Recommended Posts

By the way, to all of us, fellow Canadians, it seems Purolator has either lost or stolen a couple of our shipments of Snow Leopard.

Oh where oh where is my copy of Snow Leopard? Oh where oh where can it be? Still in the hands of Canada Post I suspect. Damn You Apple!
Canada Post taking forever to deliver Snow Leopard -- it's 8 days now :(
Apple has shipped me my copy of Snow Leopard back on Aug 28, but I'm still without one. Snail Mail (i.e. Canada Post) hires thieves or dumb?
Oh yeah. Canada Post, where is my copy of Snow Leopard? WTF?

And so on. This sucks.

Sources :

Twitter's Search

MacRumors's Forums

I dont think it's purolator thats losing the packages. I think Canada Post is. I dont know if the 2 company are the same or not. lol.

I pre-ordered mine, paid the 35 dollars for the leopard -> snow leopard upgrade and received it by the launch date from purolator. I was issued a tracking number and everything. However, 2 of my friends that I know upgraded it through the up to date program or whatever it was called for people who are eligible for the 13 dollar upgrade (10+3 shipping) But they weren't issued a tracking number when their order was shipped. They still haven't gotten their copy of Snow Leopard. I think it's only affecting the people who are doing the 10 dollar upgrade. Why Apple used Canada Post and charged 3 dollars for shipping is beyond me. lol I paid 35 dollars and got free shipping with purolator. hehe

There is really no reason to be running the kernel in 64bit mode your APPS can STILL run in 64bit either way

Well...I thought I was running in 64-bit mode all along with SL but last night realized that it was only booting in 32-bit kernel. So, 32-bit and FF crashes, but not a big deal for me. I figure they will update it soon enough or at least my extensions.:):) So far, I have learned in the past 24 hours that my machine while it has a 64-bit EFI and Core 2 Duo, Apple restricts the 64-bit to other newer systems (Mine is Mid-2007 iMac 7.1) for now that is....

I'm getting a Mac soon. Any thoughts on the whole FTFF (Fix The .... Finder) problems of last versions? I was able to get Finder to beachball more than a few times at the Apple Store demos.

It felt snappier though when it worked :). I always found the Finder interface was minimalistic (which isn't bad) but doesn't have enough kick to it. I dunno it could be a bit more PathFinder like without all the extra 1 billion options.

I will say this though: the PDF previews and Image previews, the Preview App, and Finder with thumbnail browsing is so amazingly faster IMO - makes it worth the upgrade.

With the problems I'm reading on a couple of forums I just cancelled my order via the Apple store. I'm just not convinced it's up to scratch yet. I'll wait until the first patch is released then make the transition.

That would be a good idea. I really think there's nothing wrong with waiting.

I've been using Exchange support in Mail, and it crashes at least once a day when I am writing an e-mail that's being auto-saved in Gmail, it seems. The service for Exchange is good and as expected; nothing to call home about. I freed up 24GB after installation (which took 58min).

It's not that much snappier, to be honest, for me. iTunes is maybe a few seconds faster, if that.

I don't recall anymore FF or Safari crashing, but that's because I keep getting frustrated by Mail crashes more often than not.

I also made sure to go upgrade my Adobe Flash.

Another thing that I think Apple should really handle, just as a personal gift to ME, is to stop letting blank windows open when I download PDF or other random file. I'm getting sick of logging in and downloading homework from the school website and Safari leaving these blank windows all over the place. It's a pet peeve of mine that pushed me to FF. The download window should also have an option to "close" after the download completes instead of just sitting there blank, if you've opted the items to disappear when they finish. OK, now I'm ranting. But yes, bide your time!

How are people coming up with these outrageous claims of how much space you got back?

24GB? really? based on what?

Based on the Base 10 standard for calculating storage size. It's the combination of Snow Leopard's slimming + getting "extra" storage.

I'm not sure why people are having Snow Leopard headaches. I've upgraded three machines and all of them are working flawlessly. All of them are using the new Exchange support and are much snappier and just happier in general.

How are people coming up with these outrageous claims of how much space you got back?

24GB? really? based on what?

They're probably forgetting that Snow Leopard uses base 10, which would artificially seem to add more space than what you really gain back.

Based on the Base 10 standard for calculating storage size. It's the combination of Snow Leopard's slimming + getting "extra" storage.

I'm not sure why people are having Snow Leopard headaches. I've upgraded three machines and all of them are working flawlessly. All of them are using the new Exchange support and are much snappier and just happier in general.

Base 10 also makes the used data size larger not just the free space so that is moot, in order to get back 24gb you would be sliming OS X's install footprint far beyond its total initial clean state, meaning your new found freespace came from nowhere?

what one would need to do is get the total bytes of the drive,the total used bytes before upgrade and the total free bytes before upgrade and the total used and free bytes after upgrade.

