How to reduce size of the executables

Colleagues,
I just would like to share small tip, which may be useful for someone else.
Sometimes size of LabVIEW - based executable is pretty big (especially if you have placed arrays or graphic on the front panel, then set values as default, etc). Time to time we have discussed - how to reduce size of the builded executable. One possible soultion is open source Ultimate Packer for eXecutables - UPX and it seems to be OK for LabVIEW - based apps. Also command line arguments passed correctly.
For example, Vision Assistant (which is LabVIEW-written itself) packed from 7 MB to 5 MB and works.
with best regards,
Andrey.

In the days of <$100 1TB HDs and 20mbps FIOS, this seems less and less of a real problem that needs to be solved.
I am curious if this works also with older LabVIEW executables. Many years ago I was beta testing a similar utility and it would break LabVIEW executables. They were able to work around it but the compression benefit was less.
Just curious.
From the UPX documentation:
"Obviously UPX won't work with executables that want to read data from themselves"
LabVIEW Champion . Do more with less code and in less time .

Similar Messages

How to reduce size of the Organizer mode in PSE7

When I open PSE7 in the Editor mode, I can change the size of the work space from a small area to a full screen. But when I open in Organizer, it will only go to full screen....clicking on the small minimize/maximize buttons does not work....the little square button will momentarily change itself but will not stay that way, and in no way will the size of the work spage reduce. I can only click on the ( - ) and send the whole thing to the Taskbar.
This does not happen with any other program or application on my computer, a Windows 7 64 bit machine. It is only the Organizer that seems determined to thwart
my every effort.
I have just loaded several thousand pictures into the Organizer over the past couple of weeks and I don't want to lose that file...otherwise I would just uninstall and then reinstall PSE7.....I don't know if that would help or not.
I would appreciate all suggestions.

Thanks for the information. I have tried and tried to move the full-screen Organizer and could not. Also the icon would change but not stay changed. Today I tried again to "grab the edge" of the organizer in order to make it smaller....finally I was able to find one spot near the top on left side where I got the "double arrow" and was able to pull the Organizer down to the size I had started with last week. I don't know if this will last or not, but it is great to have it smaller.
When you speak of manually resizing, are you talking about using the double arrow to drag the side in to make it smaller? Or is there something that I don't know about this? And where do you find the "default size" of organizer....is this something that needs to be set somewhere in PSE7 ?
I have had another problem with the Organizer....when I try to "get pictures" from my Picture Library, I could not click on a folder in the pop-up box and highlight it. The first day I did this, the highlight would hold, but the next day it would jump back several folders and I had to do all kinds of things to finally get the folder of pictures I wanted. Again, this is the only application that gives me any problem highlighting a given item....every thing else works OK in all programs/windows, so it seems like the Organizer has some kind of a "hitch" or "bug" in it.
Thank you for this help. I look forward to you reply!

How to reduce size of the a PowerPoint with embedded swf files (SAP Dashboard)

I have just installed SAP Dashboard and converted all the previous graphs from Xcelsius 2008 to this new version (save new graphs). After exporting to PowerPoint all these new graphs, the PowerPoint file with all of these graphs has increased dramatically in a double size file. How can I do to reduce this size?

Hi,
List Box Builder may cause an issue .
http://everythingxcelsius.com/xcelsius-2008/3-xcelsius-2008-components-to-avoid/27
Also I did not try the linke below but check if it helps you .
http://myxcelsius.com/2009/03/18/reduce-the-size-of-your-xlf-and-swf-files/

How to reduce size or compress PDF files?

Hi guys,
Does someone knows if there is a way to reduce the size of the PDF file with good quality even on Pictures and Scanned documents? I know the option 'export', 'quartz filter' 'reduce size', but the compression is so extrem. Many files can't not been read, the quality is so bad. Is there a additional app, software or extension that let the user play with the compression on pdf files and let it be more personalized like the dopdf V7 available for windows? i am very dissapointed with this. Please help or suggestion. I will appreciate it. Thanks

I have used the excellent PDF Toolkit app for a while, and its preformed well. Occassionaly it makes the document into a negative image...which Im noyt sure why...
Mathishk, im trying your online version out, and am impressed and admire the fact that you have done this.
Well done.
A TRICK i use often. Once all hires images are on the designed document - and its coming in at 15-20mb, just change the link to the images so they are 'missing' then make a pdf.
i.e 'Hi Res images' to HRes images - old'
The screen resolution of images is still great, but file comes in at fraction of the size.
You 'trick' the document to use screen images only. So my 18mb file comes in as 5.2mb.
Just remember to change the images folder name back, so files relink.
Andy

How to reduce size pdf file with 10.5.8

How to reduce size pdf file with 10.5.8, I know it can be done with snow....

