External HDD: portable vs not?

[Liesje]

Yeah so I'm the techie person and should know this, but I don't. My WD Passport drive is basically full, and I don't like the idea of only have one backup drive (though I do upload all my pics to Flickr so that gives me some peace of mind). It's time for a new external hard drive. I like the WD Passports. They are "portable" meaning powered via USB, small simple case w/ no fans, etc. However, I guess I don't really need a portable. So what would be the pros/cons of going with the smaller, USB-only powered drive vs. the external drive that has it's own power adapter and sits on my desk? I want at least a 320GB, but I probably cannot afford more than that. In a perfect world, I would build a desktop full of backup drives. Any suggestions on brands/models for either? I'd rather pay for space than speed. I do not run daily backups, just drag-and-drop things whenever I feel like it (once every few weeks).

 

[u2popmofo]

Generally the "non-portable" types are actually cheaper, so you may as well go with that if you don't really need a portable one. Other than the things you've already mentioned (bigger size, have to use an AC adapter), I don't really know of any other disadvantages.

As you probably already know, the WDs are great on the portable side.

 

[Liesje]

Yep when I read the reviews a few years ago, they all pointed to the WD passport for the portable so if I go that route I'd just upgrade to a bigger size. I have a small portable SimpleTech at work, but don't use it enough to compare. The main con I've found on the Passport is taking it apart, but I find that to be bull b/c I got one apart the other day, just pried it open and when I was done it snapped shut nice and clean. I've also read the 320GBs are only 298GB when re-formatted for NTFS so I'll have to look into that.

Then I think I should get a bigger, less portable and use my current Passport for anything that requires portability....