MEGA app size?

Aug 16, 2006 at 8:12pm

MEGA app size?

Using Max/MSP 4.6 on a MacIntel, I was shocked to find that after
turning my patch into a standalone application, its size was 30+ MB.

To debug, I made a patch with nothing in it, built it into a
standalone, and that is 15.1 MB.

Something don’t seem right.

Dan

Dan Nigrin
Defective Records
202 Hack / PC-1600 User / VSTi Host / OMS Convert / Jack OS X
http://www.defectiverecords.com

http://www.jackosx.com

#27192
Aug 16, 2006 at 8:30pm

Why? The runtime itself for 4.6 is 18 megs. This isnt ‘compiled’
software, but a repackaged runtime that loads only your patch? Im
suprised the standalone was 15 megs ;)

v a d e //

http://www.vade.info
abstrakt.vade.info

On Aug 16, 2006, at 4:12 PM, Dan Nigrin wrote:

> Using Max/MSP 4.6 on a MacIntel, I was shocked to find that after
> turning my patch into a standalone application, its size was 30+ MB.
>
> To debug, I made a patch with nothing in it, built it into a
> standalone, and that is 15.1 MB.
>
> Something don’t seem right.
>
> Dan
> —
> Dan Nigrin
> Defective Records
> 202 Hack / PC-1600 User / VSTi Host / OMS Convert / Jack OS X
> http://www.defectiverecords.com
> http://www.jackosx.com
>

#82058
Aug 16, 2006 at 8:38pm

Well, considering that the 4.5.x Runtime was only 2.2 MB, this is a
real drag if this is the way it’s going to have to be… Cycling?

Dan

At 4:30 PM -0400 8/16/06, vade wrote:
>Why? The runtime itself for 4.6 is 18 megs. This isnt ‘compiled’
>software, but a repackaged runtime that loads only your patch? Im
>suprised the standalone was 15 megs ;)


Dan Nigrin
Defective Records
202 Hack / PC-1600 User / VSTi Host / OMS Convert / Jack OS X
http://www.defectiverecords.com

http://www.jackosx.com

#82059
Aug 16, 2006 at 8:47pm

Not knowing very much about how Universal Binary really work, I would
expect MaxPlay 4.6 to be at least twice as large as Max 4.5 as it needs
to contain binaries for both PPC and Intel.

Trond

> Well, considering that the 4.5.x Runtime was only 2.2 MB, this is a
> real drag if this is the way it’s going to have to be… Cycling?
>> Why? The runtime itself for 4.6 is 18 megs. This isnt ‘compiled’
>> software, but a repackaged runtime that loads only your patch? Im
>> suprised the standalone was 15 megs ;)
>

#82060
Aug 16, 2006 at 8:53pm

Right Trond, but that’s why I was suprised to see the ~5 fold
increase, not ~2 fold…

Dan

At 10:47 PM +0200 8/16/06, Trond Lossius wrote:
>Not knowing very much about how Universal Binary really work, I
>would expect MaxPlay 4.6 to be at least twice as large as Max 4.5 as
>it needs to contain binaries for both PPC and Intel.
>
>Trond
>
>>Well, considering that the 4.5.x Runtime was only 2.2 MB, this is a
>>real drag if this is the way it’s going to have to be… Cycling?
>>>Why? The runtime itself for 4.6 is 18 megs. This isnt ‘compiled’
>>>software, but a repackaged runtime that loads only your patch? Im
>>>suprised the standalone was 15 megs ;)


Dan Nigrin
Defective Records
202 Hack / PC-1600 User / VSTi Host / OMS Convert / Jack OS X
http://www.defectiverecords.com

http://www.jackosx.com

#82061
Aug 16, 2006 at 8:58pm

On Aug 16, 2006, at 1:12 PM, Dan Nigrin wrote:

> Using Max/MSP 4.6 on a MacIntel, I was shocked to find that after
> turning my patch into a standalone application, its size was 30+ MB.
>
> To debug, I made a patch with nothing in it, built it into a
> standalone, and that is 15.1 MB.
>
> Something don’t seem right.

UB requires much bulkier apps since there is code for both platforms
in the same executable leading to ~2x the size. If you look inside
the package you can find out specific file sizes:

MaxMSPRuntime: 10.8 MB

Frameworks/MaxAPI.framework: 0.7 MB
Frameworks/MaxAudioAPI.framework: 0.4 MB (can remove if you’re not
using MSP)
Frameworks/MaxJSRef.framework: 0.9 MB (can remove if you’re not using
JS)
Frameworks/JitterAPI.framework: 4.1 MB (can remove if you’re not
using Jitter)

Resources/MaxMSPCFMSupport.pkg: 0.3MB (can remove if you don’t need
CFM support)

So a minimal UB standalone will be at least 11.5 MB.