Look at this link.
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/1292868?start=0&tstart=0
 Cheers, Tom

How to change size of the fonts in report

Hello:
How to change size of the fonts in report for when I print it?
Thank's

Hi..,
You cannot do that with REPORTS.., With scripts or smartforms u can do that !!
plz do remember to close the thread, when your problem is solved !!
reward if it helps u..
sai ramesh

How to reduce size of iPhoto library ? (after the usual auto-rotate issue)

Hi,
This is my first message here, even I am oftenly reading and searching these forums...
I found many topics about this issue of "auto-rotate settings on camera, that will increase the size of the library".
Thanks Terrence and also Toad, for replying millions of time, to the same question.
(I was actually surprise that you don't have a topic, with all info, and you would simply point the guys to that same topic..., instead of writing again and again..)
http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=12294301#12294301
http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=12405190#12405190
etc.. etc...
Summary:
I have started a new library, with the birth of my son, 7 months ago.
I was going to move it and realized : 15Gb, with 5Gb in the "modified" folder.
After looking around here, I found the reason.
And now, the auto-rotate is turned off on my cameras. (and I will try your Xee, to rotate before importing to iPhoto)
Now, my question:
What can I do, with my existing library?
Is there a way to reduce it? to get rid of all the rotated pictures? (could I delete the one in Original folder?
Only solution is to reimport all, in a new library ? (I can't imagine doing again all the events... even if it's only 7 months worth of pictures...)
Thanks for your info and suggestions.
Thierry.

I don't know of any software to remove that tag. If you did and imported the files they would be displayed in the landscape orientation which is not how they were taken. So if you wanted to view them correctly you'd have to rotate them from within iPhoto thus creating a modified version and be back from where you started.
Your best bet would be to go thru the photos using Quicklook to find those portrait oriented photos and use Xee to rotate before importing.
Or use a different DAM (digital asset management) application that can handle those types of files without creating modified versions. I use Expression Media which lets me rotate the files from inside the application without creating modified files.

Can't figure out how to reduce size of printed jpeg

I have a jpeg image I want to print. When I click on it on my desktop, it comes up in Preview.   The image as printed is too big, so I want to reduce it.
I thought I could do this by lowering the percentage of the "Scale" radio button (this is part of the Print dialogue box). But when I tried that--say reducing it down to 35%, it only reduced down to about 80%. It would not go any lower.
I need to reduce this image down to at least 50%. Anyone know how to do that? Thanks.
(My printer is an Epson Workforce 520, if that helps.)

I did try iPhoto, but I could not crop down the image any further.
Meg, when I tried that, it turned out that the image was the correct size in the dialogue box, so I didn't change it.   For some reason, it just printed out almost twice the correct size.
Well, I solved the problem by going to that well-known photo doctoring program I guess we're not supposed to mention here because it's not an Apple product.   It worked splendidly.

How to reduce size of C:\Windows\winsxs folder in windows 2008 R2?

Hello,
Is there any way to reduce size of C:\Windows\winsxs folder in windows 2008 R2
simular to
DISM /online /Cleanup-Image /SpSuperseded
Many thanks

