 |
JRE/JDK download size?
Posted by gfx on September 13, 2005 at 07:39 PM | Comments (15)
Every now and then we see a new blog/thread/article about JRE/JDK download size. Well, I just downloaded .NET 2.0 beta 2 and here are the file sizes:
- Runtime: 23 MB installer
- SDK: 324 MB installer (!)
Amusingly you need to install the runtime to install the SDK. That is a 347 MB installer to have a command line based framework plus its documentation. And I installed all of this to try Monad beta 2, a new Windows shell.
So sure the JDK could be smaller, Mustang b48 is 50 MB large, but at least it contains the runtime environment...
P.S: The install of the .NET SDK just failed because 1 GB of free disk space doesn't seem to be enough ^^
P.P.S: I installed and tried Monad. It rocks but it has serious problems, the most important being it takes 36 MB of RAM. For a command line shell. With no color. And the startup is slow. Even Cygwin performs better. That said it rocks so much I already dropped my old cmd.exe.
Bookmark blog post:  del.icio.us  Digg  DZone  Furl  Reddit
Comments
Comments are listed in date ascending order (oldest first) | Post Comment
-
The Microsoft .NET Framework Software Development Kit (SDK) version 2.0 includes everything developers need to write, build, test, and deploy .NET Framework applications—documentation, samples, and command-line tools and compilers.
What included in JDK? some stupid swing/awt demos? even the java api document you need download separately. and IMO, .net documnet are far more just api document...
Why you guys spent so many times to compare something incomparalbe, like NebBeans vs Eclipse, JDK vs .Net SDK?
Posted by: eric_suen on September 13, 2005 at 10:39 PM
-
Why my pre-format paragraph became unreadable?!!
Posted by: eric_suen on September 13, 2005 at 10:47 PM
-
Don't ge me wrong, I really like .NET. I was just posting this in response to all the complaints about JRE/JDK download size. I know it doesn't solve the problem but it could be worse. As for what both SDK include and don't include I don't think one is better than the other. So Java doesn't have the doc within the JDK? Sure, but you got the runtime... Finally I'd like to know what you would see as more comparable than two Java IDEs or two platforms SDK so similar that Java and .NET.
Posted by: gfx on September 13, 2005 at 10:49 PM
-
Hmm...
Why my pre-format paragraph became unreadable?!!
Perhaps because you didn't read the text above the posting entry field and make the obvious asumption that without 'allowable html' it will just be treated as white-space ignoring text?
Posted by: goron on September 13, 2005 at 11:42 PM
-
Its also worth remembering that the .Net framework will be pre-installed into every copy of Vista, Microsoft aren't expecting users to have to download and install this stuff. Sun haven't scored many brownie points with me over getting OEMs (or Linux Distros) to preinstall the runtime, regardless of the many licenceing issues they themselves created.
I'd think the size of the SDK is largely irrelevant to developers if the potential user base is present. It's only a matter of time before .Net reaches that tipping point with Vista being shipped with every new PC.
Posted by: osbald on September 14, 2005 at 02:19 AM
-
Romain,
Take the advice of Joel Spolsky---listen to your customers and don't even look at your competitor.
Posted by: weiqigao on September 14, 2005 at 05:09 AM
-
Salut Romain,
I liked your comparison, thanks for providing a bit of perspective on how Sun's JRE downloads compare to Microsoft's .net downloads. I'll chip in with some data from free runtimes.
Current kaffe CVS head make dist-ed source tarballs are ~10M tar.gz archives. With qt-peers, debugging, xdebugging & jvmpi enabled at configure time, that results in ~20M of unstripped binaries on x86-linux, or ~10M stripped.
The VM itself (kaffe-bin and libkaffevm) including the JIT engine, is a little over 700k, with the rest going into GNU Classpath's class libraries and native libraries for them. It's certainly a pretty far shot from Mustang in terms of implemented classes and methods, or VM capabilties (no JVMTI, for example), but it only shows how small one can go without really trying.
