Reducing jar size

Hi are there any other ways to reduce the filesize of a jar file? currently my jar file is nearly 900kb! half of the file size comes from my java class files. i have about 15 java class files and they all total up to nearly 500kb alone without the images. how can i reduce the size of these java class files?
One more note to add, when i select all the files from my src directory under windows explorer, i then right click on properties and to my amazement, the total size off all the files are 708kb! i thought a jar file compresses the source code and images? seems like its making src files bigger

Yeah I also faced this, Thumbs.db is created by Windows when you set the folder view to Thumbnails. The file is never shown in Windows folder listing even when "Show hidden files and folders" is selected.
If you manually change the size of the jar using WinZip or any other utility, don't forget to edit the jad produced by NetBeans to correct the jar size, or you'll have new problens.
Hey, I just realized that at least one of my applications offered for free download on GetJar probably still has a Thumbs.db in the jar.. ouch!
db

Similar Messages

What all the ways to reduce the jar size

Dear folks
M developing an real time app. Its jar size now exceeded 150kb. I have used obfuscation but still im unable to reduce the size. Is there any way to reduce than obfuscation.

Pravin
can a single PNG file contain all my png images with
some index representation.Check out GameCanvas, TiledLayer and Sprite, there may be somthing there you can use.
Note -- I haven't used these myself, but I'm aware that they can show different frames from one png.
Also, there are at least 2 .png formats -- I am aware of PNG-8 and PNG-24. PNG-8 is considerably smaller.
Hope this helps, Darryl

REDUCING IMAGE SIZE - PNGOUT Vs BINCOMPILER

Dear all,
I reduced the size of the images using 'PNGOUT' (An application used to reduce the size of the images). After that the total size of the images is 26.2KB.
Then I converted that images (output of PNGOUT) into one binary file using 'BinCompiler' (a software used to create binary file). Now the size of that binary file is 26.3KB.
I don't know the reason for that. i thought, when using BinCompiler the size of the jar will be more reduced. But it is same. Another one thing, when inputing obfuscated images(output of PNGOUT) to BinCompiler, the size of the the binary file is almost same. But when inputing original images(not obfuscated), the size of binary file is reduced around 10KB.
Please explain me, why this is happening like this and what is efficient in game development , PNGOUT, BinCompiler, or both? PLEASE INFORM ME.

Thank you Doug. The comments on extensive uniform blue sky vs. marked variation in color seem well taken, I'll keep this method of choosing in mind. My goal is to create a JPG family photo archive of the highest quality images that I can make for future use by non-technical descendants (thus it will supplement the TIF archive that holds the best quality versions of the same images but that may not be usable to novices). As I cannot anticipate exactly how the JPGs will be used, I just want them to be the best possible, while still being of a size that can be uploaded to, say, Costco (5 MB size limit) for making enlargements.
In general, I am often left curious as to how exactly Photoshop carries out its algorithms and how different factors influence the outcome. So often, one read "just try different techniques and see what looks the best". But I am always left wondering, what is the theory behind this and has it been systematically studied and worked out and published. In so many disciplines, such as medicine, the methods of optimization has been evaluated, systematized, and fully described. I have not yet explored what may be found in technical journals, but I'm sure much of this good stuff must be available somewhere. It would be nice to have a "How Things Work" that actually explains what Photoshop is doing under the hood.
Thanks again.

Reducing the size

Hi all,
I am interested to know whether is it possible to reduce the size of mymt.zip ? . As java web start at the first instance caches all of the jar and zip files but this size is too huge even for the first time.Can lazy loading help us here ? or is there other way round ? . If some of u knows about this then pls share.
regards
Mangesh

What is contained in this ZIP file? You can use obfuscation to reduce the sizes of class files, also you can make sure your JAR is compressed vs. uncompressed.
Rob

How do I reduce the size of photos to use on website?

Thanks to the helpful person who recommended I use Rapidweaver to build a website, I am slowly getting somewhere. It is so simple and just like Apple applications that I think I can do this.
My problem now is that when I tried to transfer a photo from iPhoto to the draft website page it comes across so large it fills the page.
How do I reduce the size of photos so that I can bring them across? I need to show about 20 photos on the web pages. Do they need to be in a different format and if so how do I change it to the appropriate one?
Many thanks.
ibook Mac OS X (10.3.9)

Hi Casuarina,
Go to this site and click on the Desktop Version Quicktime movie for a small tutorial. It will explain everything to you and you can see how you resize right within Rapid Weaver. It's really quite nifty.
http://donmc.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=37133
Lori

How can I print a pdf doc of size A3 (one page only) on A4 (on one page) front and back (actual size duplex printing) without reducing the size?

The printing should come of actual size half on front and half on back of A4 paper.

Hi Fakhar,
That is not possible without reducing the size. It cant be possible at all.
Regards,
Ajlan Huda.

