New MacHeist


maflynn

Moderator
Staff member
May 3, 2009
63,860
30,383
Boston
Their last nano bundle was lame. Hopefully this time, it will actually have some useful applications.
 

Stella

macrumors G3
Apr 21, 2003
8,273
4,636
Canada
Great!! Looking forward to MacHeist 4.

Macupdate and MacHeist bundles are probably the best. The others are pretty lame - they tend to repeat software too much.

Nano bundle - they are starting the promos for MacHeist 4.
 

guzzlamiamor

macrumors member
Oct 19, 2008
46
0
I got an email from them tonight offering a program called squeeze available for free download in advance of the bundle. It is supposed to compress files on your HD (You get to choose which ones) so you can save space but they are still readable by snow leopard. I couldn't find any reviews or other impressions so I decided to test it out my self. I dropped a folder with 64 gig of music and movies into the compression tool and saved a whopping 43.3 MB. A 1.5 gig folder of FLAC rendered a savings of 24.6 KB. I went to the app's website to read the FAQ. It stated that media files are ignored for the most part since no major savings is achieved. My next question is, what can I see a major benefit from compressing? The website doesn't offer a great deal of guidance on that. I suppose I will play around with it for a while.
 

firstapple

macrumors 6502a
Sep 25, 2007
991
19
Apps in Nano Bundle (so far...)

Well,

A few of the members of the forum at MacHeist have figured out some of the apps (by looking at the logos on the boxes):

Ripit
MacJournal
Clips (possibly 2.0 version)

Also, Squeeze is being given away at this time for free...
 

atari1356

macrumors 68000
Feb 27, 2004
1,586
32
It stated that media files are ignored for the most part since no major savings is achieved. My next question is, what can I see a major benefit from compressing? The website doesn't offer a great deal of guidance on that. I suppose I will play around with it for a while.
Image files like .jpg and .gif are already compressed by nature of their file format - and the same goes for most video and audio files.

While I don't know exactly what compression Squeeze (or snow leopard) uses, it likely works best on other things like text files, Word docs, spreadsheets, etc. Photoshop files will likely compress some as well - but to a lesser extent.

I thought about trying Squeeze... but I wonder what it does if you decide to delete it? I would hope there's a way to undo the compression, but it didn't come with any documentation so I'm not quite ready to trust it.
 

macswitcha2

macrumors 65816
Oct 18, 2008
1,209
4
Anyone know about the squeeze app? Get it free while it last. I did but what exactly does it do? Can I add any folder? Would it diminish picture quality? What about apps, music?
 

happygareth

macrumors newbie
Jan 18, 2010
17
0
UK
Squeeze and a hidden Snow Leopard feature.

I was investigating how Squeeze worked myself and I got the answer right here at MacRumors.
Looks like it's a new, 'hidden' feature of Snow Leopard, but with a gui front end.
I'm not going to replicate the information in the thread. Pop over and have a read.
 

maflynn

Moderator
Staff member
May 3, 2009
63,860
30,383
Boston
I was investigating how Squeeze worked myself and I got the answer right here at MacRumors.
Looks like it's a new, 'hidden' feature of Snow Leopard, but with a gui front end.
I'm not going to replicate the information in the thread. Pop over and have a read.
Using an undocumented feature (well undocumented from developers) kind of scares me when it comes to my data. I'm not in that much of a space scrunch to use something that could cause data corruption/loss if apple changes how it does its own compession
 

brkirch

macrumors regular
Oct 18, 2001
191
0
Using an undocumented feature (well undocumented from developers) kind of scares me when it comes to my data. I'm not in that much of a space scrunch to use something that could cause data corruption/loss if apple changes how it does its own compession
You are probably wise to think that. At the very least, there are far too many things missing in the HFS+ compression implementation for Squeeze for me to consider using it. Here's what I said about it on the MacHeist forums:
brkirch said:
While Squeeze is a nice idea, there are some things about how it applies HFS+ compression that need to be fixed before I would consider using it.

GothAlice said:
The fact that it will use the xattr (stored in the directory entry for the file) for small files is gob-smackingly nice; since the read head is most likely going to be near the extents file (that stores directory listings) on-disk, reads of small compressed files would be faster than reading the file normally even accounting for the decompression step.
Unfortunately it seems that Squeeze skips very small files entirely. In addition the small files that it does compress it doesn't store properly - if the compressed data for a file is less than or equal to 3802 bytes then it should be stored in the decmpfs attribute and there should be no resource fork, but Squeeze uses the resource fork to store the data anyway.

