Slashdot Mirror


Name Your Favorite Bloat-Free Software

An anonymous reader writes "I prefer software that takes as little hard drive space and RAM as possible. I can't stand bloated software like iTunes, as compared to Foobar or classic Winamp; or Windows Media Player, as compared to VLC or Media Player Classic. What are some of your favorite applications which are a little less bloated?"

88 of 1,296 comments (clear)

  1. Oh! by c0l0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now that one's easy! `ed`. It's the standard editor for a reason, after all.

    --
    :%s/Open Source/Free Software/g

    YTARY!
    1. Re:Oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I like copy con, myself.

    2. Re:Oh! by eln · · Score: 5, Funny

      ed is a bloated mess! It's 47K for god's sake! I use cat for all of my text editing needs. At a lean 19k, it's far more efficient than ed. Hell, if you're comfortable with that much bloat, you might as well just use emacs. At least then you get an operating system included.

      As for general favorite bloat-free software, I'd have to go with /usr/bin/yes. Often I find myself needing something to tell me I'm correct about a tough decision, or to provide me motivation to do something, or just for some general personal validation. For that and more, I trust yes. Sure, some people would use more unsure methods such as researching problems, talking to themselves in a mirror, or taking action to better themselves. I'm not much of a gambler though, and I don't like to sweat. So, I use yes. Yes always gives me the answer I need, as many times as I need to hear it. Yes is the perfect solution to life's problems. Take for example the following conversation with yes:

      Should I buy that new sports car I've had my eye on? y
      Am I really a good person, even after all those felonies? y
      Should I have another beer? y
      Am I sober enough to drive? y
      Do you love me? y
      Oh yes, you little scamp, I love you too! y
      y
      y
      y
      y
      y
      y
      y
      y
      ^C

    3. Re:Oh! by baryon351 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I prefer software that takes as little hard drive space and RAM as possible

      I'll have to go out on a limb and say I dropped expectations of absolutely minimal HD and RAM space for EVERY app I use, after continually coming up against programs that would go all out in being light in resource use, but couldn't do their job because of it.

      Some are just what the original poster ordered - vim is certainly one of the good cases, it's powerful and manages a light footprint, and there are plenty of other tools that do phenomenal work whether it's running on eight xeons, or a single low-end 386.

      One of the opposite cases is some forms of image work when comparing apps like Gimp and Photoshop. In some areas, Gimp is WAY lighter on resource use. I'd perform work on 250MB image, and gimp would use little more RAM than that, no matter how it was configured for RAM use. This would normally be seen as a really good thing for Gimp.

      What of Photoshop? It wanted 2GB of RAM to work at maximum speed. That might sound like serious bloat on photoshop's part, but when working on large images it meant two orders of magnitude difference in speed. Yes, where Gimp will use a mere 280MB on a 4GB system, and take 15-16 minutes to perform one filter over an image, Photoshop would chew through 2GB and take about 20 seconds doing the exact same thing.

      (That doesn't mean PS was incapable when stuck with ONLY 256MB RAM. Then it'd bog down just like Gimp)

      What I want are apps that use the resources I provide them *wisely*. There's more to that than just being totally frugal. Seen too many people running big-RAM systems and being proud of having their OS use just a hundred or two MB out of gigs. Why? Resources are free once they're installed, may as well use them when they genuinely can help you work.

    4. Re:Oh! by DrSkwid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's the joke ?

      I use ed at least once a week, if not more.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    5. Re:Oh! by ArsonSmith · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't know, EMACS stands for 8 megs and constantly swapping. Eight Freaking Megs!!!! No editor should be that large. I mean my god what does it do? Check email?

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    6. Re:Oh! by fm6 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Pity Homer Simpson didn't know about yes.

    7. Re:Oh! by dknj · · Score: 5, Funny

      8 megs for an operating system is pretty small...

    8. Re:Oh! by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 5, Informative

      When I'm using Windows, here's my selection:

      Utilities:
      7-Zip (Compression/Decompression)
      Editpad (Tabbed Notepad replacement)
      SequoiaView (Creates square treemaps of file system)

      Multimedia:
      VLC (Plays Anything)
      Exact Audio Copy (Perfect CD Ripping)
      LAME (High Quality MP3 Compression)
      Audacity (Record off Line Inputs or Loopback)

      Internet:
      uTorrent (Bittorrent)
      Firefox with FireFTP (Browswer, FTP)
      Thunderbird with WebMail (Email Client)
      TortiseSVN (Windows Shell Integration for Subversion)
      Putty (Telnet/SSH)

      Games:
      OpenArena (Open source extension of Quake 3 codebase)
      Battle of Wesnoth (Open source strategic fantasy game)

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    9. Re:Oh! by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Funny

      I use cat for all of my text editing needs.

