we will wait for release version then. separate webcore for tiger and leopard?....we will see
for post above. how did you measure 3.5mb?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Misc discussion re: app size/Monolingual [split]
- Thread starter clevin
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
we will wait for release version then. separate webcore for tiger and leopard?....we will see
for post above. how did you measure 3.5mb?
Well, when I removed them from the Info for Safari, they went to the Waste Bin. And I could check each individual language folder, and they were all 3.5MB's.
No, we won't "see", this is a fact. Right click on webkit and navigate through it.
Btw, I'm not talking about the final version as I said, they're propably doing it this way because it easier while developing the app. You have to remember that this an ongoing project, not a final app. It's a prototype of sorts.
Anyway, here look at the filepath at the bottom as well:
Attachments
something might not be clear here.
i find 3.5 mb to be too large for safari's UI. I also have a hard time imagine east asian language takes same amount of space and europeen languages.
plus above experiments by Tosser about webkit nightly build.
i have trouble believe its all about languages.
of course we will see
you said its a temperory measure during development. that why i said we will see if its temperory. by looking at final release.
either way. if you take webcore being 26mb. whats in it? language pack?
ps. how large is squirrelfish. or javascriptcore?
you said its a temperory measure during development. that why i said we will see if its temperory. by looking at final release.
either way. if you take webcore being 26mb. whats in it? language pack?
ps. how large is squirrelfish. or javascriptcore?
Don't confuse any app's nightlies with a final product.
I too doubt that the lprojs are the same size, as my safari with the danish lproj in addition to the standard english is 11 MB. That would make the app 7.5MB if the danish language pack was 3.5MB, but it doesn't really matter if it's the same size, does it?
You find it hard to believe? Are you some sort of expert in this field? Clearly not, as you have previously demonstrated in this topic.
Well, if you do the same in safari (show contents/packages), there are no multiple webcores. There's one.
No, it's the executable from what I understand (as I said, I'm no programmer).
I don't know. If you right-click on the app you can check it out.
Actually, one thing is clear from those pics: Not all language packs are the same size.
it does. since the question is 'how much of the size difference before and after monolingual is due to the language pack'
I just checked. Turns out my da.lproj-folder is 3.4 MB in size.
Anyway, I still don't think it matters overall, as if you remove all languages it's the sum of those MBs that matters, not the individual size. Each to his own, though.
what im saying:
the 50mb difference in size is not all due to language packs. it has more todo with removal of ppc part and other stuff. i just wondering the exact size of each components removed by monolinqual.
webcore is 26mb in size already. and it probably contains no language packs. so you can't possibly reduce safari's size to 10mb just by removing language packs
Sigh …
There are NO language packs in the webkit nightly. None, nada, zip, zilch. It "piggybacks" on Safaris resources and as such are not comparable.
Webkit nightlies are so big, mostly because of having more than one webcore, but also because of other duplicated but dedicated ressources.
Safari, on the other hand, CAN be reduced to below 10 MB by simply removing the lproj-folders (i.e. by removing the language packs, it WILL come in under 10 MB). I have MANUALLY removed every language pack besides the english and the danish ones, and my Safari comes in at 11MB. So your notion that Monolingual removes PPC code in order to make Safari weigh in at under ten MB is ridiculous. Of course, it CAN remove that code, but it's by no means necessary in order to make Safari weigh in at under ten MB.
What's so hard to get?
Even I – a numbnut who knows absolutely nothing about programming - get this. Sheesh!
then answer a simple question
does safari includes webcore? if it does. how in the hell 10mb safari can include 26mb webcore?
Well, as far as I can tell, the webcore is the executable. The core app without resources.
In safari, this core app is renamed to a simple name like "safari" (still an executable.
But you ask how such a big webcore can be contained in a much smaller app. Well, it can't and never were. As mentioned the nightly builds are akin to prototypes or proof-of-concepts if you will, so it hasn't been slimmed down by the developers yet. The current "slimmed down" executable in Safari is 3MB, and this executable has not been slimmed down by me, and I have NOT used any app like Monolingual.
(Developers: Feel free to laugh your butt off at my severe lack of terminology and utter lack of detailed knowledge about this)
Attachments
I didn't 'tweak' the installation at all. That is the latest version of Safari running on 10.5.4 on my Intel iMac at home. I haven't even downloaded monolingual or anything like it.
