Size of OS disc - Does anything speak against a 1TB OS-Disc opposed to a 500GB one?

Thanks to both of you for answering, but could you please be more specific here?

Maybe I get your sentence wrong, Harm, but do you mean that "using more than 50 GB on the OS disk" equals to "messing up my system"?

If so, in which sense would it be "messed up", and why? Would it "only" mean less speed/performance than with a multiple disc setup, or sth more serious?

I frankly have trouble to imagine that, especially considering the fact that still most PCs out there do only have one disc and on many of them you could perfectly

do some SD video editing. That´ what I intend to do for some time till I get a graphics card and more drives in order to cope with HD in an "ideal" setup.

(I actually do have an older sata-drive and will probably use it as a second disc right away, but still would like to understand what would be so terrible about using only one disc for some time.)

And apart from the actual reading/writing process during editing, what´s the trouble with data just being stored on the OS disk for whatever purpose (DVD copys, safety

copys of large files etc.) - does that really affect the way the OS is working?

OK, let´s say 3 discs is the "practical minimum" for a perfect workflow. I did some (basic) SD editing a few years ago on just one disk in the past with a Celeron 2,6 ghz AMD PC from 2004 without too much trouble, which is why I would call just one disc the "absolute minimum" for being able to edit at all, and with a brand new system like the one I´m looking at here, I´ll still be curious to see how much freezing there will actually be in SD and will try it out before using that second disc I have.

Let me use a -admittedly slightly silly - car metaphor that just came to my mind (skip to next paragraph now if time´s an issue): I´m trying to build a Mercedes Benz here (and not a Formular 1 car by the way) and use it for a couple of months with crappy old worn out tyres just to drive my grandma from one side of the village to the other side with a speed of 40 km/h before I will use the car for trips on the highway, which is exactly when I will get good tyres that guarantee a safe trip at 250 km/h.You can tell me that this kind of car needs good tyres and never in the world crappy ones, or call me a fool for getting a Benz for something I could have done with a Honda, but the fact still is that I will be able to transport my granny who doesn´t care about a bump every here and now, and still has a better time than she would have had in the Honda,  and I will also be okay later on the highway trip using the good tyres. Everything´s fine, but of course only if the bad tyres don´t DAMAGE the car itself, which is why I was keen on getting an definition of "messing up my system" here. For the moment being, my conclusion is that messing up means "possible trouble with performance".

And, what about the simple storage   of data on the OS disk I mentioned? Why would the mere presence of a couple of hundred gigabyte of data on the OS disc affect my video editing which involves only the OS-related

files and video files on possible other disks (under the presumption that the OS is not completely full but still has time to breathe? If I´m really supposed to never ever use those 450 GB for anything at all, I´d really like to understand why.

Hello Jim, well I´m not even looking Raid 0 yet untill I haven´t experienced editing of HD on this system with CS5  and feel I need it (I don´t even own an HD camera yet, but am interested in those reflex cameras that can film HD.

The situation right now is that I want to finish a project in SD during the next couple of months, buying a system that later will allow me to handle HD, too, so I just wondered if in the "meanwile" I could work with as few discs as possible and hopefully find better disc prices out there when I will turn my attention to HD etc. I have an older drive I can immediately use as a second drive but I was just curious in which way I can use the extra space on the OS drive.

 

A lot of things "could" work, even a single drive.  But it's far from ideal.  If you're building from scratch, better to do it right from the beginning.  That means at least three drives as a practical minimum, with little or nothing more than the OS and Programs on the System drive.

 

Does it have to be that way?  No.  But it is better that way.

Fair enough, thanks!