      Freakin' wastrel! That's why they made ">". Not vim. Not ed. Not cat. ">".

      $ > eln.txt
      Hi, I like swap!
      ^D

      "cat". Hrmph.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    10. Re:Oh! by dknj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A great way to DoS a server remotely!

      doubt it. ever heard of ulimit? any self-respecting unix admin worth salt would limit resources to unprivileged users/applications on their production servers.

    11. Re:Oh! by tshak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, where Gimp will use a mere 280MB on a 4GB system, and take 15-16 minutes to perform one filter over an image, Photoshop would chew through 2GB and take about 20 seconds doing the exact same thing.


      The simple point you're making: Hardware is for us to USE, not "NOT USE". Sure, we don't want our applications to be completely wasteful. But if software developers can focus more on useful features and code with less bugs, I'd rather they do that than save a few megs of RAM.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    12. Re:Oh! by vonsneerderhooten · · Score: 3, Funny

      All of this editor zealotry is too much for me.

      I'll settle it once and for all.

      Notepad is best.
      /ducks

    13. Re:Oh! by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 5, Informative

      Other nice un-bloated Windows utilities I'll add:

      V, the file viewer
      Foxit Reader for viewing PDFs
      Crimson Editor for text files, though I more often use emacs.

    14. Re:Oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Pfft. I'm waiting for Apple to release iYes. Who cares that yes is tiny and does its job well? It still needs to be simplified as only Apple can. Hopefully they can add some magic playlists in there as well, and maybe throw in a little DRM for good measure.

      My machine is quad core and has 1.5TB of disk and 4GB of RAM so I think it can be safely assumed that everyone else does too...and that every application should assume it can have all of it. I mean, it's time to take these command-line utils into the modern age.

      I'm also looking for the iTrue replacement for /bin/true, as it desperately needs a GUI. And by God the fucker better be set to load into memory at start-up because I don't want to have to wait for truth.

    15. Re:Oh! by mcpkaaos · · Score: 4, Funny

      While I agree that Notepad is a powerful editor, I feel that Wordpad's ability to underline text on the same line edges it out for the extreme programmer. Plus, you can write your release notes in Wingdings.

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    16. Re:Oh! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Instead of utilities, I'll list some media production apps:

      Steinberg Wavelab (audio editor)
      Reaper (DAW)
      DVDFab Platinum

      I'm not a programmer, so I can't testify to the efficiency of the code or anything, but I use every single one of the features of the above programs. By that measure, it makes them the opposite of bloatware.

      Here's one that I just downloaded today, after being prompted by an earlier Slashdot article:

      Opera 9.5 (I've been using it for less than an hour and it's already my favorite browser). Maybe there's some bloat somewhere in Opera. Maybe there are some of you fiber-eaters who believe that being able to render javascript automatically makes it bloatware. But this bitch is FAST and it seemed to install in the time it took me to click the FINISH button.

      And finally, my favorite, slick tool for breaching the walls of the Corrupt Castle of the Copyright Cabal...uTorrent! It's more than just a torrent download manager, it's a weapon for fighting fascism!

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    17. Re:Oh! by Borealis · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's huge! Nobody should ever need more than 640k.

      --
      Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
    18. Re:Oh! by SerpentMage · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not bloatware?? Huh? News to me...

      Firefox, Thunderbird, TortiseSVN are anything but Bloat-Free.

      In the past six months to a year FireFox, Thunderbird regularly take up 130 MB by themselves. I once had Thunderbird manage RSS feeds.... That was a mistake! And don't even ask me about how SLOW Firefox has gotten with larger HTML pages.

      TortiseSVN has this annoying habit that it has to cache everything and if you have any SVN projects of any size it takes ages to do anything.

      What annoys me about these applications is that they take the attitude, "oh lets just load it into RAM after all everybody has enough." I get annoyed because I run Virtual Machines and these apps keep slowing everything down.

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    19. Re:Oh! by snoyberg · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You might be interested in this

      --
      Thank God for evolution.
    20. Re:Oh! by dannannan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Zsh, actually

      Have a look at ps -eH under your zsh process next time you are in the middle of a ">". It spawns a cat to do its dirty work.

      DDL
    21. Re:Oh! by Intron · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There are security updates to cat?

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    22. Re:Oh! by alx5000 · · Score: 5, Funny

      How and why would you use more instead of ed??

      --
      My 0.02 cents
    23. Re:Oh! by MattPat · · Score: 3, Funny

      yes is indeed handy, but it's not really practical for life applications.