Quite frankly, I don't care what you believe but please stop spreading your misinformed ideas and information.
Not really - you are using the developer seed of Safari 4
Yeah, which in terms of progression, is the latest release. That was what I said, funnily enough. At no point did I claim I was using the latest 'public' release.
Yeah, which in terms of progression, is the latest release. That was what I said, funnily enough. At no point did I claim I was using the latest 'public' release.
So you are comparing a beta form of Safari that isn't officially released to a released form of FireFox?
While I completely agree with your argument, it is unfair to use an unreleased version. Not that it changed much though, the file size was the same.
The executable in Safari is only 1.5MB, vs WebKit's webcores at 26MB each. Do this: Go to Safari.app in your Applications folder, right-click and "Show Package Contents", then click each folder to open and see all the contents of the Safari.app. Then do the same with WebKit. You'll see what's different and what eats up so much space.
Yeah, which in terms of progression, is the latest release. That was what I said, funnily enough. At no point did I claim I was using the latest 'public' release.
how did you know its not installing a portion of its engine into some other places?
do you even know enough detail about safari 4 to make judgement on it?
spreading what misinformation? yopu did cmd+i on your package, more than one people previous did cmd+i on their safari too, did you not see those result? or you just don't care facts that don't fit your idea?
you claimed firefox is 5 times in size of safari, yet you don't even know if your preview safrai 4 is Intel only? if so, intel only firefox will at least cut size in half too, where does you 5 times stand then?
You want to talk about safari 4? do you have enough information about it at all?
obviously safari is webcore+javascriptcore/squirrelFish + shell. renaming webcore makes it safari, is just not true.
The theory of "developing process including 80MB of proof of concept codes that will be shrank eventually upon release", is just that, a theory that nobody seen anywhere else. That what I said previously
"we will see", when safari 4 releases.
while, so you are saying with safari 4, safari.app is not a standalone browser, correct?
Aha, now I found it, turn out even with safari 3, safari.app is only a shell, a shell that is 56MB in size, or 11MB in size, without language pack.
But its only a shell, webcore engine is 38MB, and javascriptcore is 4MB
They are hidden in Macintosh HD->system->Library->frameworks->webcore and javascriptcore.
SO lets recap the situation.
with language pack, safari 3 really is 53MB+38Mb+4MB, total about 95MB!
w/o language pack, safari 3 really is 11MB+38MB+4MB, total about 53MB!
Apparently current webkit nightly has a webcore of about 27MB, a javascriptcore of about 3MB, so with safari 4, its real size is
27MB+3MB+11MB (w/o language pack)=41MB!
27MB+3MB+50MB(estimated language pack)=80MB!
I want to than GG and Toss for assisting me figure this out. Now we have a clearer view of the situation.
PS> I checked Opera too, turns out Opera's engine is about 24MB, which is about 67% of the size of opera.app
That's not what I said. Not at all. You need to notice the parts where I excuse my lack of proper terminology, and where I use the words "akin to".
Anyway, I'm not sure your theories are even close to being better. If Safari uses the system wide rendering engine, then Safari simply does not have a rendering engine of its own. And if you never installed safari, the system wide rendering engine would still be there. So, by adding the system wide rendering engine to the size of Safari is simply false representation.
It's like saying that because a car mostly drives on certain highways, the weight of those has to be included in the weight of the car.
Anyway, I think this is discussion has come to a natural end.
I agree. I think it is pointless debating this anyone, as clevin continues to ignore certain parts of the discussion in order to push his/her own agenda.
clevin, you're original argument, when this was about iTunes 8, was 'Apple doesn't seems to care about the size of their apps'. In order to back up this statement, you were comparing the size of out-of-date versions of iWork and MS Office. You showed that iWork 06 was around 4 times the size of MS Office 2004.
However, your theory has been proven wrong on at least one occasion. With the latest versions of their apps, Apple has managed to reduce iWork 08 by 75% of it's original size, whilst adding an additional application. Meanwhile, MS Office 2008 has increased around 33% of it's original size, whilst adding fluff to an already bloated piece of software.
This shows that Apple is actively attempting to reduce the size of their software, where possible. The latest developer version of OS X, Snow Leopard also further illustrates this. A clean install of the latest developer release of 10.6 consumes significantly less space than a clean install of 10.5 Leopard.