How do I reduce the size of a graphic in Preview and maintain resolution?

Preview 6.0.1
Hi,
I have a graphic in Preview. The largest file is a .jpg at 77 KB. Information about the graphic is in the attached "Adjust Size ScreenPreview Galleon 77.
I find that when I reduce the size of the file using Previews menu bar functions that I usually use — Screenshot>Zoom reduce>Select the smaller picture>Screenshot — that the result is an image that has lost the focus, the resolution of the original graphic.
How do I reduce the size of a graphic and maintain resolution? I've never used the Adjust Size Screen functions.
I'm not stuck on having to use Preview to accomplish this, but I do use Preview a lot.
Thanks,
Rafael
KB.jpg".

Choose a smaller width, the height will adjust appropriately, and the resolution will stay the same.

When i use pogo, on the risk game for instance, when i click on a game room, a window pops up and immdediately reduces in size, this size only shows part of the battle screen; i have tried resetting the zoom feature, no luck.

i have seen this before on my home PC (on a lap top now) it is impossible for me to correct so i have to use IE to play pogo (i dont like IE it is slower) i click on a game, i go to a game room, and a window normally pops up showing the tables. normally i click on a seat and it takes me to a new window and the game board. NOW, when this first window pops up, it is aboout 1/4 size of my screen, but immediately reduces in size to about 1/6 of my screen. wnen the game loads, i cannot view the whole screen only part of the screen, as if it is zoomed in. I tried your suggestion and reset the zoom, no help.... i changed the zoom level manally.... no help.
this also happens in scrabble and most other games. it is related to the java i am sure, but it only happens on firefox. How do i correct this. I have uninstalled, and reinstalled firefox. i have had this happen on the older version of firefox. it happens on multiple computers so it isnt just one computer.
HELP!!!!!
please

I should have explained further. The game opens in a new window over to the upper left of my screen, leaving the original page underneath. I tried minimizing it so that I could get to my toolbar and did the View > Zoom > Reset. This has no effect. The lower portion of the game is still not showing. Using other browsers the window or frame of the game is much larger, therefore everything shows.

I recently downloaded a 10.6.8 update and a game program has now been reduced in size. It's specifications are set for full screen, but it is about 1/4 of the size. Any ideas how to fix?

I recently downloaded a 10.6.8 update and a game program has now been reduced in size. It's specifications are set for full screen, but it is about 1/4 of the size. Any ideas how to fix?

Hi, I have got the same problem but all is 1/4 the size have you fixed it?

FCP 6.0.5 Extremely large exported DV movies? Need to reduce output size

I am working in DV, I have noticed on my latest 2 project, huge exported DV video files. The first was about 15 minutes and the video file was about 23 GB, the latest is about 28 minutes and the exported DV video file is 40.88 GB.
I understand that when I export to Quicktime movie, that I need to use the export codec native to my sequence setting, it order to maintain quality. What are my options to reduce file size? Can I change the sequence settings to Apple Intermediate or Animation to reduce file size? The most important thing, I do not want any loss in quality, of what I would obtain from the native DV file.
Thanks in advance for reading and replying to my post
Thank You in advance for taking the time to read and reply to my Post.
Sebastian

The reason why I am posting my question, is I understand an hour of DV video is a 14GB file, this is why I am unclear why my video files are so large. It makes no sense to me. Why are my files not adhering to the 14GB per hour of DV rule?
What are my option for reducing this enormous file sizes?

Reducing file size #2...Preview, Quartz Filter vs Adobe Pro Optimize

Questions on reducing a pages to pdf file…I will post each question seperatly.
2) I read that you can reduce file size of a pdf in preview with a quartz filter. I created my own filer and it worked as expected. But, I also have Adobe Acrobat Pro, with save as PDF Optimized. The pro seems to have much more capability than the quartz filters.
Is one better that the other to use? The adobe optimize (standard settings) took it from 20 to 6 megs.
THanks, Bob

The Adobe Acrobat settings you chose are probably using .jpeg to reduce the file size.
.jpegs are lossy. ie You lose detail and sharpness the more you compress the image.
The Quartz filters are usually of very high quality, but they are a black box and you need to understand what the settings are in each one. Quartz filters are extremely powerful, fast and as I said usually high quality but I suggest you experiment and see if they meet your needs.
Peter

Adobe Acrobat Pro XI 11.0.06 when I reduce file size or try to optimize, I get this error: The document could not be saved. A number is out of range. I do the exact same thing every month and it works. I did it a few days ago and it worked. I receated the

Adobe Acrobat Pro XI 11.0.06 when I reduce file size or try to optimize, I get this error: The document could not be saved. A number is out of range. I do the exact same thing every month and it works. I did it a few days ago and it worked. I receated the pdf, I renamed it. tried to do it before I imported more pages. no go. the 16 mg pdf will normally reduce to 5 or 6