      I'm currently in the process of writing no. It should fill the gap just perfectly. :)

      Make sure you check out next year's software lineup though-- I hear a patent has been filed for maybe.

    24. Re:Oh! by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 3, Funny

      Obviously when he wants to just read the document and not edit it. More or less gets the job done.

  2. Lynx? by saibot834 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Lynx, anyone? :)

    1. Re:Lynx? by nacturation · · Score: 5, Funny

      Who needs the bloat of Lynx when you can telnet to port 80?

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    2. Re:Lynx? by fm6 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What's really fun is reading your email by telnetting to port 110.

      I actually used to do this a lot when I was working for a certain ISP that had very flaky homebrew mail software. Mailboxes were getting corrupted all the time. The only way to fix them was to telnet in and fiddle. Or just copy /dev/null over the mailbox file, though customers tended to frown on that for some reason.

    3. Re:Lynx? by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ever tried it with Slashdot? The *light* version of the front page is 600k!

      The only alternative is the mobile interface, which is horribly crippled (top five comments only? the only good thing about slashdot is the comments!).

      The content on Slashdot *should* be ideal for reading on the way to work on my mobile - content that can be laid out easily in a linear fashion, lots of content on a single page so I can keep on reading through blackspots, no pictures - but the way it's laid out makes it way too annoying (and this is with an unlimited 3G data plan).

      --
      Beep beep.
    4. Re:Lynx? by Nick+of+NSTime · · Score: 5, Funny

      the only good thing about slashdot is the comments! You must be new here.
    5. Re:Lynx? by SQLGuru · · Score: 3, Funny

      We all know Slashdot isn't for reading TFAs.....so if it isn't the comments and it isn't the articles, then it must be because of CowboyNeal.

      Layne

  3. At a little over a meg... by pieaholicx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    PuTTy is my clear cut winner. A little over a meg for a full installer with all the bells and whistles, what's not to love?

    --
    http://blog.heavensdomain.net
  4. minimalist by foodnugget · · Score: 5, Informative

    irfanview. Despite plugin capabilities, among many many other features, it is small, free, and faassssst compared to all the other image viewers I've tried (not all that many)

    I'd like to see this list include things that are conveniently free of spyware/trojans, too!

    1. Re:minimalist by fbjon · · Score: 3, Informative

      I would recommend XnView in the same vein. I prefer it's interface to IrfanView, it's non-bloated freeware and available on a lot of platforms, it can read every image format under the sun including camera raw files, etc.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
  5. Bonzi Buddy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bonzi Buddy

    1. Re:Bonzi Buddy by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 4, Funny

      true, it saves so much resources. Normally, you would need 3 different programs to annoy the shit out of you, destroy your computer and constantly spy on you, but Bonzi Buddy does all 3 in one.

  6. Vi by teknopurge · · Score: 3, Insightful

    QED.

    1. Re:Vi by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      vi ...QED.

      As long as we're only talking about old-skool vi, I totally agree with you.

      Some of these wonky new vi's with their fancy colouring and extra modes which coincide with legacy vi commands are evil. I've been using vi for almost 20 years -- and when I find myself in a new vi in a mode I don't know where I am, something has gone horribly wrong. If you're going to add modes and stuff, make sure that there is no bloody legacy vi command you've screwed up.

      There's nothing more sad than watching a guy who got coddled with emacs all through school suddenly finding himself on a customer site on a machine which only has an old-fashioned vi. They can't do anything, then they're asking the Solaris admin to install some software so he can do something simple.

      Everyone should be at least a little familiar with vi. When the fit hits the shan, sometimes it's all you've got to get out of the doo doo.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  7. AbiWord FTW by Synesthesiatic · · Score: 3, Informative
    Back in the day I used to be a huge fan of AbiWord. It's very lightweight and really does all the most people need from a simple word processor. Reminds me of Word for Windows 2.0, actually. Three years ago I had a friend using it on a Pentium 133 with 16 MB of RAM! I'd take it over OOo Writer any day.

    Of course, now I'm on OS X, and the Mac port is fugly, so I haven't touched it in a while.

  8. I've got a summary by realdodgeman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would guess that whatever your favorite non-bloat software is, it is most likely in Damn Small Linux...

    1. Re:I've got a summary by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would guess that whatever your favorite non-bloat software is, it is most likely in Damn Small Linux... Which suggests that Damn Small Linux is, well, somewhat bloated.
      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  9. Apple II by nacturation · · Score: 5, Funny

    ] call -151
    * 300: ad 30 c0 20 ed fd 4c 00 03
    * 300g


    Hours of random entertainment!

