Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'fat binaries'.
-
I recently cleaned my oldest MacOS system of unnecessary and unused clutter i.e. removed old installer file residues and referenced caches, Xcode tmp files etc. The whole thing has set me back ~80 GB of disk space. Then I looked at some other unnecessary space wasters, and the whole FAT binary apps caught my eye. I then asked myself why I need arm-based (arm64) architecture code on an Intel-based (x86_64) MacOS, so why multi-architecture FAT binaries here at all? - Well the answer is I don't need any FAT binaries on this Intel based box at all because it's just an unnecessary waste of disk space. To give people an idea of what I mean with unnecessary wasted space here, I show you how much ADe V1 as a multiarchitecture FAT binary (including x86_64 + arm64 code) will occupy on my disk ... ... and that I can get back ~1 GB of disk space when I thin/strip it to just contain the one needed, x86_64 in my case, architecture here ... Now the same applies to APh V1 (2.65 GB as a fat binary) and Apub V1 (2.6 GB as a fat binary), which when striped to contain just one architecture will also give back at least ~1 GB each. Suppose I would also have all three version 2 apps too installed, then stripping all Affinity v1 + v2 apps to just the one architecture I need here, would give back ~6 GB of disk space here. If I would have additional Beta versions installed and then strip those too I would reclaim additional disk space. Of course it's not just the Affinity apps which, as multiarchitecture FAT binaries, occupy unnecessary disk space here, the same applies to all other bigger third party multiarchitecture fat binary apps here too! I'm sure I will get back another ~50-60 GB of disk space when stripping all installed fat binary apps on my old system, which BTW has only a small build-in disk and thus every free GB counts here!
- 37 replies
-
- macos
- fat binaries
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with: