Size of Leopard

I have just finished upgrading Tiger to Leopard and the new OS is taking an extra 19gb of space, and thats without installing the printer drivers and the different languages! Does that sound right?

No, that's not unusual. My drive tells me that 36.25 GB is being used, but all of the visible folders take up 31.86 GB. There are quite a few other hidden files and folders at the root level not included in your count. One file of which is the usually pretty large swap file.
Other than that, Leopard does just take up a bit more space. Also, quite a few system files installed from the DVD do contain other language resources, even when you choose not to include any of them with the install. I use Monolingual to clear them out. I've also written a small document, Using Monolingual that I think explains the use of the app better than the developer's own site does.

Similar Messages

  • Partition size for Leopard

    I am in the process of planning a new internal hard drive for my iMac G5 and am hoping for some advice. It will be a dual boot Tiger/Leopard partitioned 1TB drive (already purchased). I would like to maximize space in my third partition for non-sensitive files (music, photos, 40 hours and growing of home video) while leaving adequate space on the boot partitions to run the OS comfortably.
    Any suggestions for partition sizes for Leopard and Tiger?
    - Shawn

    I read yesterday that a new Firewire standard is to be announced in October raising throughput to that seen on eSata drives. So maybe the new crop of external drives that will hit the market will make some of this issue disappear.
    I am about to rebuild my Mac (500gb drive, Intel Core duo) and was thinking only three partitions would be necessary (OS X, BOOTCAMP / WinXP and DATA). I have an external video scratch disk for FCE.
    However I am unsure how to ensure my USR folders are mapped to the DATA partition so that the 50GB is only for OS X and the applications. I have noticed the Library \ Application Support folder can get quite large depending on the apps installed.
    Is there some sort of white paper or thread that gives advice on this?
    Thanks
    Eric

  • Change Parition Size in Leopard?

    I've heard Leopard has the ability to create and change the size of partitions on the fly. Does this also apply to your Boot Camp partition? And if not, how would I go about taking my Boot Camp partition, creating a new Parallels-only partition and restoring the BC one to that, since Parallels can easily resize partitions on the fly.

    Hi,
    for clearance:
    You want to move your BootCamp Windows to Parallels and then remove the BootCamp Windows ?
    Or just use the BootCamp Windows as a Virtual Machine in Parallels and keep the BootCamp Windows partition ?
    If first, have a look at Parallels Transporter feature, might do the trick.
    If second, Parallels can do this right now.
    Be aware that at the moment Parallels seems to have problems with Leopard.
    So might be better to do it now or wait until Parallels has solved this issue.
    regards
    Stefan

  • Size of Leopard OS versus Tiger?

    I'm about to install Leopard (when 10.5.3 is released) and I want to do a weekly, bootable back-up of my system to an external firewire drive, using CCC. The current size of my OS X Tiger (10.4.11) contents is about 75 Gigs.
    Question: How many Gigs would be added to this system's size by virtue of running Leopard versus Tiger?
    I ask because I'm trying to figure out what size the external hard drive needs to be.
    There will be two other volumes on this back-up drive totalling about 200 Gigs. A 500 Gig might be fine but a 750 Gig might be a much better value -- particularly with the flexible partitioning capabilities in Leopard.
    Suggestions?