If you want to see what it looks like when someone tries hard, look at JamVM, which packs a state-of-the-art interpreter engine, reflection and all that nice stuff into a little over 100k (excluding the class libraries, of course).
cheers,
dalibor topic
Posted by: robilad on September 14, 2005 at 06:07 AM
-
I don't think we should be comparing JDK and .NET, but it sure does generate lots of conversation though. For one, I think .NET has alot more things in it than JDK. You get support for XML, Web services, enterprise services, messaging, etc. JDK gives you the barebone and you have to go and download other jars to get the functionality of .NET. I wonder what the size is if one downloads all the jars for Java to match that of .NET and see if it becomes 300 MB. Please don't do that! As Eric pointed out that documentation comes with .NET. Java does not have anything that's close to that. I'll mention this again for the one millionth time: the online API documentation of Java is a piece of #*@$. That's not documentation. But that's beyond the point of this post. Not to mention that .NET supports C#, VB.NET, J#, etc. right out of the box. JDK only supports Java. Anyway, I think I made my point here. It's just not good enough to compare the size of the two frameworks when they have very different things in them. Why don't people compare Python and JDK :)
Posted by: tuthach on September 14, 2005 at 07:27 AM
-
Hey - these aren't PDAs or J2ME devices we're working on here. I can drop less than $100 to get an external hard drive connected via USB 2.0. I could forsee anyone having a problem with the .NET or Java's JRE / JDK sizes if it was, say, 1998 and we had 1/10 of the available storage space. But who cares now???? That's small enough to fit easily on a CD or DVD as well for .NET or Java!!! I don't get it!
Posted by: phlogistic on September 14, 2005 at 02:04 PM
-
The best thing in .NET is the documentation: a Windows Help file format, with good examples in each class. And it also has the language definition. Where is the JDK Windows Help file with both API and language definition with good examples?
Posted by: fuerte on September 14, 2005 at 03:51 PM
-
Remember, "hardware is cheap". I thought that was one of the ideas with Java :-)
Posted by: bebben on September 14, 2005 at 03:55 PM
-
First i belive java and .Net have both their vantages.
But, why do i have to download ~300 MB of .Net if i only use a part of the functionality. The Jsdk + JRE has ~50MB and for me it was 40% of the time sufficient. If i need something more sifisticated i go and download it and they are raerly over 10MB, i could spend some time downloading 'till i reach 300MB.
Why do i need such an extensive documentation with good examples? I use the java-api very sporadic, only in cases where the param meaning is not clear to me. Every thing else would cluttering the documentation for me.
And the point java takes much space, to be honest, it takes only 60MB to make a complete Webapplication with Java including Apache Webserver, Tomcat, the application itself (containing a cms, and a complete bookkeepingapplication)and all needed templates and many librarys for database connectivity, report-, chart- and pdf-generation and so on.
In this case i have no number to compare, but i don't really want to know how big this thing would be in .Net
I hope i did not start a new flame war.
Im a Consultant and working with Java for over 6years now.
Posted by: minirich on September 14, 2005 at 11:28 PM
-
First i belive java and .Net have both their vantages. But, why do i have to download ~300 MB of .Net if i only use a part of the functionality. The Jsdk + JRE has ~50MB and for me it was 40% of the time sufficient. If i need something more sifisticated i go and download it and they are raerly over 10MB, i could spend some time downloading 'till i reach 300MB.
Why do i need such an extensive documentation with good examples? I use the java-api very sporadic, only in cases where the param meaning is not clear to me. Every thing else would cluttering the documentation for me.
And the point java takes much space, to be honest, it takes only 60MB to make a complete Webapplication with Java including Apache Webserver, Tomcat, the application itself (containing a cms, and a complete bookkeepingapplication)and all needed templates and many librarys for database connectivity, report-, chart- and pdf-generation and so on.
In this case i have no number to compare, but i don't really want to know how big this thing would be in .Net. I hope i did not start a new flame war. Im a Consultant and working with Java for over 6years now.
Posted by: minirich on September 14, 2005 at 11:29 PM
-
osbald wrote: "Sun haven't scored many brownie points with me over getting OEMs (or Linux Distros) to preinstall the runtime, regardless of the many licenceing issues they themselves created."
I could not agree more with you, osbald.
A pre-installed JRE on every Windows Vista would help a lot, how about it?
Posted by: uhilger on September 15, 2005 at 01:51 AM
-
I also tryied Monad, but on my system (a brand new freshly installed windows xp sp2) it only tooks about 20 MB of memory. Is other visitors has experienced diffrent amount of memory with monad ?
Posted by: ricore on September 16, 2005 at 04:15 PM
|
java.net RSS Feeds
