In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 03:11:11PM +0800, Josh McKinnon wrote: > On 07/06/2005, at 14:22 , James Devenish wrote: > >So what will we get instead? "Why is Acrobat Reader 100MB to > >download?" > I don't think it will be that bad - only the executable needs to be > modified. For instance, Safari.app is 20MB (on my computer), but the > executable inside the package is only 1 MB
Some of Apple's apps are rather small because the bulk of the executable portions are stored in system libraries (e.g. I imagine WebKit is large even though Safari is small). Other apps can have tens of megabytes of executables. But yes, you are right, the non-executables portions of many apps are larger than their executables portions, so the increase is not much larger. However, the rapidly-increasing size of installers is an issue for me and it's obviously just going to get worse (like all storage/RAM/CPU requirements always do, sigh). > And would anyone downloading Acrobat Reader be intelligent enough to > notice anyway? LOL.
