Safari 4 (beta)

Discussion in 'Apple' started by Warren Oates, Feb 24, 2009.

  1. Warren Oates

    Heli Guest

    Of course, if they now start increasing the size of Leopard, they can
    claim later that they reduced it in Snow Leopard. The adding of code to
    Leopard now is a sign that Apple doesn't know what it's doing when it
    promises smaller files for SL.
    Please stop supporting Apple for the most ridiculous reasons. You are
    an Apple groupie, who talks out of the back of his neck.
    Heli, Feb 26, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  2. Have a look at the iWeb forum discussions.[/QUOTE]

    Sorry, but I don't do web-based discussion forums. If you would care to
    provide a link to specific messages, I'll look at them. Or you could
    copy and paste to post the information here.
    I haven't found anything that's slowed down, but I don't have a MobileMe
    account, so I haven't accessed anything there.
    I doubt that you'll find consumer software that never crashes. I've had
    software crash, but very infrequently.
    I can't parse that.
    That's essentially what I have with Apple's apps.
    Michelle Steiner, Feb 26, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  3. Warren Oates

    Heli Guest

    Ha! You finally admit that Safari4 needed tweaking.
    You made my day.
    Heli, Feb 26, 2009
  4. Warren Oates

    Tom Stiller Guest

    By bitching at us.
    Tom Stiller, Feb 26, 2009
  5. Well, get used to it.[/QUOTE]

    Oh, I got used to it decades ago. Mostly I laugh at them, because
    whining for the sake of whining shows the meaninglessness of their lives.
    Michelle Steiner, Feb 26, 2009
  6. Bling is unnecessary stuff.[/QUOTE]

    And of course, you are the supreme arbiter of what is necessary and what
    Michelle Steiner, Feb 26, 2009
  7. Safari is not the best browser at all.[/QUOTE]

    Considering that that's a matter of opinion, there is no such thing as
    best browser.
    Michelle Steiner, Feb 26, 2009
  8. Of course, without Time Machine, there would be no Back-In-Time. But
    based on what you wrote about it, I'll give it a try.
    Michelle Steiner, Feb 26, 2009
  9. Warren Oates

    David Empson Guest

    Further to Michelle's comment: the size of software updates for Leopard
    (and other software) is due to the total size of the individual files in
    the update which are either adding to or replacing existing files in the
    system, and the vast majority is due to replacements (bug fixes and
    security updates in existing files). There may also be file deletions as
    part of an update.

    The resulting updated system may be larger, smaller or the same size as
    the pre-updated system, though on average I expect it would grow
    slightly (and nowhere near as much as 440 MB).

    For example, in /System/Library/Extensions there is a file
    GeForce8xxxGLDriver.bundle, which is 13.6 MB. If a Leopard system update
    includes a new version of that driver, it is likley that most of it will
    be replaced, so this will account for about 13.6 MB of the update. (The
    updates are compressed, so it would actually be smaller than that as
    part of the download.)

    Most of the updated files are a lot smaller, but multiply it by hundreds
    or thousands of files being replaced, and you quickly get up into the
    hundreds of megabytes.

    A good piece of evidence for this is the size of past updates to

    Each of the "delta" updates contains files which modify the most recent
    system version to create the next one in order.

    Each of the "combo" updates contains files which modify all previous
    versions to bring it up to the latest ones.

    If the "delta" updates were mostly adding files, you would expect the
    size of the "combo" updates to be nearly the sum of all the previous
    "delta" updates. This is not the case.

    I don't have a copy of the early delta updates handy, but here are the
    sizes of the rest of them. Security updates also come into this, because
    they modify a base version of the system, and are superseded by the next
    version update.

    10.5.2 combo: 343.4 MB

    Security update 2008-002: 50.9 MB

    10.5.3 combo: 530.8 MB. I didn't bother getting the 10.5.3 delta update,
    because it was only a few MB smaller than the combo update, indicating
    that 10.5.3 replaced nearly every file which had been modified in the
    10.5.1 and 10.5.2 updates. Note that this includes or supersedes
    everything in the prior security update as well.

    10.5.4 delta: 87.5 MB. This is just the changes since 10.5.3 and the
    smallest update so far.

    10.5.4 combo: 554.3 MB. Note that it is smaller than the sum of the
    10.5.3 combo and 10.5.4 delta.

    Security update 2008-005: 64.7 MB.

    10.5.5 delta: 316.9 MB. Lots of changes in this version. This will
    include or replace everything in the previous security update.

    10.5.5 combo: 601.1 MB. Note that this is only 50 MB bigger than the
    previous combo. Most of the changes in 10.5.5 replaced earlier changes.

    Security update 2008-007: 31.5 MB.