Okay maybe some background on the root of the problem would help.
Windows XP (and Windows 2000) used a fast and great mechanism called Hotfix Installer (Update.exe) to install updates. Updates installed in very little time. If you wanted to further reduce update times on Windows XP, you could just temporarily stop the
System Restore service and updates would install at crazy speeds. Note that this is not recommended for novice users who don't know advanced recovery methods, as some updates can sometimes cause your system to stop booting so you cannot even uninstall them.
The method the Hotfix Installer used was simple, it just installed a new version of files to be updated at %windir%\system32 and %windir%\system32\dllcache (the Windows File Protection cache). For files that were in use, a restart copied them from dllcache
to the system32 folder. This is simple file-based servicing. The hotfix installer (Update.exe) also supported various command line switches like /nobackup which means not to backup files it patches. Again, this is not recommended for novice users as some updates
can screw your system even after the comprehensive testing Microsoft does before releasing them. But if you won't be uninstalling any updates (usually one only requires uninstalling updates if they cause problems), you could save a ton of disk space by not
backing up the files it patched. The Hotfix Installer backed up files to C:\Windows\$Uninstall$KBxxxxxx folders so even if you did back up the files at install time, they could be safely deleted after a few days if no stability issues were found after using
Windows with the newest updates applied. Update.exe also supported the very important and convenient ability to slipstream a service pack or update into the original Windows setup files using the /s switch.
When Microsoft was developing Windows Vista, they realized that components had gotten too many interdepencies on each other and to service each file reliably without breaking another component that relied on it, Microsoft introduced what they called as Component
Based Servicing (CBS). You can read all about it in a much more technical way at The Servicing Guy's blog. What CBS does basically is it installs all files of the entire operating system, including all languages into C:\Windows\WinSxS and then it hard-links
files from there to C:\Windows\system32. This has the benefit of not having to insert the OS disc to add or remove any components, and some other advantages as well like offline servicing of a Windows Vista or Windows 7 image. But the design introduces a major
disadvantage of taking up a lot of hard disk space. Whenever an update is installed, it no longer installs it to C:\Windows\system32 and C:\Windows\system32\dllcache like Windows XP's hotfix installer (Update.exe) did. Instead, it updates the files in C:\Windows\WinSxS.
Now, Windows keeps multiple copies of the same file but with different version in WinSxS if it is used by more than one Windows component. The higher the number of components, that many number of times the file exists in C:\Windows\WinSxS. When a Windows Vista
update (.MSU) is installed, the components get updated, each and every one, instead of the files and the worst part is it still maintains the older superseded previous versions of components in WinSxS so the user would be able to uninstall updates. Microsoft
does say that some sort of "scavenging" or deleting older copies of components takes place but is scarce on the details. The scavenging seems to take place automatically at certain intervals in Windows 7 but not in Windows Vista. In Windows Vista, you have
to add or remove any Windows component for the scavenging to take place. And Microsoft says the scavenging will free up some disk space but in practice, on my system, I see my free disk space only decreasing on Vista as I remove or add any component. Windows
does not give the user an option to not backup the earlier versions of components like Windows XP's /nobackup switch in Hotfix Installer did. As as you install more and more updates on your system, they will take more and more disk space. This is one of the
primary reasons Windows Vista and Windows 7 are so bloated. Another reason for them being so bloated is the DriverStore that these OSes store. All drivers that are shipped with the OS and the OEM ones which you download and which are installed for a particular
system are staged in C:\Windows\System32\DriverStore. But let's not go there for now.
Now, an important thing to note is that the size of the WinSxS folder is not what Explorer or the dir command report, it is far less but is misreported by Explorer because it counts the hard links more than once when calculating size. That does not mean,
the size of WinSxS is not causing real-world disk space problems on numerous Windows Vista/7 systems in use today. Microsoft's ingenious recommendation to this problem of ever growing disk consumption is to install fewer updates to keep the size of the servicing
store under control. Of course, users cannot deny installing security updates and leave their system open to security holes. What they can do is install less optional updates, the ones that Microsoft releases on the fourth Tuesday of every month and also install
less of the hotfixes that are available by request from a Knowledge Base article. In short, you have to trade the number of bugs fixed in the OS by installing hotfixes at the cost of enormous amounts of disk space. The whole servicing stack is a total downgrade
to Windows XP's update.exe method. It causes heavy disk thrashing and slow logoffs/logons while Windows configures these updates at the Welcome Screen. Many systems are unable to boot because of failed updates. Another disadvantage of the "new" servicing stack
(and the redesigned Setup mechanism of Windows Vista) is the inability to do a true slipstream of service packs and hotfixes.
