Copy of drive larger than original

I'm replacing a 750GB HDD with a 960GB SDD. Using the finder, I copied 713GB of data from the old drive to the new, empty drive. Strangely, the data is using 897GB of space on the new drive. Thinking that it may have been a finder-copy issue with a large chunk of data, I erased the new drive and used third-party software to mirror the data to the new drive. The result was the same. Disk Utility finds no trouble with either drive. Is there an explanation for this?

It is also possible that compressed files on the original were decompressed during the copy to the SSD. That is a total guess.
NOTE: When I switched my Macbook Pro from an HDD to an SSD, I used Carbon Copy Cloner to move all my data. That way I knew I had a bootable SSD that including all my data.
You could also go with SuperDuper (free for a full clone), or Applications -> Utilities -> Disk Utility -> Restore specifying the original HDD as the source, and the SSD as the destination. Carbon Copy Cloner does have a 1 month demo period where "All" its features are enabled, so you can even use CCC.

Similar Messages

Can I use a usb external hard drive larger than 2TB? I have tried to use a 3TB but it shows up as 800GB.

Can I use a usb external hard drive larger than 2TB? I have tried to use a 3TB but it shows up as 800GB. Even tred to reformat in disk utility but only shows as 800 gb as well. It is a Seagate 3TB harddrive and enclosure. Nothing on the Seagate site about it other than it says Mac os through 10.6 is supported for larger than 2TB (might be old).

You might have better luck in the Snow Leopard community. I'll ask the hosts to relocate your post.
10.6 Snow Leopard

Aperture exports jpeg files larger than original RAW files

Can anyone tell me why a RAW file (10.6mb), when exported as a jpeg (10.8mb) from Aperture ends up larger than the original RAW file. The same RAW file when opened and then saved as a jpeg (6.4mb) in Photoshop is a lot smaller. The photo dimensions and resolution are the same in both saved files (34.5mb open file 300dpi 4256 x 2831 pix). I have tried this on several photos, all with similar results. For information I am saving the photos in both Photoshop and Aperture at 300dpi, original size and at a quality setting of 12. In these examples/tests I have done no work to the photos, obviously the file sizes increase after work has been carried out on the photos (in both Ps & Aperture)
Almost doubling the size of saved jpegs has a massive implication on my library and may be one reason to consider Adobe Lightroom as this gives similar jpeg file sizes as Photoshop, i.e. almost half the size of the original RAW file
Reducing the quality setting on saved jpegs is an obvious way to reduce file size, but not answering the question of the considerable discrepancy when saving to the same quality in different software
Is this a feature of Aperture and nothing can be done about it ? I would prefer to use Aperture but cannot cope with the large jpeg sizes !
Any comments would be much appreciated - thank you
Nick

Think you might be right Allen - The 12 quality saved jpegs seem to be pretty high quality, closer to the original than maybe the files saved in Ps at quality 12. I have just run an identical set of processing actions on all the files in Photoshop and the jpegs previously saved in Aperture at 12, 11 and even 8 quality settings seem to be better than the same files saved at 12 in Ps
Bizarrely the file size drops from 10.6mb at quality setting 12 in Aperture, to 3.2mb when saved just one notch down at quality setting 11 in Aperture. That is a massive drop, esp considering the next one down, saving at quality 10 results in a 2.8mb file
rw just ran some checks and tests on the file export settings and file sizes in Aperture, on a file I sent him, and we get the same results. So at least my version of Aperture is not up the wall !!
Would be useful to have the explanations from Apple as to the vast variance in settings and file sizes, but I guess we will just have to keep guessing - and buying more and more hard drives for all the large files
I am considering keeping the RAW originals in future, and I suppose in this case I need only save smaller jpegs, and issue at whatever size they are needed at the time - just needs a bit of planning to look after an ever increasing collection, which is about to have two sets of images added at a time now. Added to the already amassed 80 000 images at last count !)
Thanks
Nick

I recently bought a used PowerBook G4. Which drive, larger than 80GB, will it accept?