Hi,
Are you facing the issue with any pdf file?
Please try updating Acrobat to 11.0.7 and check.
You might also want to repair Acrobat and see.
Regards,
Rave

HP Photosmart C4585 - can't print test pages + copies are all reduced in size

I have 2 problems with an HP Photosmart C4585 All-in-one printer.
Firstly, I cannot print test prints ie 'Network Configuration Page' and the 'Run Wireless Network Test' page. It sounds as though it's printing but it produces blank sheets.
Secondly, trying to Copy A4 originals to A4 paper the printout is always reduced in size to about a quarter of the sheet (more like photo size) - no matter which setting I select. It's also printed blue.
The printer is not connected to a computer but I successfully print A4 documents in black, from an iPad using the HP ePrint app. So it is just the copy facility which is malfunctioning.
Can anyone help? Thanks.

Hi there,
Lets eliminate software interference by downloading and running the print and scan doctor located here:
http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?docname=c03275041&cc=us&dlc=en&lc=en
It can fix a lot on its own and if not give a better idea of what is going on.
Best of Luck!
You can say thanks by clicking the Kudos Star in my post. If my post resolves your problem, please mark it as Accepted Solution so others can benefit too.

How to reduce the size of winsxs in windows 7 ultimate x64

Ok so first off there are some caveats to responding to this question
1.) Im on windows 7, so DONT refer to some "winsxs is important" vista link...
2.) i am well aware of what windows side by side is for, and appreciate dll ____ must be bad for some... but lets be honest, professional people like me know how to keep a system in shape and not remove DLL files willy nilly and should have some kind of
"i know what im doing" option
3.) i know its important system files blah blah blah
4.) i know it MUST be possible to trim this... vsp1cln.exe and compcln.exe from vista sp1 and sp2 respectively shows it CAN be done
so in light of that, as there is no vsp1cln.exe or compcln.exe included on windows 7 i need to know if they are compatible with windows 7 if i just pull down a version from vista.
if not, there must be some kind of method to reduce winsxs size... mine is currently at 6.2GB and that... frankly... is too big, i can understand a few GB worth, but 6! thats a whole windows xp installation!
now, if a utility could be written that would be detrimental to compatibility but acceptable in terms of limited damage then that would be good, perhaps removing the ability to uninstall updates if for example, your system has been stable since february
i know i wont have problems and have the retail disk if it gets fubar.
I cant see what all that folder is for... i mean if you dont want such compatibility or the ability to install extra components without finding the disk then you should be able to remove that... i dont use a lot of the server side components, so why cant
i remove those.
also winsxs uses a lot of hardlinks and junctions that are reporting hard drive usage that isnt actually used as explorer counts these files repeatedly, there must be a way to tell explorer not to count those files... it might be all well and good to say
theres 2gb not actually being used, but if windows is throwing a fit because it thinks im out of space then those 2gb might as well be 2 TB for all the use they are to me.
lets take for example the winsxs/backup folder, there are about 60% of that taken up with FONT BACKUPS... i mean SERIOUSLY! ... you backed up the FONTS!?
WHY!?!?
There must be more things like those that could go
perhaps someone could get back in touch and explain why microsoft windows is the ONLY operating system that seems to think that if it doesnt have 80 hundred million backups and spares it wont work... linux does not have this side by side thing, nor does
macosx

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?
So fact is Microsoft understates or conveniently hides the real system requirements to keep a Windows 7/Vista system running. System requirements are install time may be 15 GB of free disk space but over time, this number increasing is unacceptable, especially
for people's SSDs which are running out of disk space!

Reduce File Size in Acrobat Pro (9.5.5) Corrupts Graphics in PDF Documents - shows up as black image

Whenever I use Reduce File Size in Acrobat Pro (9.5.5), sometimes some of the images (not all) get corrupted and show up as a black image in the new document.
Actually, the new reduced document looks okay when viewed in Acrobat, but the problem shows up when viewed in the Preview application on the Mac.
I'm using Acrobat 9.5.5 with Mac OS 10.8.6
I've tried re-importing the graphic into a new graphic box, which didn't work. Thinking there may be some type of corruption with the actual graphic file, I then tried viewing the graphic, then taking a screenshot of it to create a completely new file, and then re-importing the new graphic file into the original document (created in Adobe In Design 5.0.4). I then export the new document as a pdf, and brought it into Acrobat Pro to do the Reduce File Size. Same thing happens - black box appears where the graphic was.
I then tried using the Reduce File Size within the Save As function of the Preview application on the Mac - while the graphic remains intact, many of the other graphics in the document are "reduced" too much, to the point where the image quality is seriously degraded, and therefore not usable.
Any other ideas?

Hi Anoop,
I can share the graphic file, but not the pdf which contains it (as it contains confidential information) - thanks!

Reducing jar size

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for