I just do not see where 24GB can come from, i have even seen people on Apple's support forum stating 40+GB, even with the file compression (which i'm not even sure is used on the application/utilities folder)I just do not get it, something isn't right here

Base 10 also makes the used data size larger not just the free space so that is moot, in order to get back 24gb you would be sliming OS X's install footprint far beyond its total initial clean state, meaning your new found freespace came from nowhere?

Consider a 500 GB iMac with 400 GB used on Mac OS X 10.5. The finder will display things as:

  • Total Size: 500*10^9 / 2^30 = 465.6 gigabytes total space.
  • Used Space: 400* 2^30 bytes = 400.0 gigabytes used.
  • Free Space: 465.6 - 400.0 = 65.0 gigabytes free.

Those are the numbers readily apparent and the ones that most people are going to be going from unless they're very careful.

If they update to Mac OS X 10.6 and it removes 7GB (7*10^30 bytes) of cruft—as the Ars Technica review claims—and then they look at numbers in Finder and see:

  • Total size: 500 * 10^9 bytes / 10^9 = 500.0 gigabytes total space
  • Used Space after upgrade: ((400*2^30) - (7*2^30)) / 10^9 422.0 gigabytes used
  • Free Space: 500-422.0 = 78 gigabytes free

People tend to think of their drives in terms of "how much free space do you have" as opposed to "how much space have you used." so it's reasonable expect them they'll compare before and after free space when trying to decide how much less space 10.6 uses rather than how much on-disk space it eats up. The show-item-info option tends to encourage this behaviour as it show "xxx capacity, yyy free" and get info makes available and capacity easy to see, but the used space is displayed as "130 gigabytes, (139,xxx,xxx,xxx bytes)" so the 'bigger' used number after install isn't as jarring as free space.

In the above example of a 500gb drive with 400gb used, if somebody was to compare before and after free-space (even taking in to account the growing size for 'amount used') they'll see a difference of 13 gigabytes. The difference will become even more pronounced on less full disks. Somebody with 100gb of data on a 1TB drive would be able to see a total before-and-after difference of about 60gb if they used 'free space' as their comparison.

  • 1 TB drive capacity: 10^12 bytes = 931 gigabytes - 100 GB used (100*2^30 bytes) = 831 gigabytes free as displayed in 10.5.
  • 10^12 = 1,000 Gigabytes - 100*2^30 bytes used = 107 gigabytes used = 893 gigabytes free as displayed in 10.6
  • Not the above calculation doesn't take into account the ~7*2^30 bytes apple claims you really save. A user in this situation will see the 'gigabytes used' display (but not bytes used) remain more-or-less static after installing 10.6. The apparent size of their drive will increase about 60gb. Free space will appear to increase by approximately the same 60gb + anything removed in the upgrade process (another 7gb or so).

People making these claims without significant evidence are almost certainly just misreading the display of free/used/capacity. It's easy to understand how they're getting confused: the only way to avoid it would be to count bytes. Not even huge nerds do that sort of thing unless they're having a discussion like this.

I understand how they can say they now have 24 or 40 GB free, but i think are not comparing the before and after simply stating their total free space now.

Qoogirl said they freed up 24GB, to me that statement says 24GB evaporated, I want to know the used bytes before and after upgrade.

I lost over 3GB, meaning installing SL increased my "used bytes" with the options i chose, i'm trying to understand why that is, what about my process was different from apparently almost everyone.

I have even redone the upgrade on my pre-10.6 backup and it comes out the same, and using xslimmer or other tools won't net me any more than few hundred mb back

I understand how they can say they now have 24 or 40 GB free, but i think are not comparing the before and after simply stating their total free space now.

Qoogirl said they freed up 24GB, to me that statement says 24GB evaporated, I want to know the used bytes before and after upgrade.

I lost over 3GB, meaning installing S[increasedu>[/i]i> my "used bytes" with the options i chose, i'm trying to understand why that is, what about my process was different from apparently almost everyone.

I have even redone the upgrade on my pre-10.6 backup and it comes out the same, and using xslimmer or other tools won't net me any more than few hundred mb back

Maybe you used XSlimmer with Leopard, and Snow Leopard reinstalled everything?

But still, I wouldn't understand... as apps in SL don't include PPC code and are slimmed a lot compared to Leopard's.

I understand how they can say they now have 24 or 40 GB free, but i think are not comparing the before and after simply stating their total free space now.

That's exactly what I'm arguing.

I lost over 3GB, meaning installing SL increased my "used bytes" with the options i chose, i'm trying to understand why that is, what about my process was different from apparently almost everyone.

If you have a backup of your original drive before upgrade please post hashes for the files. If I tried, I could probably find a way to make this happen, but I don't really have the time to go chasing phantoms. A much more direct approach would be to compare file data.