According to the seller, its 1.33GHz logic board died recently and was replaced with a faster 1.5GHz board. Along the way, its 60GB hard drive was replaced with a 40GB drive, which has Leopard 10.5.8. Its model number is A1095.
This "new" PowerBook was meant to replace an older, slower one with an 80GB drive. While this "new" machine has certain defects, some of which can be corrected relatively easily, I would definitely like to upgrade its hard drive to something larger than 80GB; what larger size drive would be supported by this architecture?
Another question I have is the maximum RAM to which I can upgrade. The lower slot is dead, with the upper one occupied by a 1GB DDR SDRAM memory module. Assuming there is no way to "restore" this lower slot to operational status, how big a memory module could I use in the remaining slot, to help improve performance?
Thank you for your time.
Dieter

Allan, thank you for your response.
Permit me to share some background, which I couldn't do because of a character limit in the details section of the question.
As much as I would love to buy Apple's latest MacBook Pro with all the bells and whistles, I cannot do so at this time, as I do not have the wherewithal. Thus, I'm stuck buying used machines that still work.
That being said, my question regarding larger hard drives was to permit me to use this newer machine to replace the one I currently use, which plods along at 667 MHz with an 80GB hard drive. However, the biggest stumbling block is the hard drive, which has HALF the capacity of my current machine. Therefore, I want to replace it with a larger-capacity drive, so I don't get the ""Your startup disk is almost full" message, which I've encountered too often. The larger replacement drive doesn't have to be faster than the 80GB drive in the other machine, just roomier.
This "new" PowerBook - on which I'm writing this reply - is meant to replace the current machine. I don't do graphics-intensive work on it, or gaming, so it doesn't need to go to Warp 8. All i want is for it to function as it should, for my online activities and spreadsheet and word processing activities.

FLV are 5 times larger than original wmv

Is anyone experiencing there FLV files to be 5 time larger in
file size than the original wmv file? I made sure the dimensions
are the same, audio the same, video settings match and all. I can't
figure out why its so dramatically larger.

It rather depends whether you have effects that interact with the photos.
If you do, it may be better to embed just prior to saving as pdf.
My policy is to keep images linked for as long as possible.
Remember too that the photos will be converted to the colour mode of the Illie file as soon as they are embedded.
InDesign works differently in that you never need to embed or alter the colour mode of RGB images in a CMYK file,

Format/Partition Drive larger than 128GB

Hello All,
I have gotten a Western Digital Caviar SE 320GB drive that I would like to use in my Mac G4 AGP running 10.4.8.
Does anyone know a tool that will allow me to format the drive to its full capacity?
I realize there is a bootROM issue here. I searched for a bootrom update of some kind, but did not see one.
Any help appreciated.
Thanks

Look at these links.
What Macs natively support large IDE drives? (over 128GB formatted)
How Big a Hard Drive Can I Put in My iMac, eMac, or Power Mac?
Using 128 GB or Larger ATA Hard Drives
The Power Mac Storage FAQ
You can check if your Mac requires a firmware (Boot ROM version) update. Mac OS X: Available firmware updates
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86117 If an update is required, the update must be installed (using OS 9) BEFORE you install OS X.
 Cheers, Tom

Converting old CS files to CS5 is creating hugh files-4 to 6 times larger than original. How can I a

I've been trying to convert some old CS files into CS5 files. These are simple files: some text, simple line work, a photo or two (tiff, jpeg or eps) and some simple illustrator art. These files were typically 500k to 800k. The updated files are 3 - 6mg. I tried to start with a new file and copy/paste the text, line work and art and would end up with a file around 2 - 3 mg without photo. What do I need to do to end up with a normal size file?

It rather depends whether you have effects that interact with the photos.
If you do, it may be better to embed just prior to saving as pdf.
My policy is to keep images linked for as long as possible.
Remember too that the photos will be converted to the colour mode of the Illie file as soon as they are embedded.
InDesign works differently in that you never need to embed or alter the colour mode of RGB images in a CMYK file,

Panther on a hard drive larger than 7 GB

First of all the machine specs are iMac 233 Bondi Blue/96 MB of RAM/80 GB HDD.
I read somewhere that in order to install OS X on this machine I would need to format the OS X partition to 7 GB or less. I did that and installed OS X. I am wondering if now I can boot into the CD and delete the extra partition and resize the OS X partition to use all 80 GB? Or am I stuck saving stuff to the extra 73 GB partition? Thanks in advance.

