11-28 is leaner!

JEdwardP · Post by **JEdwardP** » November 28th, 2002, 11:09 am

This build is noticeably smaller than the first several I tried. Good job, folks. Keep trimming the fat wherever you can.

Jim

ehume · Post by **ehume** » November 28th, 2002, 1:10 pm

6825 KB to 6224 KB in just 2 days (Win32 distros, 2002-11-26 to -28 ). The 2002-11-01 was 7224KB. That's a approximately a megabyte in 4 weeks!

Also, I noticed that the 2002-11-28 distro is based on the 1.3a Mozilla version.

Ed

scratch · Post by **scratch** » November 28th, 2002, 2:05 pm

they've all been based on "1.3a" since 1.2 branched, because the trunk is now considered to be 1.3a.

Blake · Post by **Blake** » November 28th, 2002, 10:01 pm

We expect the Windows build will be somewhere between 5 and 5.5 mb by 1.0.

michal017 · Post by **michal017** » November 29th, 2002, 1:33 am

actually 11/28 linux build is a bit bigger than 11/26 - 9161885 and 9161613
but I'm not worrying about it.. the size WILL decrease..

aebrahim · Post by **aebrahim** » November 29th, 2002, 2:13 am

Blake wrote:We expect the Windows build will be somewhere between 5 and 5.5 mb by 1.0.

Not bad! That's about how big Netscape 3 was when it was released. We're getting a lot more browser per megabyte here.

Post by **djst** » November 29th, 2002, 5:54 am

Blake wrote:We expect the Windows build will be somewhere between 5 and 5.5 mb by 1.0.

That's great news! I remember you said (pre 0.3) that it was unlikely to get under 6.0 mb.

This is just getting better and better.

aarem · Post by **aarem** » November 29th, 2002, 9:08 am

michal017 wrote:actually 11/28 linux build is a bit bigger than 11/26 - 9161885 and 9161613
but I'm not worrying about it.. the size WILL decrease..

I am just curious -- why are linux builds so much larger than windows?

Best!

Piel · Post by **Piel** » November 29th, 2002, 12:55 pm

Blake wrote:We expect the Windows build will be somewhere between 5 and 5.5 mb by 1.0.

That unto its own will make it a "killer app"....a lean, mean, oh so customizable browsing machine. SWEETNESS!

Post by **tve** » November 29th, 2002, 1:26 pm

the latest nightly is over 1MB smaller than 0.4

asa · Post by **asa** » November 29th, 2002, 5:16 pm

aarem wrote:
michal017 wrote:actually 11/28 linux build is a bit bigger than 11/26 - 9161885 and 9161613
but I'm not worrying about it.. the size WILL decrease..

I am just curious -- why are linux builds so much larger than windows?

Best!

Build issues. Some bugs need to be fixed before linux can take advantage of the latest build changes that saved us some static size on win32.

--Asa

aarem · Post by **aarem** » November 29th, 2002, 8:16 pm

asa wrote:
aarem wrote:
michal017 wrote:actually 11/28 linux build is a bit bigger than 11/26 - 9161885 and 9161613
but I'm not worrying about it.. the size WILL decrease..

I am just curious -- why are linux builds so much larger than windows?

Best!

Build issues. Some bugs need to be fixed before linux can take advantage of the latest build changes that saved us some static size on win32.

--Asa

Thanks! So there is actually a chance that a Linux build may ultimately end up almost as small as Windows, is there? Thats great!

Best wishes!

asa · Post by **asa** » November 29th, 2002, 9:55 pm

aarem wrote:Thanks! So there is actually a chance that a Linux build may ultimately end up almost as small as Windows, is there? Thats great!

Best wishes!

Linux builds have always been larger than windows. I don't see that changing. But the difference in size hopefully won't be this large always.

--Asa

aarem · Post by **aarem** » November 29th, 2002, 9:59 pm

asa wrote:
aarem wrote:Thanks! So there is actually a chance that a Linux build may ultimately end up almost as small as Windows, is there? Thats great!

Best wishes!

Linux builds have always been larger than windows. I don't see that changing. But the difference in size hopefully won't be this large always.

--Asa

OK, thanks! Actually it does not matter whether it is larger or smaller than windows. But from an academic point of view, why is this the case? Is it because windows has more of the gui tools available, because everything is sort of gui-based about it, as opposed to linux/unix which you can actually run fine in line mode?

Best wishes!

asa · Post by **asa** » November 29th, 2002, 10:07 pm

aarem wrote:
asa wrote:
aarem wrote:Thanks! So there is actually a chance that a Linux build may ultimately end up almost as small as Windows, is there? Thats great!

Best wishes!

Linux builds have always been larger than windows. I don't see that changing. But the difference in size hopefully won't be this large always.

--Asa

OK, thanks! Actually it does not matter whether it is larger or smaller than windows. But from an academic point of view, why is this the case? Is it because windows has more of the gui tools available, because everything is sort of gui-based about it, as opposed to linux/unix which you can actually run fine in line mode?

Best wishes!

I'd guess that the microsoft compiler is better than the linux compiler.
--Asa

11-28 is leaner!

11-28 is leaner!

YUP