The time it takes to actually install these hotfixes online compared to Windows XP is also completely unacceptable. When you start installing an MSU update, it spends a lot of time determining whether the update applies to your system. Then, the update itself
takes much longer to install compared to Windows XP's Update.exe (hours instead of minutes if you are installing dozens of updates through a script). Finally, that post-installation process ("Configuring updates... Do not turn off your computer") takes several
minutes before shut down followed by a second post-installation process (configuration) upon restart before logon that also takes also several minutes and thrashes the disk.
I can install the entire SP3 for Windows XP in about 10 minutes after downloading the full installer. I can also install a slipstreamed-with-SP3 copy of Windows XP is about 45 minutes on a modern fast PC. In contrast, Windows Vista or Windows 7 do install
relatively quickly (in just about 15-20 minutes) on a modern PC but installing the service packs and updates takes more time than anything on XP did. Not only can service packs not be slipstreamed, but Vista Service Packs are not even cumulative, which means
if you clean install Windows Vista today, you have to install SP1 first which takes about 90 minutes, then SP2 which takes less time, then all the post-SP2 updates which do take hours to install. If you really HAVE to use Windows 7 or Windows Vista, you are
stuck with this slow update non-sense as Microsoft does not even acknowledge that there is any slowdown or loss of functionality in the new servicing mechanism. The fact remains: MSU updates are slow as **** and take too much time and as Windows 7/Vista get
older and Microsoft stops producing service packs, a clean install is going to take longer and longer to bring it up-to-date with all patches installed. Is is worth wasting your time on an OS whose servicing mechanism Microsoft completely screwed up? I once
again recommend you read more about the servicing stack and how it operates at The Servicing Guy's blog:http://blogs.technet.com/b/joscon/. To fix this messed up servicing stack, Microsoft also offers a tool
called CheckSUR for your system if it finds “inconsistencies in the servicing store”.
Microsoft's Windows Vista and Windows 7 products are not engineered with disk space in mind. It causes a problem, especially for SSDs which are still low capacity and very expensive. The only hope is that Microsoft again completely redesigns this servicing
mechanism in a future Windows release so it would not cause this growing disk space consumption issue, speed up installation of updates by an order of magnitude, not slow down logon and logoff, not prevent systems becoming unusable because of failed updates
being stuck at a particular stage and allow true slipstreaming.
Microsoft's response to this is vague - they simply state "Windows 7's servicing is more reliable than Windows XP" but they cannot acknowledge it is a million times slower and still unreliable...slow to the point of being unusable and sometimes leaving systems
in an unbootable damaged state. Of course they know all this too but can't admit it since it makes their latest OSes look poor. Moving from a very simple and fast update mechanism that worked to a complex one that requires endless “configuring” and repair
through CheckSUR is a product engineering defect.
Take a look at servicing-related complaints in Microsoft's own forums:
1.
Very slow install of updates to Windows 7
2.
Windows 7 - Updates are very slow
3.
Windows 7 Ultimate, it takes long time configuring updates
4.
"Preparing To Configure Windows. Please Do Not Turn Off Your Computer"
5.
Very slow update install at shutdown (Windows 7 Home Premium)
6.
Why does my computer run so slow when installing updates?
7.
Every time the computer is shut down, it always says installing update do not turn off your computer
8.
Computer is working slow and wants to do windows updates all the time
9.
Windows 7 Update install time taking a very long time
10.
Windows wants to install 6 updates every time I log off or put the computer in sleep mode
11.
Problem In Configuring Windows Updates at the time of Startup
12.
Computer really slow after latest updates
13.
Windows hangs up in "configuring updates"
14.
Why can't windows 7 install updates?
15.
Every time computer is shut down, receive Installing updates, do not shut off....
16.
How long does it take for the Windows 7 Home Premium updates take?
17.
Windows 7 "Installing Update 2 of 2" for 12 hours now
18.
Updates causes endless reboots
19.
Updates stuck installing for over 24 hrs. Computer does not boot
20.
Cannot load Windows 7 after installing 2 critical updates
A proper solution to this problem would be to completely re-engineer and rewrite the servicing mechanism so it operates with the speed, reliability and pain-free operation of the XP servicing mechanism.
I don't see this situation improving in Windows 8 either. Good luck with your Windows tablet taking hours to install service packs and updates. Now, do iPads take that long to install updates?
Microsoft understated the real system requirements to keep a Windows 7/Vista system running. System requirements at install time may be 15 GB of free disk space but over time, this number increases to alarming levels as you install more service packs and
post SP-updates. You can find out the real size of the WinSxS folder using a tool like cttruesize (ctts.exe) (download it from
http://www.heise.de/software/download/cttruesize/50272 and run ctts -la -a -l C:\Windows to find the correct size minus the hard links which MS says causes Explorer to misreport the WinSxS
folder size but the fact remains that even with the correctly calculated size of WinSxS, the disk space requirements of Windows 7 to keep it updated are unacceptable, especially for people's SSDs which are running out of disk space!