I am wondering if now I can boot into the CD and delete the extra partition and resize the OS X partition to use all 80 GB?
Not without erasing that partition or using third-party software. The computer might not start up correctly if the OS files aren't located within the first 8GB of the drive anyway.
am I stuck saving stuff to the extra 73 GB partition?
Yes.
(50037)

Hard drive larger than 2 tb partition problem

Hard drive partition problem

More information would be helpful. What is the problem?
4 TB Hard drive formatting default to Logical Volume Group

New MacMini.....Any problem with hard drive greater than 500gb?

I'm interested in buying a new MacMini. I could definitely use a hard drive larger than 500gb though. Is there any problem installing a drive larger than 500gb? Since the Mac store only offers 320 and 500gb, I'm wondering if there is some limitation (special size?) or other problem.
I'd rather not have to use an additional external drive.
Thanks in advance.
Fabian

Hi Fabian,
any 2.5" SATA harddisk with a maximum height of 9.5mm fits in the Mac Mini.
OSX doesn't "care" about the amount of GB the harddisk has.
With the above specs 750GB seems to be the largest widely avaiable size but 1TB should be avaiable too.
Have a look at MacSales or NewEgg.
Regards
Stefan

How can I Copy/backup photos in iphoto to external drives smaller than iPhoto library

How can I Copy/backup photos in iphoto to external drives smaller than iPhoto library? I have several 128 GB SSD's that I want to use to copy/backup all my iPhoto photographs for a permanent archive due to stability...but my iPhoto library is larger than the drives (about 234 GB) so it would require two of the SSD's...how best to get the original photos onto the SSD's? I'm running Yosemite and iPhoto 9.6...thx.

Terrence - Can you explain what you mean by data loss? In the iPhoto Library? Or on the copy?
Larry - In what way is each photo "degraded"? Quality? Isn't it simply making an an exact copy, in this case a jpeg, as would happen if I dragged and dropped a different file type? Is there another type of degradation?
I am working on trying to create a correct backup as well (per your instructions) but I wanted to use this as a "put in a fireproof safe" archive on very small SSD's that would never have a mechanical hard drive problem (we've lost a couple over time so aren't real confident in their staying power)...I also recognize that I I won't have newer photos in this archive group but at least it would have 98% of our photos in another off-site location...at least that's the thought...
Thx for your input and look forward to more in your reply...

Copy and Paste Large (more than 999 rows) Spreadsheet

I have a large spreadsheet that has a number of hidden columns. It is about 1,135 rows long. I have no trouble copying and pasting the spreadsheet into Pages (both are IWork '09) as long as I only try to copy and past 999 or fewer rows. But when I try to copy and paste more than 999 rows, I only get the cell contents pasted into Pages. The cell borders and formatting all get removed. I have tried different groupings of 999 and always get the same results whether I am trying it will range 1-999 or 100-1099. 999 cells can be copied and pasted, but 1,000 or more get stripped of any formatting during the paste. Any suggestions? I've tried rebooting, running disk utility and renaming the Numbers document. I've tried copying and pasting the contents of the numbers document into a new numbers document, but get the same results. I've exported the Numbes document as an Excel document and reopened it using Numbers but still get the same results. Anybody got any suggestions? I'm running OS X 10.6.8 and everything is current.

Hello
To be complete on the subject, I tested the number of columns allowed by Pages in a table.
The document format, portrait or landscape, doesn't matter. Pages accept only 65 columns.
This limit may have a simple explanation :
in Binary format, 64 is represented by 1000000
and of course as we start from 0, 7 digits allow to define 65 values.
For the 999 rows limit I have no idea. The binary representation of 998 is : 1111100110
I would be surprised that Apple use the decimal system to count the rows and if it does, the logical limit wasn't 999 but 1000 which is the count of integers from 0 thru 999.
At this time the larger table which I use regularly is a Numbers one with 5296 rows in which I store the references to Apple Technotes. It receive about 20 new rows every week.
I splitted the original 6942 rows one in two tables : the one with 'living' technotes and a 1646 rows one storing the now obsolete technotes.
15 days ago, it was an AW6 database but I decided that it was time to to switch it in today's application.
Yvan KOENIG (VALLAURIS, France) 07 /11 /2011 21:38:53
iMac 21”5, i7, 2.8 GHz, 4 Gbytes, 1 Tbytes, mac OS X 10.6.8 and 10.7.2
My iDisk is : <http://public.me.com/koenigyvan>
Please : Search for questions similar to your own before submitting them to the community

Why, when I paste my selection in a new layer, is it 10 times larger than when I copied it?

