MEGA app size?


    Aug 16 2006 | 8:12 pm
    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

    • Aug 16 2006 | 8:30 pm
      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 //
      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
      >
    • Aug 16 2006 | 8:38 pm
      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
    • Aug 16 2006 | 8:47 pm
      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 ;)
      >
    • Aug 16 2006 | 8:53 pm
      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
    • Aug 16 2006 | 8:58 pm
      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
    • Aug 16 2006 | 9:20 pm
      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
    • Aug 16 2006 | 9:31 pm
      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
    • Aug 16 2006 | 9:31 pm
      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
      >
      >
      >
    • Aug 16 2006 | 10:11 pm
      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
    • Aug 17 2006 | 6:18 am
      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|