The slimming of apps, while good, is not very impressive when one takes xslimmer into account. I have used xslimmer on 10.5.3 and the end result are apps that are all smaller - some significantly - than those supposedly slimmed Snow Leopard apps.
Take for example:
IChat - SL 48MB, xslimmer 11.4MB
iChat - SL 52MB, xslimmer 11.3MB
Mail - SL 91MB, xlimmer 24.7MB
Safari - SL 61MB, xlimmer 7.6MB
These are significant reductions and that was just from stripping out PPC and redundant language code, so what Apple is doing with Snow Leopard is nothing special.
The slimming of apps, while good, is not very impressive when one takes xslimmer into account. I have used xslimmer on 10.5.3 and the end result are apps that are all smaller - some significantly - than those supposedly slimmed Snow Leopard apps.
Take for example:
IChat - SL 48MB, xslimmer 11.4MB
iChat - SL 52MB, xslimmer 11.3MB
Mail - SL 91MB, xlimmer 24.7MB
Safari - SL 61MB, xlimmer 7.6MB
These are significant reductions and that was just from stripping out PPC and redundant language code, so what Apple is doing with Snow Leopard is nothing special.
SL still contains the localizations, the apps would be much smaller if they were removed. Xslimmer is doing a very rudimentary job of reducing the code, while SL is reducing the code in other ways, though we don't exactly know how yet.
Could they be making a single localization that can work for any and all apps installed? Are thy replacing lage bitmaps with vector graphics? Ar they cleaning up the code itself with a new compiler or making more use of frameworks? Ws shall see.
SL still contains the localizations, the apps would be much smaller if they were removed. Xslimmer is doing a very rudimentary job of reducing the code, while SL is reducing the code in other ways, though we don't exactly know how yet.
Could they be making a single localization that can work for any and all apps installed? Are thy replacing lage bitmaps with vector graphics? Ar they cleaning up the code itself with a new compiler or making more use of frameworks? Ws shall see.
Okay in that respect they are doing fairy well. It will be interest to see what an xslimmed version of the Snow Leopard apps will end up being.
I will give Apple due congrats for reducing the size of their apps. In a world where everything seems to get bigger all the time, it is refreshing for something to get smaller.
Of course, Apple will probably charge you more for it! Less is more, right?
SL still contains the localizations, the apps would be much smaller if they were removed. Xslimmer is doing a very rudimentary job of reducing the code, while SL is reducing the code in other ways, though we don't exactly know how yet.
Could they be making a single localization that can work for any and all apps installed? Are thy replacing lage bitmaps with vector graphics? Ar they cleaning up the code itself with a new compiler or making more use of frameworks? Ws shall see.
OK this is pretty basic computer science people. I have the Snow Leopard preview but I'm not going to break NDA. However, I will go on a road of self discovery and enlightenment with ya'll together.
As was stated earlier, executable code is a very small portion of an application's disk footprint. Take Mail.app for example in Leopard:
du -h /Applications/Mail.app
<snip>
289M\t/Applications/Mail.app
Mail.app takes up a whopping 289MB. This is a MacBook Pro, basically fresh off the truck from China and updated to 10.5.3. Now, look at the executable:
du -h /Applications/Mail.app/Contents/MacOS/Mail
5.7M\t/Applications/Mail.app/Contents/MacOS/Mail
The Mail executable is 5.7MB, or 1.97% of the overall footprint. Even if LLVM and all the other "compiler magic" (oy) in Snow Leopard reduced the executable to a measly 4K (impossible given the Mach headers, static data and load commands alone would be more than that), the bundle would still be around 284 MB.
So let's look at the resources. The real heft is in Resources:
du -h /Applications/Mail.app/Contents/Resources
279M\t/Applications/Mail.app/Contents/Resources/
So 279MB, or 98% of the footprint, is taken up by resources. Which resources then?
du -h /Applications/Mail.app/Contents/Resources/ | sort
So to take an educated guess: Snow Leopard will dramatically reduce the footprint of the operating system by only installing one localization--the localization choosen by the user when they boot from the CD and choose which language to use for the installer. Other languges will be on the install disk as an Optional install. Perhaps some images will be replaced by PDF and other vector art, but bearing in mind that vector art is still much more expensive to render, and Apple has typically discouraged that route except for very simple graphics (look at the Apple Icon Guidelines), I still assert almost all the savings will come from installing fewer resources.
Oh and one more thing?lets remember that Apple has to REDUCE footprint while adding 64 bit binaries. Therefore the size reduction will not, in any way shape or form, come from reducing code size. Remember, 64 bit binaries are around 2x the same of their 32 bit counterpart.
