It's not that space is expensive but geez, we are talking about a system here, not any i-media-pro-sound-video app...
My iBook (1.33 GHZ) has a HD of 30 GB... take out 9...
Of course, I got a few external HDs but still...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Leopard Under The Hood And Requirements Analysis
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's not that space is expensive but geez, we are talking about a system here, not any i-media-pro-sound-video app...
My iBook (1.33 GHZ) has a HD of 30 GB... take out 9...
Of course, I got a few external HDs but still...
64 bit is the answer
This article has a little info on 64bit computing: http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2007/10/16/64-bit_more_than_just_the_ram/5
It may give a little insight on why full 64bit programs (which I believe all the leopard programs are) would be bigger. Basically, low level processor instructions and data blocks are twice as large. This doesn't necessarily make the programs larger, but it can.
Sorry, but this is the price of progress.
This article has a little info on 64bit computing: http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2007/10/16/64-bit_more_than_just_the_ram/5
It may give a little insight on why full 64bit programs (which I believe all the leopard programs are) would be bigger. Basically, low level processor instructions and data blocks are twice as large. This doesn't necessarily make the programs larger, but it can.
Sorry, but this is the price of progress.
You have to look at it like this. We are moving forward in computing. You cant stay the same forever. How does 1 expect faster better performance, more features, and all that at a reduced cost of HDD space? You cant perform miracles.
Would you be happy with 16MB of Ram? No? But you had it 10 years ago.... You have to expand is what im trying to say here.
In Retrospect, 9GB may seem alot compared to Tiger. But When you look at it with todays eyes, 9GB is not alot of HDD space whatsoever.
The technical reason has got to be 64 bit code is larger than 32 bit code. And didnt apple say that Leopard will be 64 bit around the board for CPU's that can support it? Im sure thats the reason. XP 64 Bit was larger than XP 32 Bit. Even more so for Vista.
Language localization is one thing I will be removing, printer drivers (except GIMP), TimeMachine (if the option is given). That should save me plenty of space. I am on the fence with the DevTools. I only use 1.6-2.1 Gigs to install Tiger at present so I am hoping the 10.5 install come in around 6 Gigs.
Or you can use your iPhone if you have one! I hacked frontrow on my 1G G5 and use my iPhone to control it.
You, freaky Geek!
I completely agree! I don't see how a 32 bit intel can out pace a 64 bit loaded G5 tower!?
I hope this little chart isn't the whole truth.
SSE3. Altivec either can't do the instant-image motion comparisions, or APple can't be bothered.
SSE3, (or SSSE3) have some instructions specifically targeting this type of thing for video encoding. Background detection is a similar problem.
It's not that space is expensive but geez, we are talking about a system here, not any i-media-pro-sound-video app...
My iBook (1.33 GHZ) has a HD of 30 GB... take out 9...
Of course, I got a few external HDs but still...
Well look at it this way. maybe you should stay on Tiger then. Or get a new computer.
Unfortunately, that isn't the case. Core Duo is 32-bit. I think it was a mistake of Apple to allow x86 in their OS. It should have been AMD64 only from the very beginning. 64-bit mode has twice as many registers as x86, while PowerPC has twice as many as AMD64. Going to 32-bit x86 was a huge shock.
Or you can use your iPhone if you have one! I hacked frontrow on my 1G G5 and use my iPhone to control it.
I have a a G5 iMac and an iPhone. Can you tell me how it's done?
You might be able to lipo the OS or something like that. I think it is larger because it can boot and run PPC or x86. I don't know if x86 10.4 did that as well, but it will definitely be new to PPC users.
If you believe in magic...Apple can't invent instructions that don't exist.
By which I mean, if SSE3/SSSE3 has an instruction that is not directly matched in Altivec, then Accelerate Framework is basically useless. Oh sure, maybe they could emulate it in software, but if it was that simple, you wouldn't need Altivec or SSE3 in the first place.
Leopard is 3 times the size of Tiger.
9GB is over 10% of my MacBooks drive, a machine that is 1 year old. I'm not asking for it to fit on the 20MB HDD that was in my SE, but yes, tripling the size of the OS alone bugs me.
Tiger is 64bit on G5's. Installing it on G5's did not produce 3GB install compared to a 1GB on a 32bit Intel. The OS got 3 times larger, that it supports 64bit operations on 2 processors does not come close to explaining it.
No the DVD Player will work - just not the advanced de-interlacing.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/300.html#dvdplayer
Video Quality Improvements
Enjoy even higher-quality video with Adaptive Video Analyzation technology that applies deinterlacing and inverse 3:2 pulldown on demand.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/techspecs/
DVD Player requires a 1.6GHz processor or faster for improved de-interlacing.
Well, lucky me, I got two more that I can update
I guess this will be a chance to see how Leopard and Tiger can work together, on the same network!
The Core Duo doesn't support 64-bit, so my MacBook wouldn't run Intel 64-bit binaries.
you can save HD space on your Macbook by not installing things like various localizations and Garage Band sample loops. etc..
That in itself will save 2 gigs.
and Tiger is not 64-bit.
Errr... my Macbook here is running a 2.0 GHz Core Duo. This thing is 32 bit... It would make sense though to skip the parts of the OS that are PPC when installing on an intel machine and vice versa. Or maybe it isn't to make it cross compatible, i.e. backup your intel machine, destroy your intel machine, restire the system on a PPC machine. Makes sense.
And 9 GB is not that much, Tiger is pretty close to that actually. Either way, did you miss that macrumors story of 1TB laptop drives in a few years? There are already 250GB 5400rpm drives on the market so... yea
AutoFS/separate threads is probably the best thing to happen for networking on Macs since the integration of SMB mounting!!!
OK I know we can assume around 2GB of disk cache and x for safe sleep, where X is the amount of RAM you have. That would typically leave at least 5GB of used space. What in the name of all that is good and holy is Apple using 5GB of space for? Drivers? Maybe...if they have every driver known to man since the dawn of time. Possibly some of the more potent indexing that is being done with Time Machine and Spotlight. But even then...Gah. That being said I have a 160GB hard drive. So while I can run it without any problems....the amount is still high nonetheless.
Yah this is easily the single biggest thing that interests me in Leopard. The concept of no more BBoD when I wake from sleep and it can't find the share makes me all tingly in the pants. OK maybe not but the idea of me not wanting to throw my MBP across the room in frustration is a happy thought. Tiger and I have not gotten along very well. :\
Yah this is easily the single biggest thing that interests me in Leopard. The concept of no more BBoD when I wake from sleep and it can't find the share makes me all tingly in the pants.
OK maybe not but the idea of me not wanting to throw my MBP across the room in frustration is a happy thought. Tiger and I have not gotten along very well. :\No Photo Booth backdrops for me? No DVD Player? No Front Row? Ouch!
I can't believe I will not even be able to use DVD Player. That's a bit much, isn't it? Not a big deal since there are other apps I can use, but still.
With those small complaints aside, I still can't wait for Leopard.
I can't believe I will not even be able to use DVD Player. That's a bit much, isn't it? Not a big deal since there are other apps I can use, but still.
With those small complaints aside, I still can't wait for Leopard.