    Hello,
    I'm trying to think about what would be my backup/DRP strategy in the situation you describe.
    - Why the bootable copy of Tiger? You don't want to go back to Tiger. It'll useless (given the benefits of Leopard of Tiger). Many, many changes have occurred with Leopard. Nearly all of them are "under the hood". This makes that your idea of a bootable clone of Tiger doesn't yield to any benefit, beside archiving files that you may want to keep handy, like fonts (not all fonts!).
    In that case. I would recommend you get a cheap pocket-sized FW400 drive that you'll keep in a safe place for a couple of years, then erase and reclaimed. The Unix command-line utility "asr" is good enough to get you this cloning job done.
    - It seems to me you have some critical material for your other larger partition: Your Logic Audio session files.
    I would personally investigate in a RAID based drive, where hardware redundancy will get you the level of security against (hardware related) data loss risk.
    - You want to create a third partition for an incremental backup ? Assume 2 to 3 times the size of your data to backup when considering the size of your incremental backup solution. Time Machine is very good at keeping numbers down but a month worth of daily changes will get you very close to these figures.
    So, you're bound for 3 separate hardware.
    - The Bootable system drive clone is bound for recycling in a short timeframe. Once you'll have done that, you'll figure out you've wasted the space of this partition on that drive. You can always plan to delete that partition and extend your Sound files partition ... but if something goes wrong, you'll end up loosing a lot.
    - The Volume where you want to store your Snd files is very critical - specially if this is a bread-making work. Don't hesitate for a hardware RAID.
    - You don't want to put all your eggs in the same basket (backup volume on the same physical media as live data). An incremental backup requires numerous dedicated (cheap) hardware. After you've reached the capacity of your Volume, what are you going to do? Delete it all and start a new incremental backup again? I bet you're going to keep that first back for a while and get a new drive to start a new incremental backup. Perhaps, you're going to recycle the first backup when the second one will reach max capacity, thus rotating your drives as destination of your backups.
    You have 3 different needs. To rely on one single and common hardware to satisfy them is - IMHO - not an efficient strategy.
    I hope this will help you.
    Thierry

  • What is inflating folder size on Leopard Server?

    I have one folder in a 10.5.8 server that shows a size of 46GB. Inside are 6 1GB files and nothing else, visible or invisible.
    The disk passes fsck -fy, so it isn't a directory problem. Thoughts and fixes?

    Where is the folder located, and have you used Terminal to check out the actual contents of the folder (hidden files, etc.)??
    -Doug

  • Preview Selection Tool-How to get selection size in Preview?

    One of my favorite tricks in Preview (prior to Leopard) was being able to hold the alt-key to get the selection size. Leopard killed this amazing feature and now I have to open Photoshop every time I want to get the size of something. Does anyone out the have any idea how to quickly get selection size in Preview in Leopard? I thought I would just be able to make a selection, crop the image and get the size that way, but worst of all, the image size only reflects the original image size and not the newly cropped size. The latter seems like a bug and the former is annoying.

    I've been on Leopard for a year and I was always able to just put the cursor on the image, draw my box and hit the crop button. In the last week, I've lost the ability to draw my box. It's like it's been disabled. I've restarted to no avail. This was a great little feature as I do not want to load every picture into iPhoto.

  • Lion - Snow Leopard display difference

    Updated to Lion and right way I notice that the Lion display is way smaller than Snow Leopard . I cannot get the Lion display to the size Snow Leopard is.
    Any help?
    Rd

    Reset PRAM and see if that helps.

  • Carousel View Better Than Cover Flow For The Finder?

    I have been using my .Mac Web Gallery quite a bit lately and I love the new and improved Carousel view. Apple keeps updating it (they added reflections, a nice play/pause scroll bar, and now you can use the scroll wheel (or ball) on your mouse just like Cover Flow in iTunes and the Finder) making it better and better and it has gotten to the point where I think it would make a lot more sense (and look nicer) for Apple to implement it in the Finder in place of Cover Flow. Cover Flow works perfectly for iTunes still (as that's what it was intended for) and I think that it's "Ok" in the Finder in Leopard, but now that Apple has cleaned up the Carousel view so much in the .Mac Web Gallery, I can see it looking PERFECT in the Finder in Leopard. For anyone who's used or seen the Cover Flow view in the Finder, you'll realize what I mean when I say that it's "Ok". The problem with it is that most of the dynamically generated icons in Leopard are not nice squares like the albums in iTunes so the icons off to the sides of the center one look skewed and distorted. The Carousel view would fix that problem while retaining the benefits of the Cover Flow view and, from what I can see, would actually enhance the benefits because the side icons would be easier to see as they are not skewed. All I'm suggesting is for Apple to swap out the Cover Flow view in the Finder for the Carousel view and then the Finder would really SHINE! So, my question to any of you is, "Would you vote for the Carousel view to replace the Cover Flow view in the Finder?" Please let me know any of your ideas or suggestions. Thanks.

