On 13-Jul-06, at 10:15 AM, Dan Shafer wrote:

> Thanks to you and to Klaus. It appears the state of the art is  
> about where I thought it was. The real problem with delivering a  
> Squeak app, once you get the client past the issue of what  
> constitutes a standalone (an increasingly meaningless term I  
> suspect) is app size.

I've never really been able to comprehend this particular problem.  
Once upon a time, Smalltalk was huge; I mean really huge, it needed  
THREE 1.44Mb disks to distribute. Word was four or five back then but  
most machine had 2 or perhaps 4Mb of ram and maybe a 40MB disc.

Looking on my machine I see that
Address Book = 21.4Mb
Acrobat = 88Mb
Calculator = 7.1Mb (good grief, how?)
Firefox = 25Mb
GarageBand = 63Mb
iWeb = 307Mb !
microsoft messange = 15.6Mb
open office = 350Mb (eek! and it's total crap)

By comparison a not-terribly recent squeak 3.9 zip is 13Mb and the vm  
is about 6Mb (which is insane but this is after all OSX. ON RISC OS  
it is about 1Mb)

I swear, I've been sent one paragraph Word documents that are bigger  
than a squeak image.

tim
--
tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
A paperless office has about as likely as a paperless bathroom.