Why, when I paste my selection in a new layer, is it 10 times larger than when I copied it?

Kevin If you don't understand don't try to take the discussion offline via private message. Other that have the same problem will not benefit if taken offline here is you PM.
Hi,
Thanks for your response to my question. What is the best way to adjust to match resloutions of pictures/photos, etc in PSE 12. I am trying to layer photos and selections from photos but when I cut and paste, sometimes I get this HUGE image that doesn't even come close to fitting on the screen.
Thanks!
Kevin
Kevin
You need to understand pixels better know what is going on when you do things. All pixels are not created equal. Some have better quality the others.
When you have a camera that take captures 3000x2000 px for an image and you have a good lens and exposure setting you wing up with 6,000,000 quality pixels for your image.
If you resample that image for the web to fit within 300x200 pixels you wind up with a 60,000 high quality web size image. Or a high quality image that will fit on your display at its resolution. The images resoultion setting is meanless for displays use their resolutuin they do not support image print DPI resolution setting. And Displays do not hava a 72DPI resolution.
So when your post processing think about Pixels DPI is meaningless except when you use a unit based on DPI like inches. However also remember Displays do no support the images print dpi resolution. The only time 1" on display equal 1" in print is when the images print resolution is the same as the display you are using. All displays do not have the same resolution/ Most desktop displaye are around 100DPI that is changing and Laptop and tablets can have resolution above 300DPI. So what will nor fit on your displat may well fix on a laptop or tablet.
DPI is actual pixel size 100DPI pixels a 1/100" x 1/100" = 10,000 per square inch 300DIP 1/300"x 1/300" 90,000 px per sq inch.
The same number on pixels image on a 300dpi display is 9 time larger on a 100Dpi display. What may not fit one your low resolution display may fit on the same size high resolution display for the display displays more pixels then your display can.
If you resample that 300x200 web size image to back to a 3000x2000 pixel image for print you wind up with 6,0000,000 lower quality pixels.
Though the 300X200 pixels image was a high quality web size image much of the original 6,000,000 image quality was reduced in the 300x200 px image. Much of the detail you had in the original 6,000,000 pixels image was discarded in the process. The new 6,000,000 pixels image was made only from a 60,000pixel image they were not captures using a camera exposure. The camera had the actual real detail in front of it to capture. All the computer had were 300x200 pixels it has to add details for the larger image and it does by interpolating the 300x200px image.
Preserve the pixel you get from your cameras. They are the highest quality pixels you will ever have for your images. Every time you resample an image up or down in number of pixels you loose some image quality. Not one of the original pixels remain intact you wind up with a totally new image created by interpolating the old image. Do not save the new image over the old image and loose your good high quality pixels.

Why are my trimmed QT movies larger than the original?

I have a bunch of raw .dv files copied over from my camcorder that have never been edited or opened in any other program. When I open in QT X and trim the file, the trimmed MOV version is often larger than the raw DV. On one file, I even trimmed about half of it away and it still came out larger. I was under the assumption that DV is not compressed and neither is raw MOV,
After trimming the file and saving it, I select "movie" as the format since at this point I want to leave the files in as raw as a format as possible before I bring into an editing program like iMovie.
Any ideas?
Thanks

Since QuickTime X doesn't have any export "options" (other than dimensions) a "raw" DV Stream format should always be smaller in file size.
DV Stream is about 13 GB's per hour of recording. A QuickTime X "conversion" would use H.264 video and AAC audio codecs and should be about ten times smaller in file size.
Are you sure your files are DV Stream?
In any event, QuickTime X may not be the best tool for the job.
QuickTime Player Pro doesn't re-compress the source codec if you use a simple "save" or "save as".
A regular "save" after doing any edits will replace your source file with the newer version. No way to restore any of the edited information so you should use save as (keeping the original).

When I print a photo to my epson printer, it comes out larger than the original photo - so the photo prints beyond the borders. Tried readjusting all sorts of things but nothing helps. I had this same problem with my Canon. any ideas?

When I print a photo to my epson printer, it comes out larger than the original photo - so the photo prints beyond the borders. Tried readjusting all sorts of things but nothing helps. I had this same problem with my Canon. any ideas?

Crop to the print size before pringing
LN

Copy of drive larger than original

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for