Indeed if they just removed all of the localisations that the user won't be using, there would be an awful lot of space saved / slimmer applications. Sounding pretty exciting anyway, given that the general trend is for things to be getting bigger / more bloated.
Maybe they are comparing versions with all languages installed (default on new Mac) versus developer build which is most likely English only. That's quite a lot less nibs here folks...
Or they've cut the PPC bits out? There was talk about snow leopard not supporting PPC anymore but I may have missed something.
I take particular offence when I have just written a superb piece of prose only to find a green squiggle appearing under it. Grammar check tells me that Bill Gates thinks my 'sentence is too long'! The nerve! Harumph!
So true! I absolutely must have auto correct and grammar check off in Word, or else I go nuts!
One of my wife's co-workers has a last name spelled "Taht". It was almost impossible for anyone to write him a letter in a Microsoft application without it coming through as "That".
They can't add it to the dictionary? (Or kill auto correct?)
Let Apple know, via http://bugreport.apple.com . I know I did the minute I read that paragraph. If they find out how many people hate this "feature", they'll have to leave it off by default, and only available for the masochists who'd actually want to turn it on.
Lack of irritating misfeatures like that is why I ended up buying Pages instead of Word 2008.
Did you give Word 2008 a chance? Perhaps try it via a friend or another source? After all, you could have turned some features off. I find Word '08 to be quite capable, superior to Word '04 though it took some getting used to and more complete than Pages.
Really, that's not AI's style. They are not so much a rumour site as a bullshit site. They haven't provided us with any sort of rationale for this idea they deliver with such certitude. They confidently state some future iPhone will have an Atom processor because someone used an image on a slide, although it defies all logic. They don't have the technical nouse to develop any of these ideas as possibilities. They just throw out half baked notions based on their own ignorance.
...the technology will be used to help expand upon Font Book to provide full Auto Activation of any fonts requested by any application, using Spotlight to track them down.
Leopard already has automatic font activation (thus our ability here to do away with Suitcase X1 in Leopard.) I guess the above simply means that you can auto-activate fonts from locations other than /Library/Fonts?
This begs the question, if they aren't needed after app development then why was Apple including them. If you answer is it was an oversight, then why weren't they removed with a point update?
Please don't let this be true. Underlining misspelled words is good enough. Please don't correct them for me. Most of the time I mean what I typed, not what Word thinks I thought I typed.
Why would anyone take UI cues from Microsoft Word? Are they going to introduce the line you can see but for some reason can't delete as well? Or the table that used to be there but isn't there anymore but for some reason you can't reclaim the space where it used to be? Maybe the image that looks like you can drag it where you want it but will really stay exactly where it is no matter what? So many features to copy, so little time.
My thoughts exactly (except I can't stand even the underlining). If there is anything like this I just hope it can be turned off completely. The automatic changes that Word makes are so frustrating and annoying. I've turned off all the automatic features I can, but there are still a few that can't be turned off.
Those still missing -- such as word auto correction, smart dash insertion, and text replacement features (such as typing TM to get the ™ character) -- will arrive next Spring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider, typed using Snow Leopard Alpha
Those still missing -- such as word auto correction, smart dash insertion, and text replacement features (such as typing ™ to get the ™ character) -- will arrive next Spring.
I am not that great of a typer, and I find word's auto-correct the only useful future in Word. As long as they would throw in a preference pane to handle it and the system-wide spellcheck.
If you used Firefox you'd see the errors showing up in there. Mind you, no spell checker (unless extremely clever, so by this I include Word) is going to pick up mistakes such as "future" instead of "feature".
Text Edit is 5.4MB on my system, 5.1MB of which are interface related files (the UB code is less than 300Kb, so stripping out the PPC code would result in a minimal gain).
Comments
Take for example:
IChat - SL 48MB, xslimmer 11.4MB
iChat - SL 52MB, xslimmer 11.3MB
Mail - SL 91MB, xlimmer 24.7MB
Safari - SL 61MB, xlimmer 7.6MB
These are significant reductions and that was just from stripping out PPC and redundant language code, so what Apple is doing with Snow Leopard is nothing special.
The slimming of apps, while good, is not very impressive when one takes xslimmer into account. I have used xslimmer on 10.5.3 and the end result are apps that are all smaller - some significantly - than those supposedly slimmed Snow Leopard apps.
