Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'macOS' started by zblaxberg, Oct 18, 2007.
Why does leopard take 9gigs if I think I read somewhere that tiger only takes 3?
Just don't install all of the extra language support and you can reduce it by a good few gigs.
Oh so that's why it takes 9 gigs?
That's a good question. All I can imagine is that it takes some massive code programing to get all the 64 bit support.
It is a huge size increase and it's nearing XP which I think takes about 15 gigs.
Tiger retail was PPC only. Leopard retail is Universal 32/64-bit, plus it includes additional features, drivers, media files, and localizations.
In any case, if you do a custom install and de-select all the languages and printer drivers you don't need, you can reduce Leopard's footprint by about 3GB.
Pawprint, very good ...
I always do a custom install and leave out everything I don't want or need.
Not true, you're talking about Vista there. XP only takes a couple of gigs, so Leopard surpassed that. But I really don't understand people whining about it - drives are getting bigger and so is software. When games get released on DVDs instead of CDs nobody seems to complain.
Vista was about 10 gig install if i remember correctly. Yes bloated but i guess it would have it be. I wonder if there will be an option for PPC and Intel installs? What does everyone think? I doubt it though.
don't all the vetor graphics take much space??
notta.......the installer is smart enough to know which platform you have & installs only the appropriate code sets
As for the space needed, YES you can significantly reduce it by only installing the language packs/localizations & printer drivers that you actually will use!
I usually do custom install and uncheck everything.
if you install xcode or x11 it takes even more. with 500gb+ drives these days it doesnt mean too much, just a longer install time
exactly!... this is what i thought
haha pawprint.... good one!
Remember that you can use XSlimmer to save a few GBs from the get-go