File size augments after editing a form? How to reduce size?

Hello,
I have been building a form and found that the size of my file grew after I made 'edits' onto (ie: changing the wording of the original form scanned onto Acrobat Pro X, changing the font colour some letters etc.)
Question 1: Is this normal?
Question 2: How to reduce the size of the file? (I am aware of the option that I could save the pdf into a version that's higher (by selecting anything between 6 to 10) and that would reduce the size of the pdf.
BUT, I also learned that if the end-user, who will receive my form and fill it in, do not have that particular version that I've saved it to, then s/he could not fill in the form!!
Is there a solution to my problem? Please help!
*I am using Acrobat Pro X.

Thank you all for your responses!
Yes, I always save my file as PDF. Just not reduced its size by saving it to a particular version.
to 'Test Screen Name', there is a misunderstanding on option 2. I referred to it so that I can save the file into a version like version 8.0 or higher. But, I understood from earlier discussions in the forum here, that people may still have earlier versions of reader (ie 6.0 or lower?) and so that's why I suggested having a link for download.
Even with that, I don't know how savvy my end-users may be to download. I 've had problems where people read my file using Apple and that caused problems.

Itunes 11, how to reduce size of tiles in album view?

iTunes 11, I like it.
However 1 question, how can I reduce the size of the Albums in grid view?
Regards

Duh. Hit enter.
You use to not have to do that.

How to Reduce size of photos

Good day,
I have taken photos with a Pentax digital camera and each photo have at leat 1,5 MO size.
I have Internet intermediate and I have test to send and email wiht 3 attached photos JPEG and it has take 8 Min. 15 sec..
How can I reduce the size of the photos with Photoshop Albun Editon Decouverte 3.0?
P.S. When I take photo with my small Intel PC pocket camera the photo JPEG with resolution 2076x1466 the size are 502 KO.

Hi,
Try this
1. in Adobe PASE right click on the photo and select copy
2. open up MS Paint, it is under accessories on your programs menu.
3 under the file menu select new then under the edit menu select paste.
4. depending upon the size of your photo you may have white background to the right and bottom of the photo - if so drag the outside edge of the white to the border of the photo. I do not expect you will have this with the size of photo you have got
5. Under the file menu select save as
6. on the dialog box give your file a different name eg. name_copy and select the save as type JPEG then click save.
This should give you a copy which will have the same dimensions in pixels as your original but much smaller in size.
On a test I shrank a file from 872kb to 257kb
JPEG is a format which shrinks the storage size of a photograph by throwing away some of the data. Some programs allow you to specify how much you want to throw away (this is the quality setting on your camera). This is why your good camera gives you a much bigger file size than the cheaper one.
MS Paint does not allow you to select the quality but just defaults to low quality which is why the file is much smaller.
If you have a proper photo editing program you will find that this will allow you to change the size of the picture (pixel dimensions) and the file size by specifing the quality of JPEG required.
Hope this helps
Best wishes
Bill

How to reduce size of time machine partition?

I have a hard drive which is rapidly filling up with TM backups going back 3 years. I would like to reduce the allowable size of the partition without losing the latest backup. How do I do that. Thanks Henry

Use iPhoto to delete phtots from it
If you need more storage get a larger disk or an external drive
The iPhoto libray is what it is - you can not modify it or change its size
LN

How to Reduce size of Data Markers

Hi,
I created a "Line Chart" and it has just 2 measures , so there are two lines. There are 33 charts and each page has one chart. I enabled data markers. The markers are too big as the height of chart is more and how to reduce the size of the markers. I reduced height of chart then markers size becomes less. But We want the chart to occupy entire page but marker size should be little smaller. Is this possible.
BR, Nanda Kishore

hi Nanda Kishore,
As per my knowledge, it is not possible in WEBI as there is no control/setting on the size of data markers of Chart unlike Crystal.
Regards,
Vamsee

How to reduce size of iPhoto library

My iPhoto library is growing out of proportion to it's content. The iPhoto library file is now 27GB. When I go in and do a show package content I see the following folder sizes:
Data 649MB
iPod Photo Cache 15.79GB
Modified 267MB
Originals 7.1GB
Do you see this!
The iPod Photo Cache is TWO times the size of the Originals. How can that be????
Why would this be larger anyway. I thought pictures are getting scaled down to fit on the iPod.
Has anybody any idea how I can reduce the size of this iPod Cache?

aschmid
The iPod Photo Cache is TWO times the size of the Originals. How can that be????
because something has gone wrong
Normally, I would advise against changing things in the iPhoto Library Folder but make a back up - just in case - and you can safely trash that iPod Photo Cache. The worst that will happen is that iPhoto will create a new one next time you sync. When it does, compare the size with this one.
Regards
TD

How to reduce size of the executables

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for