Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Scottsdale

Suspended
Sep 19, 2008
4,473
283
U.S.A.
Glass half full, glass half full.

No, this is different than glass is half empty vs glass is half full. This is the fact that people are clueless and instead of wanting to learn the truth they would prefer to be ignorant. Your reported capacity is changing, but actual capacity is not truly changing. SL isn't capable of adding back mythical space by formatting differently. Everyone is getting the 7 GB back from removal of PPC files. The rest is due to the way SL reports capacity. Hence, we read some saying 13 GB gained and others 25 GB gained, but that's just due to a larger drive will report more available. I will be done with this now, because it's apparent that people would prefer to believe that Apple has somehow improved formatting and is creating new space and improving a disk's capacity, in addition to removing 7 GB worth of PPC files, and that's their illusion!
 

DaveOZ

macrumors 6502
May 13, 2008
378
296
Same here. Weird. I wonder if it has to do with the upgrade method vs a clean install.

I guess it depends what you had in your OS before the upgrade. If you had a slim install withot all the languages and printer drivers you may not save as much. Maybe?
 

Marconelly

macrumors 6502
Jul 5, 2008
391
223
Rev A here, the SL is working fine, but I did notice that expose and new Quicktime playing WMV and AVI though Flip4Mac and Perian show considerable sluggishness compared to what it used to be before. In fast using, QT7 Pro under SL, the same videos still play smoothly, so it's more of a Quicktime X fault I guess.

Still though, Expose being so chuggy where it essentially looks the same as before when it was perfectly smooth, is disappointing. Could it be that I need new drivers for Intel X3100?
 

leetleyang

macrumors newbie
Jan 13, 2006
5
0
I guess it depends what you had in your OS before the upgrade. If you had a slim install withot all the languages and printer drivers you may not save as much. Maybe?

Oddly, it's the total disk capacity, not the free space, which is being reported errantly...

Disk Utility is reporting the SSD as having 121.3GB available (new-fangled base-10 calculation), with a single OS X partition occupying slightly less than 121GB of that.

It should have had 122.1GiB available before, and 128GB available now, should it not? Is there some SSD-voodoo going on here? Confused!

EDIT: Ahh, discrepancy explained... ignore me.
Rev. A 64GB SSD shows up as 59.68GB in Snow Leopard?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.