3 ms·

Base hard disk size of a 1991 Quadra 700: 80 MB Size of this .app on my Mac: 866 MB Yes, I know, it’s silly to snark on Electron app sizes by this point. You

Base hard disk size of a 1991 Quadra 700: 80 MB Size of this .app on my Mac: 866 MB Yes, I know, it’s silly to snark on Electron app sizes by this point. You want to see some real bloat? Let’s compare the included Adobe Photoshop 3 and Adobe Photoshop 2020: Photoshop 3.0.5: 8.9 MB Photoshop 21.2.1: 2.76 GB Now that is some bloat.

baddox 6y ago
Isn’t the “Electron bloat” just that a version of Chrome has to be bundled in, and shouldn’t that only be like 25 MB?
- perardi 6y ago
  Well let’s explore the app package. Electron Framework takes up 174 MB. Past that, the big one is “disk” in Contents/Resources/app/src/ — which I will be completely honest, I don’t know what that is exactly. Is it a disk image? If so, does it have to be set to a reasonably large size at build time so you don’t run out of space in the emulator?
  - perardi 6y ago
    Ah, yeah, I think I assumed correctly. In the emulator, the “macintosh.js” hard drive is 650 MB, so you must have to explicitly give it a big giant size to begin with, as it can’t dynamically increase the volume size on the fly.
felixrieseberg 6y ago
Hi, author here! This is silly, but I'm allocating the entire size of the _virtual_ disk on your actual hard drive. There's probably a smarter way to do this, but that's how it is right now. PRs would be lovely!
- monadic2 6y ago
  Have you considered using qcow? Sadly I’m not terribly knowledgable if this is easily implementable or not but theoretically you don’t need to allocate all the disk space, just the parts you’ve written to.
II2II 6y ago
Some of that bloat is legitimate, or at least dictated by consumer expectations. Consider graphics resources: modern screens typically 9 to 16 times as many pixels per square inch. Even though Macintosh computers have always been known for their graphical interfaces and use in publishing, user interface elements did not always exploit increased colour depth in the early 1990's. A graphics resource in a modern application can use an additional 4 to 32 times more memory just for colour. Software also tends to incorporate more graphical elements these days, thus adding more bulk. We shouldn't be surprised by Photoshop being 310 times larger. Since people tend to notice the visual quality of software, whether it enhances the software or is pure cosmetics, it is not necessarily a bad thing. Other aspects of software will also influence its growth. Modern software tends to support more languages and regional variations in how data (numbers, time, etc.) are represented. This virtually always produces a noticeably larger program. More features means more code and associated data, while optimization tends to focus upon speed at the expense of size. Again, programs will be larger. When it improves accessibility and functionality, this "bloat" is a good thing. I am not saying that bloat is always a good thing and I appreciate how much developers of the past could do so much with so little. My favourite example are early versions of Clarisworks, where a stripped down installation could fit on a single floppy disk while offering a word processor, spreadsheet, database, paint program, vector illustration, and telecommunications software. It also addressed the needs of most home and home office users, even considered in the current context. That being said, most people would consider the presentation stark by modern standards and anyone who takes the time to actually learn how to use their software would find the features skimpy.
- perardi 6y ago
  Oh I know and accept that, it’s just always a little funny to see that much of a difference in size. I use Photoshop every day, and I know that features added since version 3 that I use take up size: * Layer styles * Adjustment layers * Smart objects * Camera RAW * Machine learning selection tools * Generator for assets So they have added real, valuable features for me. And I don’t particularly care about application size. Just funny to think you couldn’t even fit Photoshop on a CD at this point.
  - 6y ago
fmakunbound 6y ago
> Photoshop 3.0.5: 8.9 MB Photoshop 21.2.1: 2.76 GB > Now that is some bloat. Yeah, but you're roughly 310 times more productive now.

baddox 6y ago

Isn’t the “Electron bloat” just that a version of Chrome has to be bundled in, and shouldn’t that only be like 25 MB?

perardi 6y ago
Well let’s explore the app package. Electron Framework takes up 174 MB. Past that, the big one is “disk” in Contents/Resources/app/src/ — which I will be completely honest, I don’t know what that is exactly. Is it a disk image? If so, does it have to be set to a reasonably large size at build time so you don’t run out of space in the emulator?
- perardi 6y ago
  Ah, yeah, I think I assumed correctly. In the emulator, the “macintosh.js” hard drive is 650 MB, so you must have to explicitly give it a big giant size to begin with, as it can’t dynamically increase the volume size on the fly.

felixrieseberg 6y ago

Hi, author here! This is silly, but I'm allocating the entire size of the _virtual_ disk on your actual hard drive. There's probably a smarter way to do this, but that's how it is right now. PRs would be lovely!

monadic2 6y ago
Have you considered using qcow? Sadly I’m not terribly knowledgable if this is easily implementable or not but theoretically you don’t need to allocate all the disk space, just the parts you’ve written to.

II2II 6y ago

Some of that bloat is legitimate, or at least dictated by consumer expectations. Consider graphics resources: modern screens typically 9 to 16 times as many pixels per square inch. Even though Macintosh computers have always been known for their graphical interfaces and use in publishing, user interface elements did not always exploit increased colour depth in the early 1990's. A graphics resource in a modern application can use an additional 4 to 32 times more memory just for colour. Software also tends to incorporate more graphical elements these days, thus adding more bulk. We shouldn't be surprised by Photoshop being 310 times larger. Since people tend to notice the visual quality of software, whether it enhances the software or is pure cosmetics, it is not necessarily a bad thing. Other aspects of software will also influence its growth. Modern software tends to support more languages and regional variations in how data (numbers, time, etc.) are represented. This virtually always produces a noticeably larger program. More features means more code and associated data, while optimization tends to focus upon speed at the expense of size. Again, programs will be larger. When it improves accessibility and functionality, this "bloat" is a good thing. I am not saying that bloat is always a good thing and I appreciate how much developers of the past could do so much with so little. My favourite example are early versions of Clarisworks, where a stripped down installation could fit on a single floppy disk while offering a word processor, spreadsheet, database, paint program, vector illustration, and telecommunications software. It also addressed the needs of most home and home office users, even considered in the current context. That being said, most people would consider the presentation stark by modern standards and anyone who takes the time to actually learn how to use their software would find the features skimpy.

perardi 6y ago
Oh I know and accept that, it’s just always a little funny to see that much of a difference in size. I use Photoshop every day, and I know that features added since version 3 that I use take up size: * Layer styles * Adjustment layers * Smart objects * Camera RAW * Machine learning selection tools * Generator for assets So they have added real, valuable features for me. And I don’t particularly care about application size. Just funny to think you couldn’t even fit Photoshop on a CD at this point.
- 6y ago

fmakunbound 6y ago

> Photoshop 3.0.5: 8.9 MB Photoshop 21.2.1: 2.76 GB > Now that is some bloat. Yeah, but you're roughly 310 times more productive now.