac, I have to use the 'publish to folder' option, and I have ~10 revisions (of roughly 75MB each) currently stacked up, half of which should be tossed.
And since this system is holding legacy files from a couple of older systems that had poor backup methods at times (multiple small HDs), I know that I have duplication of some files...just need to get around to finding a nice utility that can scan, compare and eliminate duplicates. Doing that manually requires a high degree of touch labor, which is easy to defer by simply throwing $100 at the system to increase total HD storage...simply YA trade-off.
-hh
05/08/2008