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  10. Putty! by Prien715 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Putty is 412 KB for an SSH client that supports window resizing and has no installer! Doesn't hurt that it's open source either.

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
  11. Foobar by edelholz · · Score: 3, Informative

    Foobar2k! Best audio player for Windows ever. http://foobar2000.org/ Quite minimalistic, but highly configurable. Very low memory footprint and plays basically everything.

  12. TinyApps.org by WillAdams · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.tinyapps.org/

    If you're running Windows, I also like Sumatra PDF

    http://blog.kowalczyk.info/software/sumatrapdf/

    (not sure if that's listed at the former or no, which is why I specifically mention it --- the balance of my preferred small programs are)

    William

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
  13. MS Paint by IndieKid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know it's a bit crap, but I must confess to quite liking MS Paint for it's simplicity. When all you need is to crop a screendump and save it as a JPG, nothing beats it!

    Other than that, I'd second the VLC and Winamp combo. Ever since there has been iPod support in Winamp (via a plugin or 'out of the box') I haven't used anything else.

    1. Re:MS Paint by jo7hs2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I too like MS Paint for simplicity, but I disagree that it is a "bit crap." How many programs for Windows have existed almost unchanged for as long as Windows has existed. The actual workings and features have changed slightly over the years, but the interface is basically the same, and anybody who can turn on the computer can use it. And that's from a Microsoft product! I would suggest that it may be one of the top ten most useful programs ever made, largely because of the simplicity of it.

    2. Re:MS Paint by Orestesx · · Score: 5, Funny

      HIM: "I really like MS Paint for screenshots."
      YOU: "MS Paint sucks. Buy a new computer so you can take screenshots more easily"

  14. Weird criteria by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Especially in an era of 500gb HDs and 2GB of RAM.

    My criteria are usability, utility, and functionality. For that reason iTunes is second on my list, with WinAMP all the way down at the bottom of 50. iPhoto recently shot up to #1 due to it's Web Gallery feature: Select an event, publish, and then edit the gallery at your leisure. The gallery is updated on the website "behind the scenes", so you never need to synchronize or revisit it, it's all done automatically.

    iTunes is high on that list for a similar reason. Set up a few "Smart Playlists", and music is automatically added or removed from my queue as necessary depending on playcount, on ranking, on genre, or new additions. I never need to do anything except insert a CD, vote up or down my like of any particular song at the moment, or plug in my iPod.

    Gives me more time to do other things... like rollerblading, taking pictures, or talking to people.

    1. Re:Weird criteria by kryptkpr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I must respectfully disagree.

      I absolutely abhor the iTunes interface. It is 2nd last on my list of good music management programs, one small notch above Music Match Jukebox. Seemingly simple tasks like copying music from your hard drive to your mp3 player have to be done in roundabout ways which for some reason involve playlists. I gave up after half an hour and just installed RockBox on my Nano so I could be free from it's horrors.

      I would imagine that iTunes is great for the casual user that doesn't need nor want much MANUAL control over their music library, but for more advanced users the non-standard UI (on Windows) and strange "simplified" ways of doing simple things make it near useless.

      --
      DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
    2. Re:Weird criteria by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Informative

      Seemingly simple tasks like copying music from your hard drive to your mp3 player have to be done in roundabout ways which for some reason involve playlists.

      Hmmm. I don't have any playlists in iTunes (I prefer dealing with albums), and I have zero problems with simply dragging an album (or other batch of songs) onto my iPod in the pane on the left. I guess that's too difficult and "roundabout" for some people, though...

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    3. Re:Weird criteria by truesaer · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Even with 2GB of memory my system still feels sluggish, because everyone in the world thinks their software needs to run as a service or have some persistent background process eating up memory. 5-10MB of memory times a zillion apps and suddenly your computer is slow.


      Why does iTunes have to have like 3 services running on my computer at all times? Its absurd. iTunes is not user friendly either, it just seems that way because other media players are even worse.

    4. Re:Weird criteria by kryptkpr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Organization happens automatically, with iTunes.

      I think you've really hit the nail on the head here. I believe this to be the main reason why myself and others like me (I see a few in this thread) loathe it. I want to be able to organize my music myself in a way that makes sense to me (and often, only me).

      I don't consider this to be a waste of time at all, as I enjoy the occasional walk through my library to add new music or re-discover old favorites.

      In the end, I think to each his own. iTunes is simply not for everyone and neither is any other piece of software, be it made by Apple or not.