I have even redone the upgrade on my pre-10.6 backup and it comes out the same, and using xslimmer or other tools won't net me any more than few hundred mb back

Given that you're (to the best of my knowledge) the only person making this claim, you should post some more information. We can't go look up other people's situations to give you a solution. If I were in your position I'd start by looking in any folder that any that increased in size and then generating a list of file names and md5 hashes. You can either write your own perl/python/ruby script or use something like md5deep. We'll need both 'before' and 'after' data.

With that, we can compare it to standard 10.5.8(?) and 10.6.0 installations and spot differences.

Generating that many hashes is a "go to bed and come back later" task: it will take a long time.

Well damn, i guess i'm not that interested in finding the cause lol

anyway my biggest gripe is when i see these people stating they got 40 50gb reduced, i'm like no way

I guess i could do that, maybe i'm looking at the wrong part of the page but md5deep is windows binary? i've never successfully compiled a mac app to date so the source doesn't do me much good. with bootcamp 3.0 guess i could run it from there now with the HFS+ drivers

How are people coming up with these outrageous claims of how much space you got back?

24GB? really? based on what?

Is it outrageous? I was using 136GB apparently before Snow Leopard. After install, I apparently was using only 112GB. I did basic math there...maybe there's a different way to quantify it, but I just did basic X - Y. ???

Consider a 500 GB iMac with 400 GB used on Mac OS X 10.5. The finder will display things as:

  • Total Size: 500*10^9 / 2^30 465.6 gigabytes total spaceb>.
  • Used Space: 400* 2^30 bytes 400.0 gigabytes usedb>.
  • Free Space: 465.6 - 400.0 65.0 gigabytes freeb>.

Those are the numbers readily apparent and the ones that most people are going to be going from unless they're very careful.

If they update to Mac OS X 10.6 and it removes 7GB (7*10^30 bytes) of cruft?as the Ars Technica review claims?and then they look at numbers in Finder and see:

  • Total size: 500 * 10^9 bytes / 1500.0 gigabytes total spacece
  • Used Space after upgrade: ((400*2^30) - (7*2^30)) /422.0 gigabytes useded
  • Free Space: 500-4278 gigabytes freeee

People tend to think of their drives in terms of "how much free space do you have" as opposed to "how much space have you used." so it's reasonable expect them they'll compare before and after free space when trying to decide how much less space 10.6 uses rather than how much on-disk space it eats up. The show-item-info option tends to encourage this behaviour as it show "xxx capacity, yyy free" and get info makes available and capacity easy to see, but the used space is displayed as "130 gigabytes, (139,xxx,xxx,xxx bytes)" so the 'bigger' used number after install isn't as jarring as free space.

In the above example of a 500gb drive with 400gb used, if somebody was to compare before and after free-space (even taking in to account the growing size for 'amount used') they'll see a difference of 13 gigabytes. The difference will become even more pronounced on less full disks. Somebody with 100gb of data on a 1TB drive would be able to see a total before-and-after difference of about 60gb if they used 'free space' as their comparison.

  • 1 TB drive capacity: 10^12 by931 gigabyteses<100 GB useded (100*2^30 byt831 gigabytes freeee as displayed in 10.5.
  • 101,000 Gigabyteses - 100*2^30 bytes u107 gigabytes useded<893 gigabytes freeee as displayed in 10.6
  • Not the above calculation doesn't take into account the ~7*2^30 bytes apple claimreallyly save. A user in this situation will see the 'gigabytes used' display (but not bytes used) remain more-or-less static after installing 10.6. The apparent size of their drive will increase about 60gb. Free space will appear to increase by approximately the same 60gb + anything removed in the upgrade process (another 7gb or so).

People making these claims without significant evidence are almost certainly just misreading the display of free/used/capacity. It's easy to understand how they're getting confused: the only way to avoid it would be to count bytes. Not even huge nerds do that sort of thing unless they're having a discussion like this.

Ah...I see. Thx for this post.

