6 ms·

I don't find disk space worth optimizing for in 2018. For $2 you can buy a USB Thumbdrive that will hold every Electron app you'll ever use.

yladiz 8y ago
It's opinions like this that cause first day downloads for new games like Red Dead Redemption 2 to be 55GBs. In the case of an Electron app disk space might not matter as much, but it's absolutely worth optimizing in 2018, at least because not everyone has high speed connections (e.g. in Germany, a lot of infrastructure is built around DSL, which obviously doesn't get great speeds).
- ianhawes 8y ago
  You’re comparing apples to oranges. 3D models vs. app code. You will be hard pressed to find any Electron app that exceeds 200 MB in disk space. Most are ~50 MB. Overall in 2018 that is not a big concern. In gaming, high definition graphics are going to result in massively larger files. That’s not going to change anytime soon and no gaming company will prioritize a small download over better graphics.
  - yladiz 8y ago
    Yes I know, and the size of an Electron app versus a AAA game is sometimes 3 orders of magnitude in difference, which is why I pointed out that even a "small" app that's 100MB is still a lot to download on a limited speed connection.
  - josephg 8y ago
    > You will be hard pressed to find any Electron app that exceeds 200 MB in disk space. Most are ~50 MB. Huh? Looking at my applications folder right now: Atom 1.31: 822mb Daedalus 0.8: 265mb Mist 0.9.2: 186mb Neon 0.0.7: 180mb Patchwork: 185mb Riot 0.11.4: 160mb VS Code: 193mb The electron framework alone is 117mb on MacOS. Honestly, how many copies of that do I need?
    - ec109685 8y ago
      If you have 20 such apps, you use 1% of your 250gb SSD (which is on the way low end) on redundant framework copies, with the benefit that the developer gets to test on the version of Electron you are running.
    - applecrazy 8y ago
      I don't understand why apps don't download an Electron runtime on launch and store it in a shared location. That way, if apps share a required runtime version, only one copy of that version runtime exists.
      - tuananh 8y ago
        carlo by Google Chrome team https://github.com/GoogleChromeLabs/carlo https://github.com/GoogleChromeLabs/carlo
  - zakius 8y ago
    50MB isn't a big of a concern until you realize high quality native app would do it in less than 5 and probably in less than 5% of RAM usage
- macspoofing 8y ago
  >It's opinions like this that cause first day downloads for new games like Red Dead Redemption 2 to be 55GBs. RDR2's size comes from media files (high-resolution textures, models, audio). Pray-tell, what magic compression technique would you use to do better AND still support 4K textures?
  - lazyjones 8y ago
    > Pray-tell, what magic compression technique would you use to do better AND still support 4K textures? How about downloading textures and movies on demand in the background when you enter new areas? It's not like all that stuff is required for the game to start.
    - michaelmrose 8y ago
      Given 55GB of data and the internet speed the average person has, the fact that most users will ultimately need to load most data, and the fact that a huge mass of users will need the data on day one this seems like a bad strategy.
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    A lot of space in some recent games, truly a bizarre amount has been in some cases dedicated to uncompressed audio. Given that most people can't tell the difference between high grade mp3 and uncompressed it seems likely that this could be something like mp3.
    - Veedrac 8y ago
      I suspected you meant lossless, but no, Titanfall literally did include 35GB of uncompressed audio. Their reason was to lower the CPU overhead from decompression, which sounds like nonsense to me.
  - zakius 8y ago
    tbh I'd use configurable installer: download only these assets you'll be using at worst case allow us to set up everything with full version installed and then cleanup
- ukyrgf 8y ago
  Hey, that's not fair to RDR2! I actually bought it the day it came out because it _didn't_ have a huge day one patch. I think it was only about 4 GB, which is barely a blip on my ISP's arbitrary data cap. Fallout 76, however, had a patch that was larger than the disc itself, so that was an easy "pass" for me. Edit: I just checked, and even now that they've added multiplayer to the game (which didn't come on the physical disk), the patch for a new installation of RDR2 is 8 GB. Meanwhile, Fallout 76 is 50 GB and COD:BO4 is 65 GB.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
hellofunk 8y ago
Ridiculous. I have a 256 GB hard drive, which is pretty common even on new machines. I’m constantly having to delete stuff to make sure I don’t run out of room. It’s absolutely an issue.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  I'm hoping you have a 256 GB ssd. In any case lots of bad stuff is common and hoping the universe changes seems like a bad strategy seeing as a 500GB ssd is about $85 and a 500GB hd is like $30. If you want more future proof a 1TB ssd can be found for around $150.
  - dylan604 8y ago
    Unless you're on an Apple laptop. There's no upgrading of the components. And before the "you made the choice" guys start chiming in, some people didn't make that choice. If IT says "Dude, you're getting an Apple", then it is what it is. Just because "hard drives are cheap" is not an excuse to ship bloated software. At some point, the app has the features it is meant to have. At that point, it is a good time to refactor bloated code before proceeding to new features. The bloat will just continue, and eventually cause issues that come to a head.
    - jf- 8y ago
      Sure, but the issue there is the poor value offered by Macs (not hating on Mac, I also use one, but bang for your buck is absurdly low). If you have a non-Mac then you likely have a decent sized hard drive. While electron resource use is not ideal, on modern hardware it really shouldn’t be the issue that it’s being made out to be. On the practical side, why not do as gp suggests and use an external drive? You’ll likely need additional storage with any of the lower spec’d Macs anyway, electron or not.
      - dylan604 8y ago
        Of course I use external storage. USBC->SATA SSD has been amazing. Would love to be able to get a USBC->M.2 for the speed difference. Non-techy people that buy Apple might not though, and they're the ones installing stuff with little concern. It's easy to lose sight of the avg user.

