Rich Runtime Install Sizes Matrix
I have put together a table which lists a number of browser based rich client runtimes and their install sizes along with which platforms they are available on and supported.
The runtimes covered include:
- Adobe Flash Player 10
- Silverlight 2
- Silverlight 3 beta
- JavaFX 1.1.1
I have obtained the information from the runtimes’ websites. The download sizes are based on actual download size, and not the download size stated on the website (there were some discrepancies). Sections that are blank indicate that there is no supported runtime available for that runtime / platform combination.
|
(1) – Universal Binary
(2) – Included with Java offline install
(3) – No offline install (could not determine size)
(4) – Beta
Here is a table showing the average sizes for the platforms where the runtime is available:
|
If you find any errors or omissions, please leave them in the comments.
Update : Edited to make it clearer that this compares browser based rich client runtimes (i.e. runtimes that install into the browser).
What about.. appcelerator?
(http://appcelerator.org/)
V1
30 Mar 09 at 10:28 am
V1
That is a separate (and forthcoming post).
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
mikechambers
30 Mar 09 at 10:29 am
Thanks for this Mike. Interesting to see the bits side-by-side. A note on SL3 (as you noted is in beta) is that the only runtimes available are for developer builds, which is why the larger size exists right now (we’re actually tracking about a 40K reduction in end user runtime for SL3).
Can you append this to include Flex/Air runtime download sizes as well for the broadest comparison?
timheuer
30 Mar 09 at 10:36 am
Good research here.
Do you think Adobe considers this a competitive advantage? Are users continuing to ask for smaller player download sizes?
If Adobe considers the larger download sizes a new precedence in the broadband age, could/should Adobe’s web-based player download size / threshold be increased to incorporate new features?
Chuck
30 Mar 09 at 10:42 am
[...] http://www.mikechambers.com/blog/2009/03/30/rich-runtime-install-sizes-matrix/ [...]
Tamanho de Instalador das Runtimes Ricas « diogomoura´s
30 Mar 09 at 11:05 am
>A note on SL3 (as you noted is in beta) is that the only runtimes available are for developer builds, which is why the larger size exists right now (we’re actually tracking about a 40K reduction in end user runtime for SL3).
Yeah. Is there any place to download the non-developer version? If no, and if you think about it, when there is, post here and ill update it.
I am doing a separate post on desktop sandboxed runtime install sizes. Should be posted shortly.
This post was focused on web sandboxed/ browser based runtimes (I am going to update the post to make that clearer).
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
mikechambers
30 Mar 09 at 11:11 am
re: SL3 non-dev: none yet (we opted not to have a go-live this time around), but once released I’ll be sure to let you know. I wish we could all get those native Mac runtime files down in size too…seems to be the increase for all platforms.
timheuer
30 Mar 09 at 11:38 am
Given that Java is already installed on practically everything, the JavaFX runtime size quoted is a little inaccurate IMO.
In fact its quite a minimal upgrade if your JRE doesnt already have JavaFX support.
Jethro
30 Mar 09 at 12:15 pm
Surprised that you left out Adobe AIR.
Andy Matthews
30 Mar 09 at 1:01 pm
>Surprised that you left out Adobe AIR.
@Andy
The post is about browser based runtimes. I am working o a separate comparison about desktop based rich runtime clients.
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
mikechambers
30 Mar 09 at 2:36 pm
Adobe could probably used the same strategy as .swz to downside its player. Devising its backward compatibilities into loadable library.
GMalartre
30 Mar 09 at 3:11 pm
@Jethro
>Given that Java is already installed on practically everything, the JavaFX runtime size quoted is a little inaccurate IMO.
I dont believe that Java is included with Windows which by far has the largest market penetration.
Also, at least in my case, the version of Java on my Mac does not include JavaFX.
Regardless, the data is what it is. This is looking at the download install size of the runtimes. There are quite a few examples of both Flash, and Silverlight being included on machines (either as part of OS or OEM deals). That is not part of this data set.