      --
      DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
  15. uTorrent by Telvin_3d · · Score: 4, Insightful

    uTorrent is one of the cleanest, smallest, most efficient pieces of software I have ever had the pleasure to use. Since switching to OSX a few months ago (I bought a Macbook Pro planning to run XP, and the switch just seemed to happen), my one real regret is that uTorrent is Windows only. I've been reduced to using Azureus, which gets the job done, but is horribly bloated.

    So, my nomination is for uTorrent, and if anyone knows of a similar package for OSX I would love to hear it.

    1. Re:uTorrent by Guspaz · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's an OSX port in the works (it's been reviewed online). If you can't wait unitil then, you can run uTorrent under WINE. Sure, you get some extra memory bloat, but the CPU and disk footprint should be the same (assuming you already have WINE installed).

    2. Re:uTorrent by burris · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just because it is small and efficient doesn't mean it is written well. Small and efficient are just two possible goals when writing software. A lot of very ugly hacks were used to make uTorrent so micro. That means it misses the mark on other possible goals like maintainability and portability.

  16. tee by gus+goose · · Score: 3, Funny

    tee. Only two command-line options.

    The way it should be. It's name is it's documentation too.

    gus

    --
    .. if only.
  17. My list by starrsoft · · Score: 5, Funny
    --
    Read my blog: HansMast.com
  18. Foxit by j.sanchez1 · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    Speedy thing goes in; speedy thing comes out.
    1. Re:Foxit by GoatEnigma · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Absolutely the best de-bloating move I ever made. I was so sick of Adobe's Reader phoning home, downloading slower and slower updates with more crap, crashing my web browsers, and generally taking 30+ seconds to start up. If you've never heard of Foxit reader, I strongly recommend it!

  19. Pine, of course by zifn4b · · Score: 5, Informative

    Still the best mail client around. :)

    --
    We'll make great pets
  20. Not an "application" by Otter · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It's not quite an "application" but: WindowMaker. Unbloated in every sense.

    Also, as the rest of modern desktop Linux has bloated to the point where Konsole and Gnome Terminal aren't bottlenecks any more I've moved away from it in favor of tabs, but I used to only use rxvt instead of heavier alternatives. Gnome Terminal in particular used to have visible lag, and I'm a lot more tolerant of that stuff in a multimedia app than in a freaking shell.

  21. Re:Opera by spyrochaete · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you use Windows I cannot sufficiently recommend Miranda IM. It's very lightweight (3MB download, 8MB RAM active) multi-IM client. You might call it the Foobar of Windows IM clients. It's got a fantastic community writing plugins and providing support on the official forums. The plugins are really numerous and cool too - Skype APIs, LCD display functionality, log analyzers, IM platform add-ons, out-of-office automators, a Windows uptime util, and hundreds more. It's also got great multinational localizations.

    I switched to Miranda from GAIM (which I switched to from Trillian) and I haven't regretted it for one moment. It's very snappy and responsive, it automatically resizes vertically depending on how many contacts are online, it appears and disappears with a single click of the tray icon, it auto-updates the base program as well as the plugins... I could go on and on.

    Give it a try. It's free! http://www.miranda-im.org/

  22. My favs by crt · · Score: 3, Insightful
    • Ultra-Edit for text editing. Tons of features but still starts & runs fast. 10MB download, ~10MB ram.
    • ACDSee for image viewing. I run an ancient version, so I don't know if the new ones are more bloated.
    • Jungle Disk for storage and backup, 1.5MB Win download (4.5MB mac), ~12MB ram. Mozy uses about 30MB.
  23. Perl by goombah99 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Perl is my favorite unbloated language. I know you laugh but hear me out. Pick up the O-reily quick reference for almost any major language. with the exception of fortran (:-) the perl one is not just a little bit thinner, it's more than half as thick as most and that includes c++.

    Basically I find it really annoying that to get even a fraction of the functionality of stock perl one has to import some library. Why do I have to import Regular expression or Strings in python? or for that matter, just to get the command line args I have to import a freakin library? And then why does it take a zillion pages in the quickref to explain it when it has less fearutes than stock perl.

    I don't want to rag on python here and this is not a flame to say perl is better than python. (python is in very many ways superior to perl for organized project programming. It also used to be easier to read since there was only one way to do something but that zen is gone now.)

    Once you learn perl you don't need a big set of reference books to explain every obscure library. Just the manpages or a quick reference will do. I hate language bloat.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Perl by Wavicle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I know you laugh but hear me out. Pick up the O-reily quick reference for almost any major language.

      Is that a *really* good metric for a language? O'reilly is pretty good as companies go, but they are still after the bottom line. And the bottom line is: bigger "quick references" will sell better and for more money.