yladiz 8y ago

It's opinions like this that cause first day downloads for new games like Red Dead Redemption 2 to be 55GBs. In the case of an Electron app disk space might not matter as much, but it's absolutely worth optimizing in 2018, at least because not everyone has high speed connections (e.g. in Germany, a lot of infrastructure is built around DSL, which obviously doesn't get great speeds).

ianhawes 8y ago
You’re comparing apples to oranges. 3D models vs. app code. You will be hard pressed to find any Electron app that exceeds 200 MB in disk space. Most are ~50 MB. Overall in 2018 that is not a big concern. In gaming, high definition graphics are going to result in massively larger files. That’s not going to change anytime soon and no gaming company will prioritize a small download over better graphics.
- yladiz 8y ago
  Yes I know, and the size of an Electron app versus a AAA game is sometimes 3 orders of magnitude in difference, which is why I pointed out that even a "small" app that's 100MB is still a lot to download on a limited speed connection.
- josephg 8y ago
  > You will be hard pressed to find any Electron app that exceeds 200 MB in disk space. Most are ~50 MB. Huh? Looking at my applications folder right now: Atom 1.31: 822mb Daedalus 0.8: 265mb Mist 0.9.2: 186mb Neon 0.0.7: 180mb Patchwork: 185mb Riot 0.11.4: 160mb VS Code: 193mb The electron framework alone is 117mb on MacOS. Honestly, how many copies of that do I need?
  - ec109685 8y ago
    If you have 20 such apps, you use 1% of your 250gb SSD (which is on the way low end) on redundant framework copies, with the benefit that the developer gets to test on the version of Electron you are running.
  - applecrazy 8y ago
    I don't understand why apps don't download an Electron runtime on launch and store it in a shared location. That way, if apps share a required runtime version, only one copy of that version runtime exists.
    - tuananh 8y ago
      carlo by Google Chrome team https://github.com/GoogleChromeLabs/carlo https://github.com/GoogleChromeLabs/carlo
- zakius 8y ago
  50MB isn't a big of a concern until you realize high quality native app would do it in less than 5 and probably in less than 5% of RAM usage
macspoofing 8y ago
>It's opinions like this that cause first day downloads for new games like Red Dead Redemption 2 to be 55GBs. RDR2's size comes from media files (high-resolution textures, models, audio). Pray-tell, what magic compression technique would you use to do better AND still support 4K textures?
- lazyjones 8y ago
  > Pray-tell, what magic compression technique would you use to do better AND still support 4K textures? How about downloading textures and movies on demand in the background when you enter new areas? It's not like all that stuff is required for the game to start.
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    Given 55GB of data and the internet speed the average person has, the fact that most users will ultimately need to load most data, and the fact that a huge mass of users will need the data on day one this seems like a bad strategy.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  A lot of space in some recent games, truly a bizarre amount has been in some cases dedicated to uncompressed audio. Given that most people can't tell the difference between high grade mp3 and uncompressed it seems likely that this could be something like mp3.
  - Veedrac 8y ago
    I suspected you meant lossless, but no, Titanfall literally did include 35GB of uncompressed audio. Their reason was to lower the CPU overhead from decompression, which sounds like nonsense to me.
- zakius 8y ago
  tbh I'd use configurable installer: download only these assets you'll be using at worst case allow us to set up everything with full version installed and then cleanup
ukyrgf 8y ago
Hey, that's not fair to RDR2! I actually bought it the day it came out because it _didn't_ have a huge day one patch. I think it was only about 4 GB, which is barely a blip on my ISP's arbitrary data cap. Fallout 76, however, had a patch that was larger than the disc itself, so that was an easy "pass" for me. Edit: I just checked, and even now that they've added multiplayer to the game (which didn't come on the physical disk), the patch for a new installation of RDR2 is 8 GB. Meanwhile, Fallout 76 is 50 GB and COD:BO4 is 65 GB.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

hellofunk 8y ago

Ridiculous. I have a 256 GB hard drive, which is pretty common even on new machines. I’m constantly having to delete stuff to make sure I don’t run out of room. It’s absolutely an issue.

michaelmrose 8y ago
I'm hoping you have a 256 GB ssd. In any case lots of bad stuff is common and hoping the universe changes seems like a bad strategy seeing as a 500GB ssd is about $85 and a 500GB hd is like $30. If you want more future proof a 1TB ssd can be found for around $150.
- dylan604 8y ago
  Unless you're on an Apple laptop. There's no upgrading of the components. And before the "you made the choice" guys start chiming in, some people didn't make that choice. If IT says "Dude, you're getting an Apple", then it is what it is. Just because "hard drives are cheap" is not an excuse to ship bloated software. At some point, the app has the features it is meant to have. At that point, it is a good time to refactor bloated code before proceeding to new features. The bloat will just continue, and eventually cause issues that come to a head.
  - jf- 8y ago
    Sure, but the issue there is the poor value offered by Macs (not hating on Mac, I also use one, but bang for your buck is absurdly low). If you have a non-Mac then you likely have a decent sized hard drive. While electron resource use is not ideal, on modern hardware it really shouldn’t be the issue that it’s being made out to be. On the practical side, why not do as gp suggests and use an external drive? You’ll likely need additional storage with any of the lower spec’d Macs anyway, electron or not.
    - dylan604 8y ago
      Of course I use external storage. USBC->SATA SSD has been amazing. Would love to be able to get a USBC->M.2 for the speed difference. Non-techy people that buy Apple might not though, and they're the ones installing stuff with little concern. It's easy to lose sight of the avg user.