Take for example:
IChat - SL 48MB, xslimmer 11.4MB
iChat - SL 52MB, xslimmer 11.3MB
Mail - SL 91MB, xlimmer 24.7MB
Safari - SL 61MB, xlimmer 7.6MB
These are significant reductions and that was just from stripping out PPC and redundant language code, so what Apple is doing with Snow Leopard is nothing special.
SL still contains the localizations, the apps would be much smaller if they were removed. Xslimmer is doing a very rudimentary job of reducing the code, while SL is reducing the code in other ways, though we don't exactly know how yet.
Could they be making a single localization that can work for any and all apps installed? Are thy replacing lage bitmaps with vector graphics? Ar they cleaning up the code itself with a new compiler or making more use of frameworks? Ws shall see.
SL still contains the localizations, the apps would be much smaller if they were removed. Xslimmer is doing a very rudimentary job of reducing the code, while SL is reducing the code in other ways, though we don't exactly know how yet.
Could they be making a single localization that can work for any and all apps installed? Are thy replacing lage bitmaps with vector graphics? Ar they cleaning up the code itself with a new compiler or making more use of frameworks? Ws shall see.
Okay in that respect they are doing fairy well. It will be interest to see what an xslimmed version of the Snow Leopard apps will end up being.
I will give Apple due congrats for reducing the size of their apps. In a world where everything seems to get bigger all the time, it is refreshing for something to get smaller.
Of course, Apple will probably charge you more for it! Less is more, right?
SL still contains the localizations, the apps would be much smaller if they were removed. Xslimmer is doing a very rudimentary job of reducing the code, while SL is reducing the code in other ways, though we don't exactly know how yet.
Could they be making a single localization that can work for any and all apps installed? Are thy replacing lage bitmaps with vector graphics? Ar they cleaning up the code itself with a new compiler or making more use of frameworks? Ws shall see.
OK this is pretty basic computer science people. I have the Snow Leopard preview but I'm not going to break NDA. However, I will go on a road of self discovery and enlightenment with ya'll together.
As was stated earlier, executable code is a very small portion of an application's disk footprint. Take Mail.app for example in Leopard:
du -h /Applications/Mail.app
<snip>
289M\t/Applications/Mail.app
Mail.app takes up a whopping 289MB. This is a MacBook Pro, basically fresh off the truck from China and updated to 10.5.3. Now, look at the executable:
du -h /Applications/Mail.app/Contents/MacOS/Mail
5.7M\t/Applications/Mail.app/Contents/MacOS/Mail
The Mail executable is 5.7MB, or 1.97% of the overall footprint. Even if LLVM and all the other "compiler magic" (oy) in Snow Leopard reduced the executable to a measly 4K (impossible given the Mach headers, static data and load commands alone would be more than that), the bundle would still be around 284 MB.
So let's look at the resources. The real heft is in Resources:
du -h /Applications/Mail.app/Contents/Resources
279M\t/Applications/Mail.app/Contents/Resources/
So 279MB, or 98% of the footprint, is taken up by resources. Which resources then?
du -h /Applications/Mail.app/Contents/Resources/ | sort
15M\t/Applications/Mail.app/Contents/Resources//Dutch.lproj
15M\t/Applications/Mail.app/Contents/Resources//English.lproj
15M\t/Applications/Mail.app/Contents/Resources//German.lproj
15M\t/Applications/Mail.app/Contents/Resources//Italian.lproj
15M\t/Applications/Mail.app/Contents/Resources//Japanese.lproj
15M\t/Applications/Mail.app/Contents/Resources//Spanish.lproj
15M\t/Applications/Mail.app/Contents/Resources//da.lproj
15M\t/Applications/Mail.app/Contents/Resources//fi.lproj
15M\t/Applications/Mail.app/Contents/Resources//ko.lproj
15M\t/Applications/Mail.app/Contents/Resources//no.lproj
15M\t/Applications/Mail.app/Contents/Resources//pl.lproj
...
As you can see, each localization takes up 15 MB. With 18 localizations installed by default, that's 270MB.
Now, let's look at the individual localized files. In English:
du -h /Applications/Mail.app/Contents/Resources/English.lproj/ | sort
44K\t/Applications/Mail.app/Contents/Resources/English.lproj//MailHelp/shrd
..
540K\t/Applications/Mail.app/Contents/Resources/English.lproj//MailViewer.nib
544K\t/Applications/Mail.app/Contents/Resources/English.lproj//SmartMailboxCriterionView.nib
568K\t/Applications/Mail.app/Contents/Resources/English.lproj//MailHelp/gfx
576K\t/Applications/Mail.app/Contents/Resources/English.lproj//MailSorter.nib
As you can see, the largest files are nib files.