-Joshua

#82062
Aug 16, 2006 at 9:20pm

At 1:58 PM -0700 8/16/06, Joshua Kit Clayton wrote:
>On Aug 16, 2006, at 1:12 PM, Dan Nigrin wrote:
>
>>Using Max/MSP 4.6 on a MacIntel, I was shocked to find that after
>>turning my patch into a standalone application, its size was 30+ MB.
>>
>>To debug, I made a patch with nothing in it, built it into a
>>standalone, and that is 15.1 MB.
>>
>>Something don’t seem right.
>
>UB requires much bulkier apps since there is code for both platforms
>in the same executable leading to ~2x the size. If you look inside
>the package you can find out specific file sizes:
>
>MaxMSPRuntime: 10.8 MB
>
>Frameworks/MaxAPI.framework: 0.7 MB
>Frameworks/MaxAudioAPI.framework: 0.4 MB (can remove if you’re not using MSP)
>Frameworks/MaxJSRef.framework: 0.9 MB (can remove if you’re not using JS)
>Frameworks/JitterAPI.framework: 4.1 MB (can remove if you’re not using Jitter)
>
>Resources/MaxMSPCFMSupport.pkg: 0.3MB (can remove if you don’t need
>CFM support)
>
>So a minimal UB standalone will be at least 11.5 MB.

Thanks Joshua – but I’m still puzzled by the much greater than ~2
fold increase.

Also, beyond the sizes for the framework and the “repackaged”
Runtime, my “app” (within the MacOS folder in the package) is now
10.7 MB, compared to 2 MB when built using Max/MSP 4.5.7 on PPC…

Dan

Dan Nigrin
Defective Records
202 Hack / PC-1600 User / VSTi Host / OMS Convert / Jack OS X
http://www.defectiverecords.com

http://www.jackosx.com

#82063
Aug 16, 2006 at 9:31pm

On Aug 16, 2006, at 1:53 PM, Dan Nigrin wrote:

> Right Trond, but that’s why I was suprised to see the ~5 fold
> increase, not ~2 fold…

You’re neglecting the fact that the Mach-O version uses a different
compiler and executable format which has the potential to create
larger executables regardless. This isn’t particularly under our
control or going to change any time soon, so it looks like you have a
choice between ticking with CFM/PPC, ot upgrading your server bandwidth.

If you recall the quad FAT format of NeXTStep (Motorola, Intel, PA-
RISC and SPARC), it doesn’t seem like binaries are going to get any
smaller as long as one is compiling machine specific code for
multiple processors.

-Joshua

#82064
Aug 16, 2006 at 9:31pm

Hi,

Maybe you should remove header files from the frameworks copied into
built application? This is not saving much space, but it’s quite useless…

Chris

> MaxMSPRuntime: 10.8 MB
>
> Frameworks/MaxAPI.framework: 0.7 MB
> Frameworks/MaxAudioAPI.framework: 0.4 MB (can remove if you’re not using
> MSP)
> Frameworks/MaxJSRef.framework: 0.9 MB (can remove if you’re not using JS)
> Frameworks/JitterAPI.framework: 4.1 MB (can remove if you’re not using
> Jitter)
>
> Resources/MaxMSPCFMSupport.pkg: 0.3MB (can remove if you don’t need CFM
> support)
>
> So a minimal UB standalone will be at least 11.5 MB.
>
> -Joshua
>
>
>

#82065
Aug 16, 2006 at 10:11pm

On Aug 16, 2006, at 2:31 PM, Chris wrote:

> Maybe you should remove header files from the frameworks copied
> into built application? This is not saving much space, but it’s
> quite useless…

These are useful in the case that developers want to use these
frameworks, so these will in all likelihood stay. Free to delete them
yourself if you like. Since they are text files they compress quite
nicely for download.

-Joshua

#82066
Aug 17, 2006 at 6:18am

On 16-Aug-2006, at 23:31, Joshua Kit Clayton wrote:
> If you recall the quad FAT format of NeXTStep (Motorola, Intel, PA-
> RISC and SPARC), it doesn’t seem like binaries are going to get any
> smaller as long as one is compiling machine specific code for
> multiple processors.

Plus the last mail I had from ADC indicates that Quad UBs are the
immediate future for Mac OS: 32 and 64 bit for both Intel and PPC.

I will admit to being a little surprised about seeing 64-bit PPC
included in the announcement, but it’s there in 12pt Lucinda Grande.

I’m looking forward to the first multi-GB Max/MSP standalone. Or
maybe not.-)

– P.

————– http://www.bek.no/~pcastine/Litter/ ————-
Peter Castine +–> Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter
Universal Binaries on the way
iCE: Sequencing, Recording &
Interface Building for |home | chez nous|
Max/MSP Extremely cool |bei uns | i nostri|
http://www.dspaudio.com/ http://www.castine.de

#82067

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.