The Size or Non-Size of Safari's Cache

Greetings:
I know this question's been asked ad nuseum here and only because the answers back are more inscrutable than a Chinese crossword puzzle, which is bad enough, then you even get the "well, why do you even wanna do that??" Because I want to! Why don't Firefox and Omniweb users ever get the same silly replies? Sorry if I sound surly, but it's REALLY just a pair of simple Q&As: All I wish to know is 1.) How large is Safari's cache if it's size is non-adjustable and 2.) if it can be adjusted then how do you do it? That's all. On a separate note, I'd be using Safari exclusively if it just offered off-line reading of cached pages like iCab and Firefox.
Thanks all,
James Greenidge
Using Safari 3.04 on 1.25gig eMac 10.4.11

Which cache? There are several. They are set internally by Safari and not under user control, so it's not possible to know how much disk space the caches could consume. My guess would be around 10 MBs.

Similar Messages

Urgent help please, I made an file with the size 1024x768, then i made two folios, one for retina 2048x1536 and one for non retina 1024x768, i have alot of video content in it, everything works perfect on my retina ipad, but when i open it on ipad 2 an er

Urgent help please, I made an file with the size 1024x768, then i made two folios, one for retina 2048x1536 and one for non retina 1024x768, i have alot of video content in it, everything works perfect on my retina ipad, but when i open it on ipad 2 an error appears on the pages with video content?

its in german:
der Vorgang könnte nicht abgeschlossen werden.
something like the process coundnt be completed

How do I Keep the "zoom" size setting the same each time I open Safari and from web page to web page?

I have a 27" iMac when I open Safari the web page is only 1/3 the size of the full screen Safari window. I know how to ZOOM in on the web page! My question is, How do I keep this ZOOM setting for all web pages and each time I open Safari up?

Sorry, but that's not possible.
An alternative might be to use Zoom in System Preferences > Accessibility
Or try a different screen resolutioin in System Preferences > Displays > Scaled

My safari is half the size how do I get it back to normal?

My safari is half the size how do I get it back to normal?

I'm Glad we could help. I think you'll find the many knowledgeable people here can answer most of your questions.
Captfred

Safari opens new windows 1/3 the size of the original window.

Safari opens new windows 1/3 the size of the original window. How do I make it open fullscreen?

HI,
Drag the bottom right corner out as far as it will go. Relaunch Safari. It should remember window position.
Carolyn

How can I increase the font size for safari?

Does anyone know how I can increase the overall font size when in Safari? I recently purchased a 21.5" iMac and while the screen is brilliant, the font size is very small when I'm using Safari. Also, the web page is about a 1/3rd of the size of the screen. Would anyone know how to make it such that a web page is across the full screen? Otherwise, what's the point of such a big screen?
Thanks!!

To get full screen view, look down at right hand corner of page.
You will see hash marks at a 45 degree angle in the corner.
Set pointer on it, and grab out to full edge of screen.
This works for all Apps including images.
I do this as default, being I sit about 5-6 feet from the screen.
Then use Pinch- Out to expand the page within the Browser.
Pinch-Out works for all Images loaded on the screen as well.
*You may know this already, grab browser window at the top edge,
and move it near the left edge of screen first.
I'll throw in a handy viewing tip of items saved on the desk top,
or within the Finder so that you don't actually have to launch the item.
Simply highlite it, then hit Space Bar.
This is part of Quick View,,, The Eye Ball Icon in header of viewing Finder does the same thing.
This works for all video files as well for a Quick View, w/o running huge ram loads.
Hit Space again to turn it off , Quick View.
You can leave it on if browsing stack of files, then arrow down or up for those views.
Cheers

How can i increase the font size on Safari and email so my mother who is legally blind in left eye, right eye 50% vision. r there any apple product specifically for the blind?

how can i increase the font size on Safari and email so my mother who is legally blind in left eye, right eye 50% vision. r there any apple product specifically for the blind?

From the Safari menu bar click View > Zoom In or press Command + on the keyboard to increase the size of the page.
If that doesn't help, open System Preferences > Accessibilty > Settings then select Zoom on the left.
You can also increase the resolution on the dislplay. System Preferences > Displays > Display > Scaled
You can also get help by posting in the Apple Support Communities > Vision forum here.

When I open Safari, how do I expand the size of the box?

I can't seem to figure out the MBP command to expand the box once I click on Safari, or another application. I would like for it to take over the entire screen.

on the top left corner of the window are three buttons: red, yellow and green. Green expands the window to optimum size in every program but iTunes, where it shrinks it to a miniscreen. Yellow minimizes it to the dock, and red closes it.
There is no "full window" button--expand the window using the bottom left corner to the size you want, and the green button will toggle between that size and the previous size.

