Intel vs. PPC HDD Question....

Discussion in 'macOS' started by idea_hamster, Nov 14, 2006.

  1. idea_hamster macrumors 65816

    idea_hamster

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    NYC, or thereabouts
    #1
    So I bought a delicious new C2D MB, and while I wait for my after-market HD to arrive, I set up my MB with the original 80GB HD from my old 80 GB G4 PB using the built-in migration tool in the set-up screens.

    Everything seemed to go fine -- but then I realized that somehow, I lost:

    (i) 200MB of capacity (74.4 GB formatted under PPC vs. 74.2 under Intel)

    and

    (ii) about half my available space, a whopping 6.6 GB of space -- possibly a function of (according to Disk Utility) the additional 126,802 files that showed up?!? :eek:

    Am I missing something about the switch to Intel chips?
    Is an 11% increase in used disk space normal? :confused:
     
  2. dr_lha macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2003
    #2
    Well for one thing, everything in the OS on the Intel MacBook is a Universal Binary now, so all the program files, libraries etc are essentially twice the size as before.
     
  3. idea_hamster thread starter macrumors 65816

    idea_hamster

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    NYC, or thereabouts
    #3
    D'oh!

    Man, that's like Intel Mac 101 -- I'd like to think I could have come up with that one myself...but I didn't. :eek:

    Although it doesn't explain the formatted size disparity. Maybe that has to do with the EFI-related partition?
     
  4. macrlz9 macrumors 6502

    macrlz9

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2003
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    #4
    that shouldn't matter though... since universal apps take up the same space on both hardware... i have a ppc mac and my apps contain both intel and power pc code soo....they should be the same?
     
  5. beatsme macrumors 65816

    beatsme

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    #5
    I wouldn't take the formatted size as something that's etched in stone. It's usually just an estimate. You're close enough to the previous spec that it's not worth worrying about.
     
  6. idea_hamster thread starter macrumors 65816

    idea_hamster

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    NYC, or thereabouts
    #6
    D'oh^2!

    That makes sense. So then where'd my 6.6 GB go?!
     
  7. dr_lha macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2003
    #7
    PPC Macs don't have the full Universal version of the OS on them. Sure some apps will be Universal, but things like the the OS and bundled apps arn't. For example, on my 10.4.8 PPC G5 I'm writing this on right now, Mail.app is not Universal, despite having been updated to the latest version.

    On Intel Macs everything is Universal. My guess is that this will be true of PPC Macs when we upgrade them to Leopard.
     
  8. idea_hamster thread starter macrumors 65816

    idea_hamster

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    NYC, or thereabouts
    #8
    Fair enough, but I would have thought that it would work the other way around -- that PPC machines would have the full universal binary so that people could migrate to a new Intel Mac w/o re-loading software and Intel machines would skip the PPC part of the universal binary because there's "no" chance of them moving back to a PPC machine.

    That said, it's probably moot, since my 160GB HD is on the FedEx truck for delivery today... :D
     
  9. dr_lha macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2003
    #9
    Well in most cases, the version of Tiger installed on PPC machines predates the release of Intel Macs and therefore no has Universal Binaries. Also if you walk into a store right now and buy Tiger on DVD for $129, the DVD contains no Universal Binaries, only PPC code.
     

Share This Page