Universal binaries are usually substantially larger than single-platform binaries, because two copies of the compiled code must be stored. They do not require extra working memory, however, because only one of those two copies is loaded into RAM for execution.
Regarding having separate binaries, it is probably due to cost. A software company can produce, inventory and ship a single universal binary install disc instead of doing the same and extra cost associated with producing two versions during what will probably be an extended transition period. Although some software is available for download, many are not. For software that is available via download, separate versions may be made available so only time will tell.
Universal binaries are usually substantially larger than single-platform binaries, because two copies of the compiled code must be stored. They do not require extra working memory, however, because only one of those two copies is loaded into RAM for execution.
Regarding having separate binaries, it is probably due to cost. A software company can produce, inventory and ship a single universal binary install disc instead of doing the same and extra cost associated with producing two versions during what will probably be an extended transition period. Although some software is available for download, many are not. For software that is available via download, separate versions may be made available so only time will tell.
Why not have a smart installer that checks what system you have and installs the appropriate code? The program could still be written as a universal binary and installed as a universal if the user wants, but it could also be installed in a platform specific manner if that is what the user chooses.
If Greg Weston can develop a program that strips the unneeded code after installation (see Trim The Fat
http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/20404 ), why can't the installer simply filter out the unneeded code to begin with?
Because its not important. Take an application like, say, Transmit (because I happen to be using it at the moment). Its 4.9 MB. Lets double that for a UB (probably it wouldn't be double the size, as resources like images wouldn't be duplicated) to get 10MB. 10MB is nothing. NOTHING.
I have about 90 applications installed. It occupies 3.5GB on disk. Double that (again, a SEVERE overestimate) to get 7GB. 7GB is nothing compared to a 40, 50, 100GB Hard Drive. Yes, you COULD save some space by stripping to binaries, but it gains you so little....
Good point and I agree but what is not important to many might be important to those with limited free hard drive space who can't afford to upgrade their existing hard drive, etc.
To amplify what mcowger said, bear in mind that only the binary is affected. This represents a small part of most applications. Just doing a spot check, for Mail the application is 43.9 MB. The binary represents only 1.9 MB. Safari is 1 MB out of 20.1 MB total (less than 5%). (These are PPC-only binaries in OS 10.4.3). Even if the universal binaries double the size, the overall effect would be small.
hmm, I think your universe of examples is too small!
Let's take for example, the Apple iLife suite. This puppy has empirically showed itself to be an annual update product. So, I go to get the 2006 version, to upgrade from the 2005 version, and because it is now a Universal, the entire suite as a whole, has pigged out so much I can't even install it anymore! It wanted over 10gigs of space, and I had only 7 left.
Now, this was on a low-end 2005 iBook, which has a very specific use in my life, which happens to need the iLife suite, but the machine is not intended to do anything else, and thus is not a candidate for larger hard drive.
I ended up cherry-pick installing one or two of the apps from the suite, just so I could keep moving. I think this is a pretty ugly wart, on an otherwise good product advancement.
I won't be surprised if Apple gets enough complaints on this issue, to indeed modify the installers to perform strip operations on the Universal files.
-Rick
It would be very simple to have an installer write or parse specific code. Trim the Fat is a simple GUI front end to the command line tool- lipo. How about those apps that install by copying (drag and drop)? There could also be issues with a user (different architecture) trying to use an app through remote login. Rosetta isn't a stellar solution. I'm sure that Trim the Fat will be copied and polished then distributed as the next Mac maintenance craze.
"I won't be surprised if Apple gets enough complaints on this issue, to indeed modify the installers to perform strip operations on the Universal files."
You'll be waiting a very long time. This same situation was present when Apple moved from the Motorola 68000 series to the Power PC architecture in 1994. We had what amounted to universal binaries then too. Disk storage space is dirt cheap these days and a one should never allow used space to go above 85% of the total available (recommendation from Micromat/TechTool Pro). Having only 7GB of free space is begging for a catastrophic failure and loss of data while using OS X. Modern OSs make constant use of disk space for temporary storage and virtual memory. Running out drive space suddenly will result in nasty things happening to one's data very quickly.
Would it be completely out of line to suggest that UBs will be a very short lived phenom. as most of the major software vendors will be releasing intel only versions withing the very forseeable future? This is, after all (yet another!) a "transition period"....