    10.5.6 delta: 372.8 MB. Biggest update since 10.5.3. This will include
    or replace everything in the previous security update.

    10.5.6 combo: 668.7 MB. Again only about 60 MB bigger than the previous
    combo, so most of the changes in 10.5.6 replaced code which changed
    already in 10.5.5 and earlier.

    Security update 2009-001: 46.5 MB.

    It isn't possible to tell how much code was added each time, but it
    cannot be more than the uncompressed difference between the sizes of the
    consecutive combo updates. It will probably be much less, because some
    of the increased size is due to more existing files being replaced for
    the first time since Leopard was released (or a file was added by a
    previous update).

    The reports say that the early developer release of the 10.5.7 update is
    about 440 MB, but that number could change before it is released, and
    early developer updates might include extra debugging code.

    Assuming that number is accurate, it means that 10.5.7 is changing more
    files than any update since 10.5.3, but I'd expect its combo update to
    only be a little larger than that of 10.5.6.
    David Empson, Feb 26, 2009
  10. There is no evidence that they're going to start increasing the size of
    That sentence is a sure sign that you don't know what you're talking
    Please stop criticizing Apple for the most inane reasons; you are a
    whiner who screams for attention.
    Michelle Steiner, Feb 27, 2009
  11. Ha! You finally admit that Safari4 needed tweaking. You made my day.[/QUOTE]

    I admitted no such thing. I installed it to see what it would do.

    It is now perfectly obvious that you are a troll.
    Michelle Steiner, Feb 27, 2009
  12. Warren Oates

    Ian Gregory Guest

    How do you know? It says the update is 440 MB but applying it could just
    as easily reduce the size of your Leopard install as increase it.
    People have already provided plenty of answers to this question but you
    trollishly ignore them. I will repeat a few:

    a) By dropping support for PowerPC
    b) By moving stuff into new shared libraries
    c) By re-writing code that had accumulated cruft

    In general, when you set out to re-engineer a complex software system
    from the ground up, improved performance and decreased size go hand in
    hand. With 10.6, Apple did not set out to make Mac OS X smaller, they
    set out to make it more focused and to rebuild it around some new core
    technologies with the goal of increasing performance and reliability and
    (perhaps most importantly) create a more solid foundation for 10.7 and
    beyond. Of course they will point out the benefits of saving a bit of
    disk space but that was clearly not a primary goal.

    Ian Gregory, Feb 27, 2009
  13. Fine for desktop systems. On my laptop every MB counts....

    Stephen Adams, Feb 27, 2009
  14. Warren Oates

    VAXman- Guest

    Well, I sent the a bug report from a run this morning. I do hope they
    will address this.

    There are a couple of CSS3 features I'd like to try out on a web site
    and I'll need Safari -- especially if it will pass and render all of
    the ACID3 CSS -- to see how these things look and behave.

    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

    Today's commodities market: Snake Oil: $787B/bbl

    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"
    VAXman- , Feb 27, 2009
  15. EASILY. Compression, removal of stuff that doesn't apply anymore (not
    features, but compatibility with older hardware), smarter file layouts,
    tuned code, etc, etc.

    Consider this in English. These are two sentences, in context of
    describing an old help feature in Mac OS 9:

    "Developers were encouraged to include help text with a certain level of
    descriptiveness: to not only name the object being looked at, but also
    explain to the user any state it might have."

    "Developers were encouraged to not just name an object, but to describe
    its function and explain its state."

    The second one is roughly half the length, but in context conveys the
    same amount of information.

    This is just English. Very often code size can be massively reduced --
    far more than half -- without losing functionality. In fact, this should
    be done on a regular basis.

    Nothing screams that you've been in an abusive relationship with
    Microsoft for too long more than not understanding that you can get
    better performance and efficiency without giving up features. :)
    Steven Fisher, Feb 27, 2009
  16. I want a browser, not a platform on which to find, install, and debug
    low-quality themes (including the built-in one) and plugins. Ugh.

    There was a time I liked Firefox. I don't know if it got worse, or my
    standards went up. I think it was probably a combination...
    Steven Fisher, Feb 27, 2009
  17. Warren Oates

    Lao Ming Guest

    Lao Ming, Feb 27, 2009
  18. That reminds me of this old slogan: "We've upped our standards, now up

    -- Michelle
    Michelle Steiner, Feb 27, 2009
  19. It seems that those who whine the most about their freedom of speech are
    among the first to try to shut up those who disagree with them. And
    they have no idea what the amendment actually means.

    -- Michelle

    PS I think you mean the first amendment, not the fifth.
    Michelle Steiner, Feb 27, 2009
  20. Warren Oates

    Lao Ming Guest

    I did. Somehow I typed Fifth when I meant First. Ooops.
    Lao Ming, Feb 27, 2009
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.