  • 1 month later...
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Last week I was investigating an issue with contacts and tried using the new Outlook. In the real (Classic) Outlook, you can easily go to any Outlook folder and present it in a Table View, then customize the columns to show/sort any field, which was exactly what I needed. But of course, the new Outlook doesn't have this feature at all. I gave up. Oh, and can we possibly stop claiming the new Outlook has PST support? What it really has is the ability to use the real Outlook in the background to pretend to have PST support. There is no PST support without the real Outlook installed.
    • Honestly just before Panos left it started to feel like MS just wasnt interested in them so they were being less innovative with them, and then when he DID leave for Amazon its kind of clear the direction is gone. It felt like Panos had both goals and drive, and a vision, but it felt like no matter what his title/department was the Surface devices never had the full interest of the rest of management and he was just pushing a bolder up a hill that MS was adding dirt to as he went.
    • A roguelike and a 4X strategy game are free to claim on the Epic Games Store by Pulasthi Ariyasinghe The final leg of the Epic Games Store's mystery giveaways promotion just landed, and it brought along two more games to keep. Last week's Lonestar and Calico giveaways have now been replaced with copies of Rogue Waters and Songs of Conquest to claim for PC gamers. As always, the game is yours to add permanently to your Epic Games Store library within the next seven days. Diving into the games, Songs of Conquest is developed by Lavapotion. This is a turn-based 4X strategy experience that has players making tough decisions and participating in tactical combat while also managing their kingdom. "Songs of Conquest is a turn-based strategy game inspired by 90s classics. Lead powerful magicians called Wielders and venture to lands unknown," explains the developer. "Wage battles against armies that dare oppose you, hunt for powerful artifacts and expand your territory. The world is ripe for the taking – seize it." Meanwhile, Rogue Waters comes from developer Ice Code Games. This rogue-lite experience has you taking the role of Captain Cutter as he commands his ship and crew through procedurally generated encounters. You'll be recruiting and training crew, use sea creatures, and battle with other ships and pirates. "Set sail as Captain Cutter, a pirate caught in a deadly struggle for power and vengeance," adds the developer. "Navigate dangerous waters, unleash mythical sea creatures, and outwit enemies as you chase legendary treasure and confront dark secrets." The newly available Rogue Waters and Songs of Conquest giveaways on the Epic Games Store are set to run until June 11, giving PC gamers seven days to claim the latest offer. Once this closes out, a new freebie will take its place on the same day, which is slated to be Warhammer 40K Speed Freeks. Don't forget that mobile gamers can check out the Epic Game Store's weekly giveaways on Android and iOS to grab a freebie there as well.
    • Still using Classic Outlook? Microsoft highlights 15 reasons to switch to New Outlook by Usama Jawad As many of you may know, Microsoft has been trying to get customers to ditch Classic Outlook in favor of New Outlook for quite some time now. To that end, it has added numerous capabilities to the latter, including PST features, and it is working on several more, such as a unified inbox. However, customer response has been a bit lukewarm so far, with many considering the New Outlook to be "hot garbage". Now, Microsoft has highlighted 15 features that users can leverage in New Outlook in yet another attempt to get customers to migrate. Although not all of the 15 capabilities are exclusive to New Outlook, in fact, most of them are available in Classic Outlook as well. But Microsoft hopes that this combination of familiar and fresh features will be able to attract existing users as well as new ones. For ease of readability, we have summarized the 15 features below: Pin an email: This makes it easier to track important emails Snooze an email: You can temporarily snooze an email thread for a specific time frame until it becomes relevant again. This can be very useful in scenarios where you don't feel like actively following a thread or simply want to follow up on a later date Add multiple categories at the same time: You can assign multiple categories to an email through a single, simplified interface Sweep: As the name implies, you can define automated move processes on your inbox to declutter it, rather than cleaning it up manually Schedule send: Does exactly what it says on the tin, and can be useful when accommodating recipients in different timezones Simplified folder sharing: The sharing process has been simplified so permissions are automatically applied on parent folders Follow a meeting: This is an RSVP option that lets people know that you won't be able to join the meeting but would still like to access a recap Save calendar views: You can save different views for the calendar based on different workflows Improved meeting tracking: Organizers have more controls in viewing meeting responses, such as the ability to sort and download them. Typically useful when there is a large audience Meeting recap: The Outlook Calendar surfaces a meeting recap with recordings, transcripts, and shared files Filtered views: Allows you to declutter your Calendar so that it's easier to scan and schedule Change a recurring event: Users can modify future events of a series of meetings while preserving the configuration of previous ones Rename your email account: This labeling makes it easier to identify multiple accounts in Outlook Modern themes: Exactly what the name says, plus Dark Mode Keyboard shortcuts: This facilitates flexible user behavior as customers can choose between Outlook for Windows shortcuts, Outlook for the web, or turn them off completely There you have it. It's a decent list, but it remains to be seen if it will move the needle in a meaningful way for users who are attached to Classic Outlook. Again, a lot of the aforementioned features are already available in Outlook Classic, but for some, native functionality is not present, and people typically resort to workarounds. Microsoft will be hoping that it's primarily those capabilities that get people to finally switch.
    • Please I need help I been trying to find this secure boot on my ColorFul motherboard in the bios But i cant i turned off CSM everything watch every video i cant find it. BATTLE-AX B660M-HD DELUXE V20
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      mobandz earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Apprentice
      fernan99 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • One Month Later
      nothanks earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      B2Proxy earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      MadMung0 earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      478
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      247
    3. 3
      Skyfrog
      79
    4. 4
      FloatingFatMan
      76
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      60
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!