    I made a newer post about this same topic (trying to be a little more strategic) and this time I included a link to a video demonstrating my point. Here's the post http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=6574743#6574743.
    I couldn't agree with you more on the custom folder icon issues. I'm beginning to find out what the problem is on that. I have used the newest version of Candy Bar for my Home directory icons and that works fine, but there are some folders that I want to use a different icon for and leave the rest as they are. Candy Bar can't do this for me (as it only works with the generic icons) and so I used Apple's Icon Composer application (in the Developer Tools) to make the correct icon sizes for Leopard and then saved them as .icns but then copying and pasting that on a folder would result in the default ICNS icon and not my custom icon (that was under 10.5.1). So I finally got the custom icon to appear, but it only works for sizes 128x128 and lower, even though I put a 512X512 version in there. That's why it doesn't show up in Cover Flow. For some reason, Leopard "blacks" out anything larger than 128x128 on "Cut and Paste" icons. I found that out by copying my custom icon from the Get Info panel and then opening that in Preview and it shows a black background for the larger icons instead of the alpha channel. I'm still trying to figure this out. Also, IconBuilder seems to be doing the same thing (making and ICNS file) but it seems to work better. I haven't used that since I've upgraded to Leopard but from what I've read it should work, but I don't have Photoshop right now. Well, thanks for posting and agreeing with me on the Carousel view and I hope you check out my video. Thanks.

  • Create archive of

    I upgraded to Leopard, but saw this "Create archive of" option in a "Quick Tip of the Week" video. A friend of mine that still has Tiger said that she still has this option on her OS version.
    Click the link below:
    http://www.apple.com/business/videotips/?sr=hotnews
    As you can see, the file size is reduced dramatically. Did they get rid of this option in Leopard? The "Compress" option is not the same. Yes, the file zips but zips as the same size, unlike the "Create archive of" option within Tiger. Any help would be appreciated.

    Now that I found that answer, I'm going to answer my own question for others that have the same question. Leopard does have the "Create archive of" option and it is the same as the "Compress" option. The reason why I was questioning the two being different was because I saw in the "Quick Tip of the Week" video that when you used this Archive option within Tiger, it dramatically reduced the size of the file, yet it did not reduce the file size with Leopards "Compress" option. Well, the reason why it did not reduce the file size was because I was Archiving/Compressing a folder full of music MP3's. MP3's are files that are already compressed, which is why Archiving/Compressing them did not show a drop in file size. Other files such as pictures and regular text documentation will show a drop in file size when you Archive/Compress them. Apple decided to change the name from "Create archive of" to "Compress". I hope this clears up any confusion that anyone else might have in the future.

  • Removing partition

    Have Mac Pro Quad 2.66 with 4 HD's and 5GB RAM.
    HD#1= 250GB OEM; HD #2=500GB with 2 equal partitions, 232 GB each (2A & 2B); HD#3=750GB; HD#4=750GB -used for Time Machine.
    OEM HD#1 has Tiger 10.4OS+data and applications from previous iMac.
    Installed 10.5 on first partition of #2 (2A). Now however I'd like to remove the partition on #2 as I currently only have 44GB left on first partition (out of 232). HD#2A has been backed up on HD#4 with Time machine.
    Question: can I remove the partition on HD#2 without erasing OS 10.5 on HD 2A and all installed applications?
    If not then I assume I can boot from 10.5 install DVD and install on HD#2 from HD#4 with data from TM. (Mac OS 10.5 Help "Recovering your entire system")
    Is there an application that will let me remove partition without a fee, iPartition cost $50. Or as an alternative does OS 10.5 have a "remove partition" that destroys all data? If so I guess I can restore with Time Machine.
    I'm a somewhat experience Mac user-6 years-but I'm a bit over my head on this issue(s). Any help would be appreciated.

