+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Tips and Deals (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: How much PPC code was in Tiger... (/showthread.php?tid=84886)
How much PPC code was in Tiger... - RAMd®d - 09-23-2009
...based on Snow's footprint?
It's a lot smaller than Tiger, but I think a big part of that is the lack of installing by default of Additional Languages, Additional Fonts, and Printer drivers. I never installed those, ever.
Combined that with Apple's New Math, I'm wondering how much room really was saved by weeding out PPC code.
Re: How much PPC code was in Tiger... - Jimmypoo - 09-23-2009
>>>How much PPC code was in Tiger...
All of it?
Re: How much PPC code was in Tiger... - GGD - 09-23-2009
RAMd®d wrote:
...based on Snow's footprint?
It's a lot smaller than Tiger, but I think a big part of that is the lack of installing by default of Additional Languages, Additional Fonts, and Printer drivers. I never installed those, ever.
Combined that with Apple's New Math, I'm wondering how much room really was saved by weeding out PPC code.
I saw an article where someone from Apple pointed out that although they removed the PPC code, then then added the 64 bit Intel code (in addition to the 32 bit Intel that still remains), and that a lot of the footprint savings was from using compression on a lot of framework packages.
Re: How much PPC code was in Tiger... - mattkime - 09-23-2009
its not that much. the decision was much more of a political or marketing one rather than technology.
Re: How much PPC code was in Tiger... - Doc - 09-23-2009
GGD wrote:
I saw an article where someone from Apple pointed out that although they removed the PPC code, then then added the 64 bit Intel code (in addition to the 32 bit Intel that still remains), and that a lot of the footprint savings was from using compression on a lot of framework packages.
Yeah. The compression doesn't get a lot of attention, but it's an interesting feature.
According to Ars, 97% of the system's executables are compressed.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/3#
I think that it's especially notable that after years of downplaying the use of resource forks, Apple has added yet another feature that relies upon them.
Re: How much PPC code was in Tiger... - silvarios - 09-23-2009
Essential System Software Tiger
2.5GB
Essential System Software Leopard
5.9GB
Essential System Software Snow Leopard
8GB
Where's the savings?
Nathan
Re: How much PPC code was in Tiger... - silvarios - 09-24-2009
RAMd®d wrote:
It's a lot smaller than Tiger, but I think a big part of that is the lack of installing by default of Additional Languages, Additional Fonts, and Printer drivers. I never installed those, ever.
My previous comment was directed to this assertion. Again, my own pre Snow Leopard OS X installs took less space than Snow Leopard. I only install Essential System Software (and sometimes X11 to be fair) and Snow Leopard has continued the trend to increasingly large hard drive footprint.
Nathan