Mac 10.5.6 update 377mb and 190mb question

Discussion in 'macOS' started by Artmuzz, Dec 17, 2008.

  1. Artmuzz macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    #1
    Hi,

    I see on the forum that some people are reporting 377mb as the size of Mac OSX 10.5.6 update on software update while others are reporting 190mb.

    My question is why are some reporting 377mb while others are only reporting 190mb as the size of 10.5.6 update on software update?

    Please advise


    Artmuzz
     
  2. xUKHCx Administrator emeritus

    xUKHCx

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Location:
    The Kop
    #2
    It all depends on the hardware.

    Some computers have different hardware such as graphics card, the new trackpad etc. When an update is released some of these drivers and supporting software may get updated. Software update looks at your machine and determines which update is required based on the hardware. It is a measure of saving bandwidth with giving out the updates and harddrive space as there is no need for you to have the extra updates if your machine doesn't need them.
     
  3. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #3
    At a guess it's probably the difference between people that went to 10.5.5 going to 10.5.6, and those that have and earlier version going to 10.5.6...maybe.

    ^ or what he said!

    Update - 10.5.5 required - 372MB
    Combo Update - 10.5 required - 668MB
     
  4. Artmuzz thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    #4

    I don't think so because it was Software Update I was using and there is no combo update on software update. The thing that confused me is that Mac OSX 10.5.6 update is only 190MB while when other mac users use Software Update they are told that Mac OSX update is 377MB.


    Artmuzz
     
  5. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #5
    ^ well then, the only other plausible answer is that it's a conspiracy!
     
  6. Artmuzz thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    #6
    With it being Apple and Steve Jobs it probably is!:p
     

Share This Page