    Pull your #1 OEM and put it aside as your insurance. Or clone it to a FireWire drive.
    Partitions are never perfect size. Leopard does allow for resizing to some degree. Of course you want backups. More than one hopefully.
    I would think a 750GB drive would be idea for boot drive. Maybe half.
    I prefer to keep the boot drive as just the OS/apps and keep data on 2nd drive.
    A boot drive doesn't need to be more than 100-200GB but you also want a lot of room for burning DVDs and work, and just for performance, to never fill it beyond 50% either.
    While moving things around, make sure you always still have your original boot drive and a recovery plan.
    I'd get another drive for your OS. 10K Raptor ideally. Or another 750GB (it is nice to have drives of same size, make for moving things around, RAID, etc, as long as it is reliable).
    You can't boot from an iMac system and you probably have the data backed up. And you could even put it on a sparse disk image on your TM volume. (I have three TM drives that I use and rotate, so if something happens I still have a backup of my backup).

  • Encrypted Disk Image creation slow?

    I just got a new MBP with Leopard. I have created a number of encrypted disk images in the past using Tiger and a MBP and have not had any trouble. This weekend I tried a few times to create a 50 gig encrypted disk image (128 AES) on an external drive and after going through the process of setting it up and waiting for it to be created, (and watching the progress bar as it was being created), after about 45 minutes NO progress was showing on the progress bar. I ended up having to cancel the creation a few times because I thought something was going wrong. I’m not sure if there is a problem creating the disk image, or leopard is slow, or what.
    Does anyone know how long, on average, it would take to create an encrypted disk image of this size using leopard? I just want to know if there is a problem doing this on my MBP. Thanks for the help.

    A regular 50 GB disk image takes 50GB of space, no matter if it is full of files or empty.
    A 50 GB sparse disk image only takes up the amount of space equivalent to that of its enclosed files. So if the 50GB sparse image only has 1 GB of files inside, the image won't be much bigger than 1GB.
    A sparse bundle is similar to a sparse image, but instead of a single file it is a folder package with many, many enclosed files called bands. A new file added to the sparse bundle will tend to modify only a few bands. This makes incremental backups of a sparse bundle more efficient because only the changed bands need to be backed up again. Any change to a sparse or regular disk image will mean that the entire image will need to be backed up again.
    If you regularly add/remove files to a disk image, and you intend to back up that disk image with Time Machine, a sparse bundle is definitely the way to go. The other types will fill up your TM volume very quickly.

  • Encrypted disk image creation very slow-

    I just got a new MBP with Leopard. I have created a number of encrypted disk images in the past using Tiger and a MBP and have not had any trouble. This weekend I tried a few times to create a 50 gig encrypted disk image (128 AES) on an external drive and after going through the process of setting it up and waiting for it to be created, (and watching the progress bar as it was being created), after about 45 minutes NO progress was showing on the progress bar. I ended up having to cancel the creation a few times because I thought something was going wrong. I’m not sure if there is a problem creating the disk image, or leopard is slow, or what.
    Does anyone know how long, on average, it would take to create an encrypted disk image of this size using leopard? I just want to know if there is a problem doing this on my MBP. Thanks for the help.

    A regular 50 GB disk image takes 50GB of space, no matter if it is full of files or empty.
    A 50 GB sparse disk image only takes up the amount of space equivalent to that of its enclosed files. So if the 50GB sparse image only has 1 GB of files inside, the image won't be much bigger than 1GB.
    A sparse bundle is similar to a sparse image, but instead of a single file it is a folder package with many, many enclosed files called bands. A new file added to the sparse bundle will tend to modify only a few bands. This makes incremental backups of a sparse bundle more efficient because only the changed bands need to be backed up again. Any change to a sparse or regular disk image will mean that the entire image will need to be backed up again.
    If you regularly add/remove files to a disk image, and you intend to back up that disk image with Time Machine, a sparse bundle is definitely the way to go. The other types will fill up your TM volume very quickly.

  • Why are the icons HUGE by default?

