Why are most files 2x as big for a Mac?

Discussion in 'macOS' started by WillJS, Mar 4, 2007.

  1. WillJS macrumors 65816

    WillJS

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    #1
    For example, downloading the CS3 trial..

    The .exe version for Winblows is ~300MB
    The .dmg version for OS X is ~700MB


    Why's this? :confused:
     
  2. adrianblaine macrumors 65816

    adrianblaine

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Location:
    Pasadena, CA
    #2
    Were there separate files for Intel and PPC? If not, it contains both versions... Universal Binary...
     
  3. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #3
    Also because it is Universal for OS X, and the compiler doesn't make as compact files.
     
  4. WillJS thread starter macrumors 65816

    WillJS

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    #4
    Here's the scrnshot.
     
  5. adrianblaine macrumors 65816

    adrianblaine

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Location:
    Pasadena, CA
    #5
    Yup, it contains Universal Binaries, so there is a lot more information there than just the PC version.
     
  6. BigPrince macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    #6
    No offense, but are you going by just this one case?
     
  7. WillJS thread starter macrumors 65816

    WillJS

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    #7
    No, I've seen it other places.. just using this as an example.

    So it has the Universal Binaries.. is that for Intel and PPC versions?
     
  8. adrianblaine macrumors 65816

    adrianblaine

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Location:
    Pasadena, CA
    #8
    Yes, it has both.
     
  9. heehee macrumors 68020

    heehee

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2006
    Location:
    Same country as Santa Claus
    #9
    This is the download for PS CS2. :)
     

    Attached Files:

  10. epochblue macrumors 68000

    epochblue

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    #10
    A Universal Binary (also called a "Fat Binary") contains both Intel and PPC versions of the program. Upon runtime, OS X determines whether the app is running on Intel or PPC and chooses the proper binary to execute.

    If you don't want your apps to have both versions of the code, you can use an application like Xslimmer to remove the non-native code (PPC-based Macs will remove Intel code, and Intel-based Macs will remove PPC code).
     
  11. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #11
    It's also true for Firefox (17.6MB Mac, 5.7MB Windows)
     
  12. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #12
    i wish they provide separate ppc and intel versions, since apparently they make them separately(double size), whats the point waste my time and bandwidth and disk space (300MB+!!!), lol
     
  13. robbieduncan Moderator emeritus

    robbieduncan

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    London
    #13
    Only an application with no resources would be twice the size. It's only the code that gets larger. All the window definitions, icons etc are only in the package once. They normally take up more space than all the code put together. Stripping either PPC or Intel might well only make the app 10% smaller...
     
  14. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #14
    Firefox was about 10MB when it was PPC only AFAIR (to Window's 4-5MB), the problem with non Universal binaries is that they are confusing to normal people, though they could do both, the problem is that people would choose the non universal if they weren't sure (as it's smaller) and everything would go horribly wrong.
     
  15. fowler. macrumors 6502a

    fowler.

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Location:
    Pasadena
    #15
    are there any programs that'll strip the unnecessary binaries, leaving a svelte .app?
     
  16. Mechcozmo macrumors 603

    Mechcozmo

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    #16
    Yes... but you don't save that much space.
    Linkety to a fast Google-found app (I haven't used it, beware!)
     
  17. xUKHCx Administrator emeritus

    xUKHCx

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Location:
    The Kop
    #17
    From above

     
  18. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #18
    It's weird that the relative file sizes are inconsistent between languages... unless I'm misunderstanding. CS2/Mac/English is smaller than CS2/Win/English, and this is also true in Japanese, but in French, the opposite is true.... :confused:
     
  19. epochblue macrumors 68000

    epochblue

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    #19
    Try the post 5 above yours....there might be a link to such a program in there somewhere.
     
  20. madog macrumors 65816

    madog

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Location:
    Korova Milkbar
    #20
    Duh! It's because they have to squeeze in that extra bit of love into each application that is written for the Mac.

    I can't believe you didn't know that! :eek:

    Some say it's overflow from Steve's RDF but I'm not so sure about that.
     
  21. semaja2 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Location:
    Adelaide
    #21
    A fat binary actually contains 4 binaries:

    PPC 32
    PPC 64
    Intel 32
    Intel 64

    If it was just 2 i could see it being about 100mb bigger but not exactly twice the size (images and such are not specific to arch)
     
  22. robbieduncan Moderator emeritus

    robbieduncan

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    London
    #22
    It could do but that would be exceptionally rare. Almost all UBs out there are 32 bit only.
     
  23. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #23
    well, think about this photoshop cs2, apparentlt it would save me 300Mb, sure i dont mind the small apps, but for adobe, etc, separate pkgs sure would be very nice

    fx is 17.6mb for mac, 5.7 for windows (7z compressed release version, normal zip version is 8.5mb),

    Confusing normal ppl? well.. I guess we should at least have reasonable confidance on normal ppl, and try it out with clearly marked download options(like, a drop down menu asks user to choose what model of apple they have, etc). give it up without even trying, I think its unfair to others who know the difference.
     
  24. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #24
    Relatedly, I thought that versions of OS X up to and including Tiger did not generally allow Aqua / windowed programs to execute in 64 bits... although I'm not suprah clear on how an Aqua program is prevented and a terminal program is not....
     
  25. Cromulent macrumors 603

    Cromulent

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2006
    Location:
    The Land of Hope and Glory
    #25
    The terminal and all the Unix underpinnings of Mac OS X are 64bit. The GUI parts are not. This is due to change in Leopard. It is simple, basically you have a 32bit layer sitting on top of a 64bit core (which is Unix).
     

Share This Page