There is one other problem that concerns me much more however. I hope I'm wrong, but it appears that Squeeze does not support uncompressed data blocks for HFS+ compression. That by itself is not a serious problem (although it is a significant omission), rather the real problem is that it still tries to store compressed data blocks that are larger than the original uncompressed data blocks - this could result in a buffer overflow which may cause some files to become corrupted. Fortunately I think Squeeze validates compressed files before finalizing them, but there are some cases where having the large compressed data blocks appears to work and if Apple makes any changes to their HFS+ compression implementation there is a chance those files could become corrupted.
 

brkirch

macrumors regular
Oct 18, 2001
191
0
I've done some more tests and fortunately it seems the problems aren't quite as serious as I first thought. Although if you plan on trying the 1.0 I would still keep uncompressed backups of your important data just in case.

Ok...can this be uninstalled?????

How can you undo the compressions?
You can uninstall Squeeze from its preference pane (there should be a button that says "Uninstall" under the "General" tab). The compression can either be undone by either making a copy of the files (when the files are copied the copy will be uncompressed) or using the terminal command afscexpand (or afsctool).
 

macswitcha2

macrumors 65816
Oct 18, 2008
1,209
4
You can uninstall Squeeze from its preference pane (there should be a button that says "Uninstall" under the "General" tab). The compression can either be undone by either making a copy of the files (when the files are copied the copy will be uncompressed) or using the terminal command afscexpand (or afsctool).
So you copy the compressed files and by copying them they somehow decompress?
 

mcruzader

macrumors regular
Sep 10, 2008
151
0
I installed it and so far so good. I basically dropped in my applications folder desktop, documents, downloads, iTunes and Library<Mail and so far I have saved a whopping 3.44GB, most of the savings were in the Applications folder 1.63GB, Mail Folder 836MB, and Documents 848MB. Now my question is does compressing all of that stuff make the computer slower, as far as when I go to open one of those compressed documents or apps?
 

brkirch

macrumors regular
Oct 18, 2001
191
0
Now my question is does compressing all of that stuff make the computer slower, as far as when I go to open one of those compressed documents or apps?
No, disk I/O takes considerably more time than it takes to decompress, so any time spent decompressing is more than made up for with the fact that there is less disk I/O. In fact your computer should run faster because of the HFS+ compression.
 

Cboss

macrumors 6502
Dec 11, 2008
387
0
Colorado
Now my question is does compressing all of that stuff make the computer slower, as far as when I go to open one of those compressed documents or apps?
If it does, it's not much. I've been using the same company's Xslimmer app for quite awhile (It also compresses applications.) and haven't noticed any speed difference.
 

mcruzader

macrumors regular
Sep 10, 2008
151
0
If it does, it's not much. I've been using the same company's Xslimmer app for quite awhile (It also compresses applications.) and haven't noticed any speed difference.
Well that is good, I guess its weird that I also have xslimmer and even though I ran it to slim architectures and I'm now finding out compressing applications, I still managed to save 1.63GB in the app folder, so far I am liking this application.
 

HappyDude20

macrumors 68030
Jul 13, 2008
2,686
194
Los Angeles, Ca
Well,

A few of the members of the forum at MacHeist have figured out some of the apps (by looking at the logos on the boxes):

Ripit
MacJournal
Clips (possibly 2.0 version)

Also, Squeeze is being given away at this time for free...

!!!!!!!!!!

Whaa?

RipIt & MacJournal as a free download? That's sooooo awesome. I can't wait now! When is it all starting?
 

guzzlamiamor

macrumors member
Oct 19, 2008
46
0
If it does, it's not much. I've been using the same company's Xslimmer app for quite awhile (It also compresses applications.) and haven't noticed any speed difference.
I have been thinking about xslimmer, however the website for the manufacturer doesn't appear to say that it actually uses compression. According to the FAQs it appears to strip unnecessary binary from apps thereby saving loads of space. This may explain why another xslimmer user was able to save even more space with squeeze. Now that I have used squeeze a bit more I really like it. I saved 30% on my apps folder. Here is the xslimmer documentation

http://www.xslimmer.com/FAQ.html

Here are the faqs for squeeze. Worth a read if you are on the fence. I have seen no performance loss at all. The fact that HD is typically a bottleneck on the system seems to support the theory that compression would actually create a bit of an improvement.

http://www.latenitesoft.com/squeeze/FAQ.html
 

Cboss

macrumors 6502
Dec 11, 2008
387
0
Colorado
I have been thinking about xslimmer, however the website for the manufacturer doesn't appear to say that it actually uses compression.
If you go to the Xslimmer homepage there is a small section titled "Snow Leopard Ready", where it mentions a "system compression mechanism".

In the application's preferences, under Advanced, there is an option to compress the slimmed binaries under Snow Leopard. I know this works because when I just slimmed the most recent version of WebKit (initially 166 MB), the size after removing other binaries/languages is 127.8 MB, but after compression it is 62.1 MB.

Also, not all apps compress with xSlimmer. While WebKit's size gets cut in half, Google Chrome doesn't get compressed at all. Not sure why though...