How do you reduce the screen size in Safari Mavericks OS

Hit the ESC (ESCAPE) key to reduce the screen size in Safari Mavericks OS

Hi,
Reader can only be used to view pdf's so you cannot perform any operations on it.
If you have Acrobat then you can go to Acrobat > save as other > Reduced file pdf
You can also go to Acrobat> Save as other> Optimized pdf and then click on 'Audit Space Usage' button to know what is occupying how much space in the pdf and adjust accordingly.
Regards,
Rave

I cancelled the request of increasing the size of gmail in safari and it reloading continuously without entering the page, need help?

I want to know how to increase the size again?

Oh, thank you, I'm sorry, I hadn't understood what to do.
Everything about the animated image is now fixed brilliantly - the size, the alignment, and the bottom isn't cut off. Thank you.
The only thing I don't know what to do about now is how to have the static image load on ipad and iphone (because I understand that .swf files don't work on these devices). Currently the image doesn't load at all, it's blank space. Could you please advise how I should adapt the code to insert the static image if the device isn't flash compatible. The path of the static image is http://www.n2mediation.com/Fotolia_43355604_XL.jpg
Thank you
trix44

Why does the size of my photos reduce to 0mb after editing in iPhoto?

Please bear with me here. I am a new Mac user (MacBook Pro, 2008, OSX 10.7.5), as well as not the most technologically competent person in the world, so I might need a little patience and additional questions to help me understand everything!
After a recent trip to Europe, I imported photos that I had taken with two different cameras into iPhoto ('09, version 8.1.2). All the photos that I took with my Canon Rebel t2i DSLR have not had the problem I'm about to describe, in the past or with photos from this trip. The problem has been only from pictures that I took and uploaded from my husband's Nikon Coolpix L610 point and shoot. Not sure if this will matter, but the mode I was shooting in was 16M (4608x3456) which appears to be the "best" quality for this camera.
As I was going through my photos and editing them (mostly minor edits, cropping, straightening, enhancing, altering the sharpness/exposure/definition/saturation), I noticed the size of my photos decreasing, as described in the information box in the lower left hand corner of the screen. With at least 30+ pictures of the ones I have tried editing (this isn't counting the hundreds more that I have yet to start editing), the file size dropped to 0MB, some after one edit as simple as straightening, others taking 2 or more minor edits to drop to 0. The picture is still there in the multiphoto view (in Photos section under Library), but if I try to click on the picture to view it larger, it just shows up as a black screen.
For example, one picture I have showed a size of 4608 x 3456 and 7.6 MB. When I did one edit (enhance photo), the 4608 x 3456 stayed the same, but the 7.6MB changed to 0KB. For others, it will decrease some with one edit, then drop down to 0 if I do additional edits. Most of my pictures are in the 4-10MB range in their original form (no edits). I'm assuming that I was shooting in jpeg mode, since that's what they uploaded as. (I've read on here of other people shooting in RAW mode and such, but I don't even think this camera has that capability). I read some other boards with similar questions, but not the exact same problem as I'm facing. I know that there is "jpeg compression" with jpeg files when editing.
So I guess my question is this: Is there anything I can do to stop this reduction down to 0? I will only be printing out a few of these pictures, and most in a 4x6 or 5x7 size. I'm more concerned with being able to post them to Facebook for my family, who lives far away. When the file size is 0KB, it won't upload because it doesn't even register as there being a picture and if I try it anyway, it gives me an error message, something along the lines of not supporting this format (or something similar, has been a couple days since I last tried).
I read something one of the similar boards that mentioned saving the edited photos as TIFF files, but it also mentioned that that takes up a lot more disk space, which I'm not sure if I want to (or have the space to) do. (Side question: If I did check the box in Preferences --->Advanced "Save edits as 16-bit TIFF files, would that do that to every picture in my library that I have edited?)
As I said, I'm new to this whole Mac stuff (been using it for just under a year, given to me by my brother-in-law after my computer died), so please use as much layman lingo as possible! And thank you in advance for anyone that can give me any insight and/or advice!

None of my pictures that I uploaded into iPhoto are in my Finder under Pictures. Should I copy and paste my folders from iPhoto into here, in case something happens to my iPhoto program (in addition to backing them up onto an external hard drive like I already do)?
No, that's just wasting space. A back up needs to be on a different disk.
Your photos are within the iPhoto Library.

How Can I Change the Size of My Home Page So That It Fills the Screen?

