Reduce Phoenix Size: Use RAR!

[mai9]

I think I'll have to improve my communication skills...


I am not suggesting to pack the installer and leave the program unpacked. I am not suggesting to use the program packed.

I am suggesting to:

1- pack all exes and dll of the program
2- include upx inside the installer
3- pack the installer if you want (to save that 30-40kB)
4- make the installer unpack the exes and dlls while installing
5- send an email to Bush asking... ok this is not needed

I had time to try this by myself, and the root files of the 2003-03-17 build are 4.0MB when zipping the non-packed version of those files, for 3.5MB for the zip containning the packed files. For this last situation we have to add 92kB to include upx.exe in the installer.

Conclution:
- packing the installer header might save us 30-40kB
- packing the files inside the installer and unpack them when installing might save us 400kB.


I hope THIS TIME my suggestion is clear

[seb]

Now, that is a good idea. I'll try to implement it in my installer ASAP.

[willll]

The question is if upx'ing the exes and dlls would reduce the amount of compression that bz2 provides by an amount that would make it unpractical.

[Ewokuk]

"why not compress the download file with RAR or something similar to save some time"

why bother? how much time exactly are you hoping to save by chopping a maximum of 1mb off a 6mb file? even on a slow 56k connection the amount of time difference isnt exactly much so I dont see the point in it.

Now if it was a 50mb file vs a 60mb file, i could see the point, but its not and never will be.

[mai9]

Now, that is a good idea. I'll try to implement it in my installer ASAP.

Well, at least

[Aqua.]

Most people have high speed at home, work or school....I never find myself sitting here waiting for phoenix to download...

What do you mean, "most" people? I have a 56k modem at home, as do most of the home internet users I know.

The stats I've recently read say that about 90 percent of the home Internet users in the U.S. are on "narrowband" connection, i.e. dialup via modem.

I believe that the current stat is 34% of home users in the USA have broadband.

As for the argument that people can get it at school or work and then bring it home.... There are no cd burners or zip drives at work, nor are they allowed. None of the school computers (available to students) have CD-burners and only one has a zip drive.

At both work and school, the IT dept. has ruled that anyone making hardware changes to a system (such as temporarily adding a portable zip drive) have their network priviledges revoked, meaning you are only permitted to use ancient non-networked computers. If you get on a networked computer anyway, you can be fired (from work) or suspended for a semester (from the univ.)

[Aqua.]

"why not compress the download file with RAR or something similar to save some time"

why bother? how much time exactly are you hoping to save by chopping a maximum of 1mb off a 6mb file? even on a slow 56k connection the amount of time difference isnt exactly much so I dont see the point in it.

Now if it was a 50mb file vs a 60mb file, i could see the point, but its not and never will be.

Chopping of 1Mb saves me about 5 min. download time, definitely worth it to me.

[JakeNL]

IMO it's not what it saves in download, but what it saves in upload (and network traffic).

If it's downloaded 10.000 times, it means ~10 GB less traffic if the file is ~1 MB smaller. On the ~62 GB it would have taken I for one find 10 GB quite a lot.

[luke17]

I've had 30GB traffic in one week and would pretty much appreciate a smaller downloadsize (even if it's only 0.5 MB)

cu

--
Abdulkadir Topal, German Phoenix-Page
http://www.phoenix-browser.de

[alanjstr]

Phoenix is served by the Mozilla server, which already deals in lots of traffic for the bigger browser. I don't think they care.

[seb]

Alan, Luke17 hosts the German localization of Phoenix, so he's got reasons to care :)
But the reduction of size from the installer isn't going to be giant. Probably around 0.3 or 0.4MB less (so the installaer will be around 5.3 or 5.4MB).

[luke17]

@alan
Yes, that's right, but I often find bugs in my translation and somtimes it takes a week until the MLP-Staff uploads my new build. But in one week I find other bugs, and it's really a pain and wouldn't be fair to ask them every two or three days for uploading my new build.

cu

[fab97]

why bother? how much time exactly are you hoping to save by chopping a maximum of 1mb off a 6mb file?
.....

Now if it was a 50mb file vs a 60mb file, i could see the point, but its not and never will be.

that exactly the same if ten people download the file.
you save 16% of bandwidth.

and for me, when I present phoenix I start to says "you know the size of IE55 ? around 80Mb, and phoenix is just 6Mb, and it does a lot more"
So the SIZE is important.
Earning 16% *so easily* just when you download is not bad.

[Thumper]

and for me, when I present phoenix I start to says "you know the size of IE55 ? around 80Mb, and phoenix is just 6Mb, and it does a lot more"

That's highly inaccurate though. As much as people wish it wasn't true, IE really is a "set of technologies" which contains massive amounts of generic Windows updated material.

- Chris

[AGSHender]

and for me, when I present phoenix I start to says "you know the size of IE55 ? around 80Mb, and phoenix is just 6Mb, and it does a lot more"

That's highly inaccurate though. As much as people wish it wasn't true, IE really is a "set of technologies" which contains massive amounts of generic Windows updated material.

- Chris

Yes, that's also true, but the original comment was largely correct. If you install Windows 2000 and then immediately upgrade to IE6, you're facing a 20+ MB download, and those are just the updated components. If Microsoft were to ever separate IE from Windows, then we would see a huge download just to get it. I don't see that happening anytime soon, however, so until then, we're stuck with some individual updates for IE that run the size of Phoenix.