      And then why does it take a zillion pages in the quickref to explain it when it has less fearutes than stock perl.

      See, just like I told you.

      Once you learn perl you don't need a big set of reference books to explain every obscure library.

      Is there a language that, once learned, you need a big set of reference books? I use both Perl and Python (and 4 or 5 others). I have no books on Python. I have the camel book for Perl. I still find Java's javadoc to be the best language reference around. I no longer program in Java so that's just an interesting side note at this point.

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    2. Re:Perl by Jerry+Coffin · · Score: 3, Informative

      PERL lacking bloat? You've got to be kidding!

      If you want minimal, try out UnLambda or Pax. Unlambda is so minimal the functions (except a few built-ins) don't even get names. As a purely functional language, it also lacks variables. Despite this, it's Turing complete, so it can do anything you can do in such bloated messes as C++, PERL or Python. Pax is also Turing complete, and the page referenced above includes complete source code to its implementation, in a total of 175 lines of code (including white space, nice indenting, etc.)

      What's truly sad is that even though it was apparently invented with the specific intent of being obfuscated, Pax programs are generally much more readable than most PERL. Oh, and just to address a couple of your other points: Pax doesn't need a library to do pattern matching -- in fact, the language is basically built entirely around pattern equations. The tutorial and reference manual together work out to just over 200 lines of text. Most of that is the USTL reference manual mentioned above.

      Much as I hate to, I have to admit that even compared to PERL, programs in UnLambda are somewhat obfuscated -- though once you get used to its syntax, they're not quite as bad as they initially appear (rather the opposite of PERL in that respect).

      --
      The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
    3. Re:Perl by Lobster+Quadrille · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have written a lot of perl applications where I didn't need regular expressions for example, but that library was included by default.
      If you wrote a perl app without regexes, you probably did it wrong ;)
      --
      "The cup is in turn designed for holding hot or cold liquids, and has an open rim and closed base." --US Patent #5425497
  24. Xvid vs. DivX by gc8005 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Xvid download: 628K, simple install DivX download: 22.5MB, loads of crapware, nagging reminders to upgrade, etc.

  25. Well nobody's really chimed in with IM yet by CaptainPatent · · Score: 5, Informative

    There was someone above who mentioned Trillian, but by far my favorite pick is Pidgin IM (formerly Gaim)

    You avoid all of the bloat of AIM and MSN Messenger (which is now beyond ridiculous) plus you rid yourself of the need to install several messaging clients which further saves space and startup time plus it keeps your system tray (in windows) much cleaner. And the best part, it's available as open source for Windows and Linux!

    --
    Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
  26. uTorrent by JohnnyBigodes · · Score: 4, Informative

    uTorrent (http://www.utorrent.com), hands down.

    219kb for an incredibly fast, RAM-efficient, full-blown, full-featured GUI Torrent client, with Web administration, scheduling, and all the stuff.

    Now if the whole world could only code as well as uTorrent's author...

  27. Some examples by dermoth666 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Editors: PFE (http://www.lancs.ac.uk/staff/steveb/cpaap/pfe/def ault.htm) is a featureful and very slim editor for Windows

    Encryption: TrueCrypt (http://www.truecrypt.org/) takes less than 2 megs to hold the main executable along with both 32 and 63bit XP/Vista drivers. The Wizzard is a separate program that can optionally be included.

    Browsers: Excluding text-only and phone browsers, Opera is a clear winner for the memory footprint. It's much slower on JS though, so I'm waiting to see which improvements they made with 9.5 on that.

    Operating systems: The same Linux OS that runs my highly-powered workstations also runs on my 200Mhz 8MB ram/4MB flash router. It's just a matter of what you compile in. For me this seems like a winner too. Just look for tinny distros (Slackware with custom install is my reference as full-featured yet tiny distro, but there are also much smaller ones too) of just do it yourself with LFS.

  28. Re:memtest86 by dgym · · Score: 3, Funny

    Are you kidding? That thing used up all my memory.

  29. Re:Opera by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hmm... I find your recommendation insufficient.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  30. Farbrausch by orbitalia · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think Farbrausch are the gods of fitting the most into the smallest space.

    check out some of their 4k and 64k demos and prepare to be amazed. fr-30 candytron is particularly good. or fr-025 the popular demo.

    You can download their stuff here

  31. GIMP tile cache size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Using GIMP, did you ever look at the setting called "Tile cache size" in Preferences / Environment? This sets the maximum amount of RAM that GIMP can use before it starts to swap some parts of images (tiles) to disk.