I have a PowerBook G4. Up until a couple of weeks ago when I opened Safari the home page filled the screen. Something has happened and now it fills only a portion of the screen. I can move the page around, change the size slightly by using the green button next to the minimizing button, but nothing I do will enlarge it to fill the screen. I have gone to View and Preferences, but find nothing to resolve this. Please help!

You're welcome Maureen. Glad I could help.
Thanks for the and Aloha from Big Island.

How can I change the size of Dictionary.app panel?

Hi!
I love quickly looking up words while working in applications such as Safar, Pages or Mail.
I go to Dictionary’s preferences and set the Context Menu option Dictionary.app - Open Dictionary panel.
But the size of the window pane is very small.
In Mac OSX 10.5 I did like this:
In Interface Builder.app open file /Applications/Dictionary.app/Contents/SharedSupport/DictionaryPanel.app/Content s/Resources/English.lproj/PopupWindow.nib and (⌘+3) set the width and height. The result:
!http://grab.by/1vHR!
In 10.6 I can not find the file PopupWindow.nib.
Where is it?

Hi, everyone, I have found the solution of this problem.
Step1: Go to Macintosh> System> Library> CoreServices> Find DictionaryPanel.bundle
Step2: Click it and Show Package Contents> Contents> Resources> English.lproj> DCSDictionaryPanel.nib> Show Package Contents> keyedobjects.nib
Now, you may find it's not editable, if you already know how to edit it, just skip this part
so, please regard to this website: http://www.macstories.net/tutorials/how-to-edit-nib-files-in-snow-leopard/
then, use Interface Builder to do whatever you want. Have fun.
FYI: If you don't know what Interface Builder is, it comes with Xcode that you can download it from apple website after registered as a developer.

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!

Can I slim down the size of the Aperture Library by moving the Preview files elsewhere?

Hi all,
I have an Aperture library of almost 20,000 photos, dating back to around 2007. Almost all the master images are stored on an external drive (backed up of course), with only my recent and 'in progress' masters being stored in the library itself. Previously I have had my library split up into one library for each year, with the older years libraries being stored on the external drive where the masters are, in order to keep the size of my 'current' library down. So my current library, stored on my internal SSD, contained only photos from this year and last year, and only a few of the masters for these images. Confusing? Sorry!
Now, I recently decided to consolidate the libraries into one huge library, because it was annoying to have to switch between libraries to find older photos when I wanted them. I did this, leaving all but the recent masters on the external drives (referenced). I thought that the size of the main library would remain reasonably sized, since there were no extra masters being moved into it. However, the library has grown massively - up to over 70GB, which is huge when you consider it's on a 128GB SSD which is also my startup drive.
I'm pretty certain the reason for the huge size increase is that the Previews for all the older images are stored in the Library file, rather than anywhere else. This makes sense - they are previews, they're supposed to be able to be viewed with the external drives disconnected. So my question is this. Am I able to change the location of the preview files to be on my OTHER internal hard drive (non-SSD, much larger), so that they're still available without the external drives, but are not cluttering up my startup drive. And, if not, what should I do!?
Thanks a lot

Glad it worked, but permit, if you will, some observations:
-- Bloated Previews are a known Aperture bug, which came and went within a few updates in Aperture 3. Getting them back to the proper size is simply a elegant step to take.
-- A Preview set to your largest screen size and a quality of 6-8 should be all but indistinguishable from the Master at 72-100 dpi screen image. (Not print resolution.) I REALLY doubt you are going to loose any quality.
-- While using a symlink to stick the Previews on a HD is clever, it may also defeat the whole purpose of using your SSD. Previews are read a lot and are, I suspect, used for all adjustments at less than full resolution. (N.B. I could be VERY wrong on this.) Thus, depending on the amount of RAM on your Mac, you could end up reading and rereading your Previews over a slower link and doing this a lot. You own use will quickly determine if this is an issue or not.
I have blathered on, at length, about what I think matters for size and speed here: https://discussions.apple.com/message/17959625#17959625. Some of this may be of use.
I went through a lot of these issues when I tried to fit everything on a 128 GB SSD, so I know some of the issues you are facing. As I noted before, you really only need a Library (minus most Masters) of about 30 GB and that is with large, high quality Previews.
I actually took the SSD out and stuck it in an ancient MacBookPro (in preparation for a trip to Blighty this summer) and have not noticed a huge drop in Aperture speed. (I do miss the speed of applications launch, restart, however.) One thing that I did find that made a small, but nice difference, was keeping all of the Masters on a separate, dedicated drive. Once defragged, etc. that was very fast. Don't know if you could achieve the same results by partitioning a larger drive, but it might well be fun to find out.
DiploStrat

The Size or Non-Size of Safari's Cache

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for