Misc discussion re: app size/Monolingual [split]

Discussion in 'Mac Apps and Mac App Store' started by clevin, Sep 9, 2008.

  1. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #1
    I think iTunes shows EXACTLY apple's developing strength. Its the one of the FEW apps that are completely written by apple.
     
  2. ZiggyPastorius macrumors 68040

    ZiggyPastorius

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Location:
    Berklee College of Music
    #2
    I don't understand...is this sarcasm? I don't understand anything about programming, so I'm not being a smart ass, I'm just curious. Is Apple really bad at programming or something?
     
  3. clevin thread starter macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #3
    well, i think i was being spot on critical, lol, mainly my complains about iTunes, or apple written apps generally, are

    1. abnormally large for what the they do. they are generally multiple times in size compare to other apps of same functions.

    2. unable to offer partial download packages for update, each 0.0.1 update will always ask users to download a full package (unfortunately just from 44MB of iTune 7.x to 60MB of iTunes 8), its especially painful for my mac mini which is sitting at home with a quite slow internet connections.

    3. force the unnecessary functions down my throat, not every iTuns users need all the supports for ATV, iPhone, iPT, and whatever gadget apple comes up with.

    4. On windows, iTunes insists alot of non-function related, purely-for-show stuff that just hogs up system too much.

    5. very invasive apple app updater on windows, give me exactly same feeling as AOL app manager...
     
  4. elppa macrumors 68040

    elppa

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    #4
    No, it was based on Cassidy and Green SoundJam MP. The fact is has to be cross platform and therefore can't use the cocoa APIs is a pain for Apple.

    Completely written is a naïve thing to say. Almost nothing is completely written by one company. Most mature software has been passed around, or has it roots somewhere else.

    Apple/NeXT's development strengths are show in the rich cocoa frameworks and the bundled Mac OS X apps iWork etc. show these off the best.

    Don't forget the back ends Apple's very successful iTunes store and online store is all written in WebObjects.

    Apple is great at user experience and usability. With iTunes this doesn't always shine through.
     
  5. clevin thread starter macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #5
    iWork is an osx only app, I don't like it at all, it does less than MS Office, but 4 times in size. Its just unbelievable, it seems apple never worry about the size of their app at all.
     
  6. pair-a-dice macrumors newbie

    pair-a-dice

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    #6
    Memory Hog

    The windows version that I have running on XP is using 691,580 K of memory.
     
  7. clevin thread starter macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #7
    just a heads one, be careful of Updating from iTunes 7.x on windows Vista, apparently many people reporting BSOD with iTunes8. (fresh install might be ok)

    Like I said, Apple's windows app developing ability is downright disgusting.

    Look at this board and around, Apple has the TRADITION of releasing unstable apps as FINAL version, and use users as testing pigs. Its shameless. I never even seen any other companies' beta version being this irresponsible.
     
  8. davidjearly macrumors 68020

    davidjearly

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2006
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    #8
    Easy with the misinformation cowboy. iWork is an excellent suite of applications and have always ran more stable on my Mac than any version of Microsoft Office. Couple that with the fact that Office is a bloated piece of crap, and you've got yourself one terribly inaccurate post.
     

    Attached Files:

  9. mainstreetmark macrumors 68020

    mainstreetmark

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Location:
    Saint Augustine, FL
    #9
    Not so fast...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoundJam_MP <-- the original iTunes

    ...and of course, we know for certain that the Visualizer came from outside. Finally, the decoders are all open source. Apple didn't create the decoders for mp3 and aac, among others.

    .....and now to you folks complaining about v8.0:

    You ding dongs! Nothing in here works particularly different. There's a new 'Genius' button you can click if you want. There's a new view you can use if you want. There's a new visualizer you can use if you want. I'm not sure what's so disasterous, but then, we are on MacRumors where complainers are squeakier than the complimenters.
     
  10. clevin thread starter macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #10
    no, my post was absolutely accurate. Its just I have pre-installed iWork 06 on my MB, and Office 04. its 1.95GB vs. 400MB. Sorry Im not that rich to update to whaetever apple and M$ throw at me.
     
  11. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #11
    Hey clevin, have you tried using Monolingual? It trimmed my Office 2008 down to 698MB. I think that's about 25% less than the original install. May help you free up some space, if you haven't tried it already. :)
     
  12. ayeying macrumors 601

    ayeying

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Location:
    Yay Area, CA
    #12
    iWork06 is universal if i remember correctly, which accounts for the extra amount of space. Office 04 isn't.
     
  13. kolax macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2007
    #13
    You didn't mention which version in your original post, and since we are living in the present, not the past, it is safe to assume you were talking about iWork '08 and Office 2008. Especially since you said "Apple doesn't seem to worry about the size of their apps" which is completely inaccurate. Maybe if you made that post over a year ago, you'd be right. You are just a year too late :)
     
  14. clevin thread starter macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #14
    no, im using office 04, office 08 eliminated data analysis in excel, which is crucial to me, so I don't have plan to update yet, also Im currently transferring all my stuff to my windows box, so I might not be keep updating mac apps anymore.