So to take an educated guess: Snow Leopard will dramatically reduce the footprint of the operating system by only installing one localization--the localization choosen by the user when they boot from the CD and choose which language to use for the installer. Other languges will be on the install disk as an Optional install. Perhaps some images will be replaced by PDF and other vector art, but bearing in mind that vector art is still much more expensive to render, and Apple has typically discouraged that route except for very simple graphics (look at the Apple Icon Guidelines), I still assert almost all the savings will come from installing fewer resources.
Maybe they are comparing versions with all languages installed (default on new Mac) versus developer build which is most likely English only. That's quite a lot less nibs here folks...
Or they've cut the PPC bits out? There was talk about snow leopard not supporting PPC anymore but I may have missed something.
I take particular offence when I have just written a superb piece of prose only to find a green squiggle appearing under it. Grammar check tells me that Bill Gates thinks my 'sentence is too long'! The nerve! Harumph!
So true! I absolutely must have auto correct and grammar check off in Word, or else I go nuts!
my thoughts exactly. not long ago, programmers were more precise. these days they are lazy and use all kind of compilers thus the huge size of files.
it started long ago, but still the best ever programmed piece is SAWStudio.
My Textedit is 3.1MB.
Leopard (10.5.3)
English and Mandarin
One of my wife's co-workers has a last name spelled "Taht". It was almost impossible for anyone to write him a letter in a Microsoft application without it coming through as "That".
They can't add it to the dictionary? (Or kill auto correct?)
Let Apple know, via http://bugreport.apple.com . I know I did the minute I read that paragraph. If they find out how many people hate this "feature", they'll have to leave it off by default, and only available for the masochists who'd actually want to turn it on.
Lack of irritating misfeatures like that is why I ended up buying Pages instead of Word 2008.
Did you give Word 2008 a chance? Perhaps try it via a friend or another source? After all, you could have turned some features off. I find Word '08 to be quite capable, superior to Word '04 though it took some getting used to and more complete than Pages.
Really, that's not AI's style. They are not so much a rumour site as a bullshit site. They haven't provided us with any sort of rationale for this idea they deliver with such certitude. They confidently state some future iPhone will have an Atom processor because someone used an image on a slide, although it defies all logic. They don't have the technical nouse to develop any of these ideas as possibilities. They just throw out half baked notions based on their own ignorance.
And you [and we] read it.
...whenever we open Safari, Clippy will ask us "I see you are trying to read Appleinsider. Would you like some help?
No no, better, "I see you are trying to access AppleInsider. How about porn instead?"
Auto Activation
...the technology will be used to help expand upon Font Book to provide full Auto Activation of any fonts requested by any application, using Spotlight to track them down.
Leopard already has automatic font activation (thus our ability here to do away with Suitcase X1 in Leopard.) I guess the above simply means that you can auto-activate fonts from locations other than /Library/Fonts?
Please don't let this be true. Underlining misspelled words is good enough. Please don't correct them for me. Most of the time I mean what I typed, not what Word thinks I thought I typed.
Why would anyone take UI cues from Microsoft Word? Are they going to introduce the line you can see but for some reason can't delete as well? Or the table that used to be there but isn't there anymore but for some reason you can't reclaim the space where it used to be? Maybe the image that looks like you can drag it where you want it but will really stay exactly where it is no matter what? So many features to copy, so little time.
My thoughts exactly (except I can't stand even the underlining). If there is anything like this I just hope it can be turned off completely. The automatic changes that Word makes are so frustrating and annoying. I've turned off all the automatic features I can, but there are still a few that can't be turned off.
Those still missing -- such as word auto correction, smart dash insertion, and text replacement features (such as typing TM to get the ™ character) -- will arrive next Spring.
Those still missing -- such as word auto correction, smart dash insertion, and text replacement features (such as typing ™ to get the ™ character) -- will arrive next Spring.
can you really see this happening in Mac OS?
Next stop, an animating paperclip...
I am not that great of a typer, and I find word's auto-correct the only useful future in Word. As long as they would throw in a preference pane to handle it and the system-wide spellcheck.
If you used Firefox you'd see the errors showing up in there. Mind you, no spell checker (unless extremely clever, so by this I include Word) is going to pick up mistakes such as "future" instead of "feature".
Text Edit is 5.4MB on my system, 5.1MB of which are interface related files (the UB code is less than 300Kb, so stripping out the PPC code would result in a minimal gain).
What are these people talking about?
And that's Universal!!
What are these people talking about?
<image>
And that's Universal!!
I get 1.9MB too.