    You can set this value to 4 GB and GIMP will happily use as much memory as you have. And it will be much, much faster when working with large images. As a rule of thumb, you should set this value to around 80% of your available memory.

    1. Re:GIMP tile cache size by fossa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is there a compelling reason that the default behavior is not 80% of your available memory?

    2. Re:GIMP tile cache size by Raphael · · Score: 4, Informative

      Is there a compelling reason that the default behavior is not 80% of your available memory?

      There are several reasons, some of which are historical:

      • GIMP was designed 10 years ago for UNIX systems. Many of these systems were shared by multiple users from remote displays. On a multi-user system, you do not want any application to consume 80% of the memory shared by all users.
      • It is very difficult to have a portable way to know (or even guess) the amount of memory available on a machine. You need different bits of code for each operating system, and sometimes you even have to run external commands and parse their output because a non-privileged application is not allowed to get this information from the system.
      • What is "available memory" anyway? It this your total amount of RAM, the amount of RAM still unused after you boot your OS, or what is left after you start your browser and some other applications? In many cases, only the user knows in which context GIMP will be used.
      • Nobody bothered implementing good heuristics for setting the tile cache size automatically. I am sure that a patch improving the default behavior would be gladly accepted.
      --
      -Raphaël
    3. Re:GIMP tile cache size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      GIMP was designed 10 years ago for UNIX systems. Many of these systems were shared by multiple users from remote displays. On a multi-user system, you do not want any application to consume 80% of the memory shared by all users.
      It is no longer 10 years ago. There are valid reasons to preserve 10-year-old design decisions, but not to preserve 10-year-old default settings! The number of people wanting to install GIMP on single-user desktops is vastly greater than the number installing it on multi-user servers; it is silly to expect the majority to reconfigure a setting chosen for the benefit of a minority.

      It is very difficult to have a portable way to know (or even guess) the amount of memory available on a machine. You need different bits of code for each operating system, and sometimes you even have to run external commands and parse their output because a non-privileged application is not allowed to get this information from the system.
      There are lots of things it's difficult to do on some platforms. That's no excuse for not doing it in cases where it's easy. Even just implementing this for Linux and Windows would solve the problem for the vast majority of GIMP users, and put a framework in place for users of more obscure operating systems to contribute solutions for their platform.

      What is "available memory" anyway? It this your total amount of RAM, the amount of RAM still unused after you boot your OS, or what is left after you start your browser and some other applications? In many cases, only the user knows in which context GIMP will be used.
      Now you're getting silly. Anyone with an ounce of common sense will assume that "available memory" is the amount of memory that is available, not your total amount of RAM. In other words, the amount of memory that is not being used by any other programs at the time that you start GIMP.

      Nobody bothered implementing good heuristics for setting the tile cache size automatically.
      Laziness is no excuse for making a program that appears, to new users, to perform much worse than it really does. Plus, I thought the whole point of this thread was that a good optimum setting (80% of available memory) is known, and the program merely stupidly defaults to a much smaller setting?

      I am sure that a patch improving the default behavior would be gladly accepted.
      I envy your optimism. Given the GIMP team's less than admirable record at accepting any attempt to improve their program (i.e. they think it's perfect already, and anyone who dares suggest an improvement is flamed to death), I sadly am unable to share it.

      No, they would merely reject any patches on one of the spurious grounds you have noted above: that the submitter had not fixed the problem on Irix (so they would refuse to fix it for 99% of users), or the patch would make things worse on multi-user systems (so they would refuse to fix it for 80% of users), or the submitter had not proven beyond a shadow of doubt that he had found a completely optimal strategy (so they would refuse to make it considerably better). Let's be honest - the GIMP developers do not care about end users, they only care about massaging their own egos and pretending that GIMP is a serious competitor to Photoshop.
  32. mac classic by zogger · · Score: 3, Interesting

    on the older classic OS, I always liked iCab browser and Soundjam MP3 player. Small, worked very well, I still use them on the odd occasion I have to use my old powerbook.

    On linux, the mini OS distros,damn small, puppy, slax, austrumi, etc. proving you can have a decent functional desktop with a variety of useful applications in only 50 megs of space. You don't need hundreds of megs on a CD or an entire DVD with gigs of stuff, most of which most normal users will never use anyway. Browser, chat, email, media player, some sort of text editor, done.

    Windows, no idea, haven't used it since 98se, which could run on some pretty marginally specced machines.

  33. Re:Oh! - I love this quote by kwabbles · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Of course, on the system *I* administrate, vi is symlinked to ed.
    Emacs has been replaced by a shell script which 1) Generates a syslog
    message at level LOG_EMERG; 2) reduces the user's disk quota by 100K;
    and 3) RUNS ED!!!!!!"

