Tim....

Your note made me laugh right out loud. You are so right. I went  
rummaging around my hard drive and discovered that so many apps I  
think of as "small, special-purpose tools" are tens or hundreds of MB  
in size. I think we're just not paying attention to that. Which  
raises the issue of why most of my clients ask the question anyway.  
Thanks for the reminder. Now I have some great pushback.

Dan

P.S. and OT -- I find Open Office (actually I'm using NeoOffice) to  
be quite useful and usable, nothing near total crap. Just another  
datapoint.
On Jul 13, 2006, at 10:39 AM, tim Rowledge wrote:

>
> 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.
>
>
>