Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!

Why? | 26 comments | Create New Account
Click here to return to the 'Why?' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Authored by: cmdahler on Aug 17, '05 12:26:35PM

I find it hard to believe that anyone would be so strapped for disk space that they would find this solution necessary. For example, Photoshop CS2, which is a seriously large .app at 84.1MB, would be around 100MB if the 30% size increase prediction holds true. If someone had such limited disk space that they actually needed to strip out that extra 25MB, they've got bigger problems - like the fact that Photoshop probably wouldn't even start up on such a small drive. Ultimately, one could go through an average user's application folder with this program and recover maybe 200 to 500 MB. Yet even if you recovered up to 1G, that's hardly worth either the time or the risk of rendering the application useless and forcing a reinstall.

[ Reply to This | # ]
Authored by: Rob Best on Aug 17, '05 02:00:30PM

Actually there are some very good reason.
My main two reason is:
Smaller backups
Smaller Disk Images (when creating Disk Images for the purpose of cloning. Smaller the image, faster the clone!)

I also use Delocalizor to remove all non-english languages from application bundles too, saves lots of space (I suspect far more than removing x86 code)

[ Reply to This | # ]
Re: Why?
Authored by: gidds on Aug 17, '05 03:09:28PM
Yes, I remove other language bundles too. (Using my own script.)

But that's different for a couple of reasons. Firstly, size; while many language bundles are small, some apps have lots of 'em making up well over half of their size; whereas for a double-binary, 50% is the absolute most you'd ever save, and it'd usually be much, much less.

And secondly, I'm unlikely to ever want to run any of my apps in Albanian! But it's actually rather likely that I'll want to move to x86 eventually.

Of course, it's up to every Mac user whether they want to thin their binaries, but unless you're certain you'll be sticking to a PPC Mac even when they're extinct, I'd think carefully about trading a small bit of disk space now against major headaches when you come to switch.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: hamarkus on Aug 17, '05 03:30:14PM

My Applications folder is 8 GB, a 30% increase would be 2.4 GB. Still it probably would not be worth the effort, maybe doing it for just a handful of the biggest apps might make sense.

However, for all those people worried about the eventual switch to MacIntels, it would probably be wise if not even right out necessary to do a new install on the MacIntels anyway.

I very much doubt that cloning will work (for that OS 10.4.6 would have to be a fat binary). Reinstalling the OS and then copying the Applications folder is something that might work, but I would not recommend it even now (cloning plus Archive and Install seems like a better solution).

[ Reply to This | # ]
Authored by: clacz on Aug 17, '05 03:59:42PM

You wouldn't saved anywhere near 2.4 GB on a 8GB application folder. It would be 30% of the executable size, not the entire .app directory. In most applications the executable size in 1/2 to 1/10 the size or less of the entire .app directory. You would probably save closer to 600MB rather then 2.4GB.

If you have games (Warcraft, Diablo ect) or applications like iDVD that have a huge amount of data in the .app package you might only reduce the size on those by a couple percent. iDVD takes 1.5GB, but the executable is only 3.5 MB. You might save 1.5 MB there, and maybe a little more on the frameworks, but those are small. That's about a 1% reduction in size.

[ Reply to This | # ]