    Thanks for the suggestions anyway :D
    lol, no its not safe, people with up to date everything, are minority.

    I still think apple doesn't worry about the size of their apps. Im glad iWork has some improvements, but still

    Safari is 150% in size than firefox, with less functions.
    iTunes 7.7 is 45MB, iTunes8 is 64MB, 45MB is too big at the first place, and with whats new in iTunes8, why the ~20MB increase anyway?
     
  15. applefan69 macrumors 6502a

    applefan69

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Location:
    Medicine Hat
    #15

    what i find funny, is the way you base apples programming skills by the size of their apps?

    Whats funnier is, your incorrect.

    Several people have proven you wrong on the microsoft office vs iWork comparison, yet you still seem confident that your right.

    Yes it IS fair to assume you were using the most up to date software. IS it unfair to assume you have a color t.v? unfair to assume you have indoor plumbing? unfair to.. ahh you get what im trying to point out. You may be correct about the majority of people not bein completely up to date... but that doesnt mean we cant assume you'd be up to date for not sayin so

    Oh, and the reason apples apps are such hihg in memory, is not bloat, not bad coding, not anything your thinking. Its simple... apples apps are largely universal. Not just in binary but they also have tons of different languages. Maybe its unnecessariily universal... but can you blame apple for it? Thats like blaming canadians because they learn french.
     
  16. davidjearly macrumors 68020

    davidjearly

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2006
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    #16
    Don't be ridiculous. Even if you are so unreasonable to talk about out of date versions of iWork and MS Office as though they are current versions, you are completely contradicting yourself.

    iWork 06 = 1.95GB
    iWork 08 = 686.5MB

    MS Office 2004 = 400MB
    MS Office 2008 = 911.4MB

    Hmm, now perhaps mathematics is not your strong point, but I calculate that to be a >75% reduction in size Apple has achieved with the latest version of their iWork suite over its predecessor. In addition, they have actually included a brand new application, Numbers, which was not part of iWork 06. Hardly a company that doesn't care about the sizing of its applications, eh?

    In the same time, MS have managed to add to the bloat of MS Office by increasing the size of the most recent suite by almost 30%.

    Therefore, your post was, and remains, completely inaccurate.

    Did you honestly think I wouldn't check? Firefox is around 5x larger in size than Safari! See screenshot. Seriously, there is no basis to your argument whatsoever.
     

    Attached Files:

  17. elppa macrumors 68040

    elppa

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    #17
    Actually on Mac side people majority Leopard usage big than tiger lol.

    You do realise that by default as part as an OS X install Safari includes many languages in the package and with Firefox you download just the version for your language?

    Take the languages our of Safari:
    Safari 4: 10.3MB
    Firefox 3: 45.9MB

    As Safari uses the system wide rendering engine, it is going to be smaller anyway.

    Anyone knows that size or lines of code is a stupid way to judge quality. AN app could be bigger because it does more/better self recovery and exception handling. There is a whole heap of reasons.
     
  18. clevin thread starter macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #18
    safari 10 mb?

    language pack for 60 mb?

    are u guys insane? explain to me why safari needs extra 60 mb language pack outside OSX?

    safari 10 mb? make a poll and ask see how many ppl's safari is 10 mb.
     
  19. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #19
    My Safari is 7.3MB
    My WebKit is 83.4MB Big difference!
     
  20. Tosser macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    #20
    Why would we make a poll? It wouldn't change the size of our respective Safari installations, would it?
     
  21. clevin thread starter macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #21
    universal?

    are we swithcing topic from the size of the app to 'how to reduce the size of your safari' now?
     
  22. clevin thread starter macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #22
    actually. it would change the definiton of 'our'.

    there are people hanging around tweak apps to shrink it. xplite can shrink winxp to 600mb. that doesnt mean a thing to vast majority of users
     
  23. davidjearly macrumors 68020

    davidjearly

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2006
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    #23
    I really can't believe you are still arguing about this. You have been proven wrong by numerous people in this thread. You're just trolling now, and at that, I'm going to stop feeding you.
     
  24. clevin thread starter macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #24
    why would i accept your 'evidence' when its obvious you tweaked the app? shouldn't we be discussing on a level ground of 'default '?

    why in a multi-lingul system like OSX. safari needs extra 60MB language pack? isn't that itself shows apple's inability to design app?.
     
  25. Tosser macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    #25
    What? He's saying that a fully functioning version of Safari can be had with a meager 7.3MB footprint.

    No it wouldn't – there's a reason I used the word "respective" in the sentence "A poll wouldn't change the size of our respective apps" ...

    Personally, I'm not talking about "tweaking apps", but merely about pressing cmd+i select every language you won't need, hit delete. That can hardly be considered using a "tweak app".

    I wonder, though, why you - in two consecutive posts - try to misrepresent and twist what we're saying?

    I do think David is spot on about your intentions.
     

Share This Page