Maybe you can put together a matrix of rich runtime OS installs and OEM distribution deals. If you do, please post a link here.
Thanks…
mike chambers
mikechambers
30 Mar 09 at 4:04 pm
Java is pre-installed on most PCs (9 out of the top 10 PC OEMs pre-install it, including Mac). The actual download for the JavaFX runtime is then around 2mb or less.
Josh Marinacci
30 Mar 09 at 8:11 pm
Unity – 3.2 MB
oos
30 Mar 09 at 10:46 pm
Unity3D can be considered a browser based rich client runtime?
Marco D'Alia
31 Mar 09 at 3:52 am
Should we insert Unity?
markval
31 Mar 09 at 8:39 am
@Josh
thanks for the info. Do you happen to have a reference for the 9 out of 10 number? That would be useful to have.
mike chambers
mikechambers
31 Mar 09 at 9:45 am
Interesting figures but the fact that the Flex framework can be cached cross-domain is actually much more important than the one-off installation download. In case of Silverlight you need to download the ‘Silverlight’ framework with each update of the application. I would actually give money for a larger Flash player that includes decent HTML support (preferably through some plug-in mechanism)…
Tom Van den Eynde
1 Apr 09 at 12:44 am
[...] ??? ???? ?????? ??? ?-client ??? ??? ???????????? ??”?. ????? ?? Mike Chambers ?? ??? ????? ??? ??????????? ??????, ???? [...]
silverlight3 ????? FlashPlayer 10 ?-AIR | FlashDev
1 Apr 09 at 1:23 am
I think you can make a fair statement (and you should do, adobe) if you say that silverlight is going to compete with java and not with flash, cause it’s already following the same path.
It’s not just a question of download time, huge plugins are going to create weight on your browser, microsoft is well known for its bloatware, you can’t deny that, and java… well, you know.
I hope adobe will keep it neat, adding layers as Flex instead of making a big melting pot, but “official” frameworks should be compiled and cached on a plugin level.
Air on the other hand is an extended browser not a VM, and it’s why I don’t like it very much even if I hoped for years (a decade! omg) to handle FS from flash. AIR it’s not really part of the flash platform, you don’t need to know AS to make applications.
You should use flash projector for desktop based client, FS API wouldn’t double the size.
fabio
1 Apr 09 at 2:46 pm
Flash Player 10 installs in Win98/ME? I thought legacy OS support was dropped since version 8?
sascha/hdrs
1 Apr 09 at 9:12 pm
[...] RIA Download sizes from Mike Chambers – how much does this matter? Ryan says that Adobe does studies on completed downloads, and there is a significant drop-off at some point. [...]
People Over Process » RIA Weekly #48 - Mobile Mania!
3 Apr 09 at 10:52 am
[...] Rich Runtime Install Sizes Matrix at Mike Chambers [...]
People Over Process » Links for April 2nd through April 3rd
3 Apr 09 at 11:00 am
Mike,
When you do your post comparing downloads of Desktop RIA’s you should considering including Curl http://www.curl.com. Curl’s RTE provides out of browser and off-line support similar to AIR. Curl is used mostly in enterprises and therefore is less well known, but is getting more visibility as large companies consider their RIA strategy.
Richard Treadway
8 Apr 09 at 9:26 am
[...] Is that an extra 6 megs in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me? [...]
People Over Process » Numbers, Volume 8
9 Apr 09 at 3:48 pm
micrsoft will hide some of its size via part of dotnet or part of OS. Then they will tout how they are the smallest…
dbmuse
26 May 09 at 4:47 pm
[...] for SL3 beta. The runtime installable size too is quite bigger than its Flash counterpart. This article has the comparison [...]
Using Silverlight/Expression Blend for eLearning Development | Upside Learning Blog
7 Jul 09 at 3:05 am
hey Mike, any chance of getting this updated?
Don
26 Nov 09 at 7:26 am