Love to see upgrades with a negative net size lmao. Software should get more optimized with time, not more bloated. Oop, just got the gnome console popup notification saying that my install command finished running, sweet – it took as long as making this post

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    32
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    Back in the day there was a Mac OS update (Snow Leopard) that took gigabytes off. They dropped support for PowerPC CPUs. So the compiled binaries basically got slashed in half.

    The goals of Snow Leopard were improved performance, greater efficiency and the reduction of its overall memory footprint, unlike previous versions of Mac OS X which focused more on new features. Apple famously marketed Snow Leopard as having “zero new features”.[13] Its name signified its goal to be a refinement of the previous OS X version, Leopard.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Snow_Leopard

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        213 minutes ago

        I don’t know if that’s what they did for the PowerPC -> Intel switch, but now with the Intel -> ARM switch, Xcode compiler tools spit out dual arch binaries, so you can run the same binary natively on x86 or ARM. Things that aren’t compiled that way yet and only have x86 binaries, will be run using Rosetta 2.

        Doesn’t matter much to the end user though. It’s all just pretty seamless if you’re on an ARM Mac and idk if there’s much or any problems on x86 Macs yet regarding binary compatibility. I actually doubt there is.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        15 minutes ago

        That OS was the last of Apple to come on optical media. So, no pushing. Buying physically.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        153 minutes ago

        It probably made the downloaded binary smaller, but the actual instal size for x86 machines probably didn’t change much.

        • Captain Aggravated
          link
          fedilink
          English
          136 minutes ago

          …what?

          We’re talking about the end of the transitional period from PowerPC (the G3 and G4 iMacs and iBooks) to the Intel architecture (about the time they went to the Macbook nomenclature). If I read this right, they didn’t push separate PowerPC and Intel architecture versions, you’d just get MacOS (or in those days, OSX) and it would ship with both binaries. Which, compiled binaries would be quite different for different architectures, data files, graphics, interpreted code etc. would be similar but pre-compiled binaries would be different.

          I know for awhile a lot of applications were only available for PowerPC, so they did the Rosetta translation layer, which is a reason why you’d find PowerPC binaries on an Intel system. They did exactly that again with the transition from x86 to ARM.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          216 minutes ago

          Well they haven’t made a single x86 machine in what, 4 or 5 years?

          The 2024 version of MacOS doesn’t support anything older than 2017 and for most models it’s more like 2018-2020

          I’d say in 2-3 years they’ll drop support for all x86 machines, at which point first party binaries can stop shipping with x86 code. Then eventually, several years later, they’ll drop support for x86 emulation via Rosetta 2, so that’s another thing they can drop from the OS. And once xcode stops giving you those fat dual-arch binaries, other software will also take a bit less space.