Misc discussion re: app size/Monolingual [split]

[elppa]

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.

27MB+3MB+11MB (w/o language pack)=41MB!

So smaller than Firefox.

 

[clevin]

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.

I dont think so, webcore and javascriptcore, altho not in safari's folder, is not used by OSX as a fundamental system-wide structure. I think calling it system wide engine, is a misrepresentation of its usage in OSX.

not to mention gecko as an engine also being used by other apps, email client, browsers, music manager, sketch production, etc.

if we were to compare browser size, we can't exclude engine.

Webkit is 99% a browser engine, call it system wide doesn't make it more useful in osx other than a dictionary, a email client, a help system maybe.

more importantly, there is no significant addition into webkit for it to perform tasks outside a browser.

IE is different, its so tightly bundled into system, every windows explorer is an IE shell, and desktop. Webkit is NOT that tightly bundled in OSX.

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.

first i applaud the good development.

second, is SL intel only? if so, size reduction is a natural result, which I think our tiger and leopard users should have enjoyed that 2 years ago.

this is another example of apple...mmm.. lets soften it a bit, ...not putting size as a propor priority. For intel only macs with Tiger and Leopard, users are wasting GB space.

So smaller than Firefox.

in which sense do you think 80Mb and 53MB smaller than 46Mb?

 

[elppa]

in which sense do you think 80Mb and 53MB smaller than 46Mb?

The sense that by your own calculations Safari 4 is 41MB, whereas Firefox is 45.9MB.

It's only fair to compare Safari with 1 language, because Mozilla have downloads for each language for Firefox 3.

Of course this is a stupid debate, no one in day to day use cares about a few MB here or there, but you seem to think it is a huge deal and a reason to use the more expensive non universal MS Office 2004 over the cheap and universal iWork suite.

Then you come on making all sorts of accusations about Apple's inability to write code and back this up with examples from Microsoft and Mozilla. Then it turns out you have your calculations wrong and Apple writes applications with similar functionality that are actually smaller then the applications from the companies that you cited.

Now you can't seem to accept you got confused and got stuff wrong and want to continue the debate by twisting and turning and picking the facts to suit.

 

[clevin]

The sense that by your own calculations Safari 4 is 41MB, whereas Firefox is 45.9MB.

It's only fair to compare Safari with 1 language, because Mozilla have downloads for each language for Firefox 3.

ha, lets do it by facts

1. firefox 3 and safari 3, both RELEASED version, 53MB vs 46MB, I guess you have no problem with this one, correct?

2. now you want to talk about safari 4, but hey, if you want to use that, then you need to positively answer the questions first.

• safari 4 will definitely not be intel only? thats a difference of 20MB right there!
• safari 4 is definitely using newer webcore as Toss find within WEBKIT NIGHTLY? safari released version may not use most recent webcore as everybody witnessed with safari 3.1.
• safari 4 will definitely use only ONE of those TWO webcore engine as observed by Tosser? If apple is weak enough and have to offer two engines for 10.4 and 10.5,, thats another 26MB right there!

I think you just can't be sure about them at all, That why I repeated previously that we will have to wait and see for its final release.

41MB is a very optimized estimation, with so many uncertainties, I think we do current release for now.

Now you can't seem to accept you got confused and got stuff wrong and want to continue the debate by twisting and turning and picking the facts to suit.

I seems to remember my analysis of safari's size getting accepted by all people, what did I twisted in previous two posts? which "facts" did I avoid?

Your character assassination is getting over the top, I advise you stick to the message, rather than killing the messenger.