MacOS size is 1MB ?

Discussion in 'macOS' started by orgazmo, Aug 22, 2008.

  1. orgazmo macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    #1
    I am having a debate with my CEO and he is claiming that MacOS is 1MB vs Windows which is 1GB. He says it was in Apples financials.

    I pointed out that windows xp pro is 1.5GB installed and Leopard is 6.5GB installed and he said the financial papers were talking about "pure code" without all the "stuff"

    Can anyone shed some light on what he is talking about? Is he talking about the size of the kernel or what? I would ask him but he is not a technical guy.
     
  2. Quillz macrumors 65816

    Quillz

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #2
    If he's not a technical guy, then he's probably full of it and has no clue what he's talking about. I highly doubt that Mac OS, let alone Mac OS X, is just 1 MB. By his logic, Windows could also be 1 MB due to "pure code."
     
  3. smartalic34 macrumors 6502a

    smartalic34

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    USA
    #3
    he has no idea what he's talking about. ignore him if possible, or explain to hi that "stuff" is actually part of the OS and still code.

    talk about idiotic... your CEO, I mean
     
  4. ayeying macrumors 601

    ayeying

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Location:
    Yay Area, CA
    #4
    he's probably talking about the back end coding, and it is possible osx is smaller than windows. remember, osx does come with A LOT of items such as drivers, programs, etc. that aren't in the actual OS code. those programs and drivers are add-ons to the OS.

    Windows, doesn't have that much drivers and programs that come with the system, or if it does come with the system, it is very small.
     
  5. orgazmo thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    #5
    Its actually in the Apple Financial report, so would you say Apple as a company is idiotic? He's far from an idiot.
     
  6. gauchogolfer macrumors 603

    gauchogolfer

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Location:
    American Riviera
    #6
    Have you actually read the financial report yourself? Do you have a link to it we can take a look at?
     
  7. smartalic34 macrumors 6502a

    smartalic34

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    USA
    #7
    it's also pure common sense. how can all of Leopard's code fit in 1 MB? thats the size (about) of a floppy disk.

    even if the financial report does say 1 MB, he obviously doesnt have the technical acumen to even make an argument. unless he can explain his "stuff" argument, he's wrong, plain and simple.

    as a caveat to this, there may be a kernel or something, like you say, that is 1 MB. but to say the whole OS is 1 MB is a misspeak, at least...
     
  8. Muncher macrumors 65816

    Muncher

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Location:
    California
    #8
    Just to be clear, the kernel is NOT 1Mb. Not Windows, not OS X. A while ago Microsoft announced they were able to shrink the windows kernel to 20Mb, and they called it minwin. This is because they aggressively optimized it. OS X is built off BSD (which in turn is built off old UNIX code), and other components which it retains most or all compatibility with.

    Hopefully Snow Leopard will be much smaller and more streamlined. :apple:
     
  9. robbieduncan Moderator emeritus

    robbieduncan

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    London
    #9
    The OSX kernel has nothing to do with BSD. The OSX kernel is a message passing mach micro-kernel. The BSD layer is all in user-land above the kernel.
     
  10. savar macrumors 68000

    savar

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2003
    Location:
    District of Columbia
    #10
    Not a chance that it's 1MB. I can't imagine where heard that. I haven't read the annual report but I doubt they compared a 1MB Mac OS X to a 1GB Windows. There's no way that they could justify that.
     
  11. whooleytoo macrumors 603

    whooleytoo

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2002
    Location:
    Cork, Ireland.
    #11
    Once upon a long, long time ago MacOS did fit on a floppy disk - it had to since Macs didn't have any hard drives!

    But even then, much of the OS was stored in ROM.

    Now, the only way you can say OSX is 1MB is if you exclude pretty much everything which makes it OSX!
     
  12. robbieduncan Moderator emeritus

    robbieduncan

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    London
    #12
    Let's just end this thread now. The mach_kernel on it's own is bigger than 1Mb. And the kernel on it's own isn't enough to boot a system: you need at least boot loader and some user-land to make it work. Also note the mach_kernel relies on there being quite a lot of other non-kernel processes up and running to provide the same level of functionality as a more monolithic kernel would.

    As proof:

    Code:
    MacBook-Pro:/ robbie$ du -hs /mach_kernel
    9.8M	/mach_kernel
    
    The kernel file on my Macbook Pro is 9.8Mb
     
  13. cw2k7 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    #13
    XP is 40 million lines of code.
    Vista is over 50 million lines of code.

    Tiger was 86 million lines of code.
     
  14. Muncher macrumors 65816

    Muncher

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Location:
    California
    #14
    My bad. :eek:
     
  15. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #15
    I think you should just start making Dilbert references around your boss and see what happens...

    [​IMG]
     
  16. revenuee macrumors 68020

    revenuee

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Location:
    A place where i am supreme emporer
    #16
    care to link that report?

    or at least tell me the page -- I don't feel like flipping through the 180 page myself

    was it the 10-k? the 10-q?, the annual report?, the Auditors statement?
     
  17. jbstew32 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    #17

    although, number of lines of code do not translate to efficiency and may not have any correlation with the size of the end product. It all depends on how it was coded and how it was compiled.

    one algorithm may have as many lines as another, yet be many times more efficient.

    haha though in this case, that might be wishful thinking. I just don't like giving Windows the benefit of any doubt :)
     

Share This Page