We didnt actually gain as much space as we thought with 10.6

Apple kind of pulled a fast one on us and now uses base 10 to measure drive and disk sizes and not the base 10 system as all us old timers are used to.

essentially in the base 2 system 1KB=1024B 1MB=1024KB ( computers are binary and thereforre MOST devices use this system and most OS's use this numbering system)

in base 10 1KB=1000 bits or the way hard disk Mfg's have been labeling drives

so on my 15" unit I have gained just over 130MB in base 10 and NOT a few gigabytes after conversions



http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2419

http://www.popularmechanics.com/how_to_central/technology/4206535.html

this is just a quick read on the 2 systems from PM

 

I am disappointed with the SL file transfer is still snail pace, encoding video is still really really snail pace

I was hoping they would fix this since they claimed Mac OS is good for Multimedia.

This is not a flame fest so please dont flame me for being disappointed in these 2 areas.

 

I second the file transfer and video encoding speed being very disapointing as I have a multimedia company up for a hardware refresh end of the month and they wanted 2 laptops for test configurations

 

OK,maybe I'm stupid. My 320 GB hard drive is still showing the same overall capacity. Wouldn't it be showing more than that now if you are correct?

 

It should be, my 500 was at 470 and now shows 500 but im starting to not trust it as some of my file sizes really dont match up, I have a 3GB file on my 10.6 and its only 2.23 on an NTFS drive. and YES the file is accessable from both locations

 

You are not the only one to be disappointed. When I first installed SL I thought I gained about 10gb. Awesome I thought. Then I had to manually install things I needed that SL does not install by default that Leopard did. Then I realized I saved NO space because the rest of the difference was due to the difference in disk space calculation.

For me the promise of SL was better, smaller, faster. For me it delivered on NONE of these. There is nothing seriously wrong with it but its not what I wanted.

 

Pretty much every application is noticeably faster on my machine, so I don't know what the lack of speed complaints are based on.

As for the disk space, since I have tons of HDDs around, an extra 5 or 10 gigs mean nothing to me. Howeverr, it is disappointing that Apple chose to mislead the public if your post is correct.

 

Even if they didn't save me any HD space, I'm happy with the improvements. Actually it is kind of impressive that they could update 90% of the system and still use about the same amount of space.

 

dont think im too far off as apple has it in their information and many others have found it as well, for me id say 1/2 my apps are the same speed, and 1/3 are slower a fraction seem faster. WPA2 TKEP connections seem to be slower but I have only tried this on 1 machine sofar

 

Here is the official doc outlining how SL calculates space:
http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2419

There are so many sites reporting on this "change". Has anyone compares the drive spaces with the same calculation criteria for L and SL? Not that I care how much I'll be saving when I upgrade, but I just wanted to see if there is any difference or not...

 

after you install the extra bits that L had preloaded there is NO apparent difference in size once you factor the base 2 / 10 conversion

and if you lok WAY up I posted that link in the first post

 

Sorry, I missed that....

I am just reading accusations from users on other forums/sites that Apple misled them in terms of HD space savings with SL upgrade.

 

I get the impression there has been some deliberate slight of hand on Apples part.

a) SL "appears" smaller, but in reality there is no significant difference when you manually install the thing Leopard added by default and SL leaves out + the disk space recalculation.
b) Boot time "appears" faster. But more time is spent on the blue apple screen and less is spent on the visible boot part with the overall being the same.
c) Some operations "appear" significantly faster, but when I run Xbench SL is actually slower than Leopard.

Maybe I'm the only one its true for and its all a big coincidence.

 

I still consider SL is a service pack for leopard.

 

OK, here is a quote from Apple's website.

I Don't really think Apple would claim to "Free up" space unless they actually did it. Many people are reporting that they gained more than 7GB after install. I would say they shrunk the size by 7GB and the rest that people are seeing is the file measurement difference.

 

Don't base speed measurements on benchmarks like Xbench, which is still not even optimized for SL.

I don't know about reboot times since I rarely ever shutdown. All of the built-on 64-bit apps are faster, and once other third-party apps are reprogrammed, the difference from Leopard should be huge.

 

OK, I consider the claim in this thread officially debunked. Ars Technica's article clearly states.

 

OK, Jervis beat me by 2 minutes but I'll leave my thoughts here anyway.... This whole argument smacks of people not paying attention to the details, like when most of the public can't figure out why a 500GB drive only shows up as 465 in Windows and complain about missing space.

It's pretty well documented, if you look around, that the 7GB savings in Snow is a combination of the leaner OS install block as well as the more limited printer driver installation, and provided that you use the default install options. By comparison, Leopard installed *every* printer driver imaginable onto the HDD, while the default Snow install only does those printers that you already have plus (if you enable it) those which are felt to be "common." If you choose to have Snow play Leopard and install *every* driver, then the space savings is ~2GB.

 

Well, the lesson here is not to take forum posts too seriously unless they get verified from other sources.

I find it baffling that Apple would fiddle with the truth and invent hard drive space savings if it didn't actually accomplish the feat.

All other reviews indicate that Apple's claims are correct as well.

 

All companies "fiddle" with the truth, including Microsoft. Thanks to the power of the English language, we can distort people's perception with "fuzzy" words like "up to" and "almost."

 

Posted this in the other big thread. I also deleted a bunch of languages and printer drivers before snow leopard. I still saved space. I think changing how the read it, is for the better, because the HD industry will never change, and now people will feel like they get what they pay for (at least those that don't know what's really going on) Now windows just needs to change. If you really want to know how much space you saved just look at the bytes.
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=412967&page=7

 

I dont get what some people are complaining about...

What does Leopard install that Snow Leopard doesn't by default.. there are claims about these mysterious programs, but I cannot find any except Rosetta, which is only a few mb.... what else am I missing?

Snow Leopard is better, smaller, and faster on my machine.

Nothing I do is slower, its all the same speed at worst, and many things are faster.

It is definitely taking up less space. Converting back to base 2 I still have about 6 or 7gb more space.

Its an awesome update overall, everything is working fantastic on the 5 machines I installed it on.... all were upgrades, not full installs... maybe I'm just super lucky?

 

No, my 3 machines are working quite nicely as well. I'm not making any accusations but it seems a bit fishy that all these false claims are coming out at launch. I'm sure that Windows 7 will have a bunch of false claims as well. The best thing everyone can do is not take a post at face value and actually investigate it.

 

Hear, Hear !!

 

I've got close to 9GB of extra free space on my boot drive, which quite honestly is nothing to me. My boot drive had all the space it will need for the next 6-8 years. My other drives are the ones that needed room

Either way, I noticed my free space is up, and not down.

Am I completely happy with Snow Leopard? No. (Still waiting for third party updates so I can use a few things again, and a few things caused some very annoying bugs!)