    --
    Just disrupt the deflector shield with a tachyon burst.
  34. In case anyone wonders by Wolfier · · Score: 4, Informative
    AD 30 C0: LDA $C030 - loads the content of the address $C030 to the Accumulator. $C030 connects to the beeper line, this line produces a "click" through the speaker.

    20 FD ED: JSR $FDED - prints the content of the Accumulator to the screen - since what you read from the speaker line is technically random, it prints a random character to the screen - potentially including arrow keys and bell characters...

    4C 00 03: JMP $0300 enough said.

  35. Re:Is it just me? by swordgeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not just you--in fact, it's far too many of "you," and you're wrong.

    There are two reasons for bloat: Accidental (i.e. shitty programming) and deliberate (adding pointless features.) By buying into the "let's just throw money at it until the problem goes away" mentality, you're encouraging bad programming and endless marketing-driven upgrades. It's a hundred bucks on RAM now, another hundred on a new hard drive, and then next year it'll be a new CPU. You're going to end up spending about $500-1000 per year on maintaining the same level of productivity as you've always had. This is key!

    Windows 2000 required a 133MHz processor and 64MB RAM.
    Windows XP required a 233MHz processor and 128MB RAM. The ONLY FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE between them was the thumbnail view mode. Everything else was eyecandy and toys, but it wasn't a huge upgrade cost.
    Windows Vista requires a 1GHz processor, 512MB RAM, a DirectX 9-compliant video card, and an internet connection. Oh yeah, and TEN TIMES as much disk space. Now what extra value does Vista provide to you, the end customer? What advantage does Vista give you over XP?

    Consider Office suites. Office 97 ran on a 486, with 12MB RAM for all features. Office 2007 now requires a 500MHz processor and 256MB RAM, and contains very few features that weren't already in Office 97. Moreso, only a tiny fraction of those features are actually used by any appreciable chunk of the population.

    The ONLY REASON to keep writing bloated software is to make you constantly spend more money staying exactly where you are, and your answer is to reward them by spending that money. Bloatware is capitalism gone wrong. It's forced consumption (and the forced aspect is getting worse with OSes now requiring online license activation and continued polling), and so much of the population is EAGER beyond words to consume while getting no value.

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  36. Re:The Mother of All Bloat-Free Software... by Jerry+Coffin · · Score: 4, Interesting
    printf("hello, world");
    Quite the contrary! You've used printf when all you really needed was puts. For that matter, even puts hides a big, complex buffering library. If you want it bloat-free, consider something like:

    main() { write(1, "hello, world", 12); }

    Even though I'm (at least mostly) joking, the difference is real, and at one time would have given serious consideration to doing things this way in real code. In reality, you've shown exactly how a lot of bloat really happens. Much of it stems from people using large, general-purpose libraries where they didn't really need them. In some cases (including this one) they didn't really even gain much from the library. The C stdio library provides buffering that can help speed when/if it reduces the number of times your program calls the OS write routine. In this case, the code calls write exactly once either way, so it's gained you nothing, but cost you extra memory usage and data copying, as well as making your program quite a bit larger.
    --
    The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
  37. mplayer for video (not wmp!) by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 3, Informative

    MPlayer plays anything I throw at it, and is open source. I used to have VLC, but got disappointed in its buggy subtitle support. Best of all, Mplayer doesn't have a GUI, so the visual bloat is minimal.

  38. Re:Xtree Gold by rleibman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Man, I thought the same thing. It took me a long time to understand why anyone would want windows when you had XTree gold. It was a beautiful application. Capable of reading all kinds of files (even autocad dwg!), searching was powerful. You could tag a bunch of files based on name, grep those files for some text, untagging the ones that didn't match as it went and reducing your search.

    Pure Beauty, I haven't used it in many, many years, but I bet my fingers would remember the keys in 5 minutes of using it again.

    I also remember the things that finally killed it for me. Lack (or late) support for long filenames, and the terrible windows port... man, those people should *have* written windows!

    Is there a linux port?

  39. The Answer: by Weaselmancer · · Score: 3, Funny

    How many programs for Windows have existed almost unchanged for as long as Windows has existed.

    The kernel. *rimshot*

    Thanks, I'll be here all week. Try the veal.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  40. Portable Apps are (usually) Bloat-Free by Comboman · · Score: 3, Informative

    Portable Freeware is my favorite site for programs that will run on a USB flash drive (or floppy if they're small enough) without the need to install on the host machine and create registry entries and the like. The focus of the site is portability, but generally speaking that also means bloat-free.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.