    Hey Everyone,
    I got Snow Leopard yesterday and did a clean install (reformatted the HD before installing). My only issues is that the icons are HUGE by default - just like in Windows Vista and 7 (at least there's a very easy way to change that). What is the default icon and spacing size for Leopard Desktop/Finder? I can't stand the humungous sizes and can't seem to find the right size with the little slider in all the Finder windows.
    Thanks in advance,
    -MRCUR

    Once upon a time icons were 32x32. They started moving on up in size, for the last several years they were 128x128, and in Leopard many of the system default icons were 512x512, although the Finder didn't actually take any advantage of this. I figured Apple was "in transition" and was moving to that larger size as the new default. Sure enough, in Snow Leopard that is the new normal.
    For your purposes you can set whatever you want as the default size, and in folders where you have things you want to display larger icons you can customize the settings for that folder only.
    Francine
    Francine
    Schwieder

  • Cover flow for the ipad

    Why is no Cover flow for the iPad 2 with OS 5?

    I made a newer post about this same topic (trying to be a little more strategic) and this time I included a link to a video demonstrating my point. Here's the post http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=6574743#6574743.
    I couldn't agree with you more on the custom folder icon issues. I'm beginning to find out what the problem is on that. I have used the newest version of Candy Bar for my Home directory icons and that works fine, but there are some folders that I want to use a different icon for and leave the rest as they are. Candy Bar can't do this for me (as it only works with the generic icons) and so I used Apple's Icon Composer application (in the Developer Tools) to make the correct icon sizes for Leopard and then saved them as .icns but then copying and pasting that on a folder would result in the default ICNS icon and not my custom icon (that was under 10.5.1). So I finally got the custom icon to appear, but it only works for sizes 128x128 and lower, even though I put a 512X512 version in there. That's why it doesn't show up in Cover Flow. For some reason, Leopard "blacks" out anything larger than 128x128 on "Cut and Paste" icons. I found that out by copying my custom icon from the Get Info panel and then opening that in Preview and it shows a black background for the larger icons instead of the alpha channel. I'm still trying to figure this out. Also, IconBuilder seems to be doing the same thing (making and ICNS file) but it seems to work better. I haven't used that since I've upgraded to Leopard but from what I've read it should work, but I don't have Photoshop right now. Well, thanks for posting and agreeing with me on the Carousel view and I hope you check out my video. Thanks.

  • Sysctl physmem vs memsize

    Hi everyone,
    does anyone around here know the exact difference between
    sysctl -n hw.physmem
    and
    sysctl -n hw.memsize
    Until recently (about half an hour ago) I was of the opinion that the hw.physmem parameter would give me the amount of physical memory available in the machine. However running it on an 8GB equipped Intel MacPro I get:
    sysctl -n hw.physmem
    2147483648
    which is wrong,
    whereas
    sysctl -n hw.memsize
    8589934592
    returns the correct result.
    On a G5 Powermac, both versions of the command return the correct result.
    Strangely enough, while the manpage
    of sysctl itself lists hw.memsize as a valid parameter, it's not listed
    on the sysctl.h page where I only find:
    HW_PHYSMEM
    The bytes of physical memory.
    I'm using sysctl in a wrapper script for a Java program where I try to give the JVM as much memory as possible, so if the memsize parameter is the way to go, I'd use that instead of physmem. But if it's some kind of "undocumented" feature I'd rather try to find some other method to check for the physical memory...
    Thanks in advance!

    I am going to jump on this thread simply because it seems to be a similar though not exactly the same problem I am experiencing.
    First, I would also LOVE to find out how to get correct memory sizes from Leopard.
    Second, the same method SYSCTL is returning an undocumented value now for the "hw.cpufamily" key on my newer MacBook (the non-pro aluminum unibody from Fall 08) which it reports as 2028621756. This value is not listed anywhere in the documentation on the ADC site so there is no way to properly interpret it beyond saying "Uh, yeah I guess it's a Core Duo 2". =\
    Third, it would be wonderful if the "support" at the ADC site actually included regular and timely updates to the documentation about these things or even ways to report errors/omissions. The "support" I received said to come here and ask everyone else which seems more like blowing things off than dealing with them.
    Sean.

Maybe you are looking for