Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #52111 > unrolled thread

Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk Juan I. Cahis <jiclbchSINBASURA@attglobal.net> - 2013-11-10 17:08 -0600
    Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-11-10 17:11 -0600
      Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com> - 2013-11-12 20:57 +0100
    Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-11 01:33 +0000
      Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-11-10 18:09 -0800
        Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-11 16:26 +0000
      Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk Juan I. Cahis <jiclbchSINBASURA@attglobal.net> - 2013-11-11 07:15 -0600
        Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-11-11 07:00 -0800
          Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-11 22:26 +0000
        Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk John White <jccw@comcast.net> - 2013-11-11 10:01 -0500
          Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-11-11 07:06 -0800
    Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-11-10 20:45 -0500
    Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk dcohenspam@talktalk.net (Daniel Cohen) - 2013-11-11 12:27 +0000
      Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-11-11 10:14 -0500
        Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-11-11 12:08 -0800
          Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-11-11 15:15 -0500
            Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk John White <jccw@comcast.net> - 2013-11-11 16:27 -0500
              Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-11-11 21:51 -0500
            Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-11-11 18:54 -0800
              Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-11-11 22:02 -0500
                Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk dcohenspam@talktalk.net (Daniel Cohen) - 2013-11-12 11:05 +0000
                  Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-11-12 19:04 +0100
                    Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-12 23:13 -0500
                      Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-13 03:20 -0500
                        Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-14 00:23 -0500
                          Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-15 08:47 +1300
                            Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-11-14 21:18 +0000
                              Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-15 17:47 +1300
                                Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-15 05:13 +0000
                                  Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-11-15 18:31 +1300
                                  Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-11-15 09:59 -0500
                  Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2013-11-16 21:23 -0800
                    Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-11-16 21:52 -0800
                      Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk Juan I. Cahis <jiclbchSINBASURA@attglobal.net> - 2013-11-17 07:01 -0600
                        Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-11-17 18:24 -0500
                Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-11-12 19:02 +0100
                  Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-11-12 13:18 -0500
          Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk Howard.not@home.com (Howard) - 2013-11-12 14:11 +0000
    Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2013-11-11 09:11 -0800
    Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk tommysgotamonkey@googlemail.com - 2014-05-24 16:16 -0700
      Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk Juan I. Cahis <jiclbchSINBASURA@attglobal.net> - 2014-05-25 10:25 -0500
        Re: Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2014-05-25 13:23 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#52162

Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> I suppose that's possible. But I'd expect the background process that
> periodically downloads new versions to get rid of all the intermediates
> that he never updated to, rather than leave all of them around.

We still don't know if that was the OP's issue, though it certainly was
mine. It's possible that having Vhrome in a subfolder of Applications
was why my old versions did not delete.
-- 
<http://www.decohen.com>
The Labyrinth of the Heart: Changed Myths for Changing Lives 
book and e-book <http://www.decohen.com/labyrinth>
Send e-mail to the Reply-To address, not the From address.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52171

Daniel Cohen wrote:

> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> I suppose that's possible. But I'd expect the background process that
>> periodically downloads new versions to get rid of all the intermediates
>> that he never updated to, rather than leave all of them around.
>
> We still don't know if that was the OP's issue, though it certainly was
> mine. It's possible that having Chrome in a subfolder of Applications
> was why my old versions did not delete.

I used to keep lots of apps in a completely separate folder from
/Applications but stopped doing so when various updates failed due to
the developers' assumptions that their app would live there.

A lousy assumption IMHO.

-- 
Paul Sture

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52193

On 11-12-2013, 13:04, Paul Sture wrote:
> I used to keep lots of apps in a completely separate folder from
> /Applications but stopped doing so when various updates failed due to
> the developers' assumptions that their app would live there.
>
> A lousy assumption IMHO.

Of all of the apps on my machine, the ONLY ones that make that stupid 
assumption are from Microsoft and from Apple.

In Apple's case, it might not be stupidity; it might be laziness.
Since the updater is not part of the application, it has to either 
hard-code a path or use look it up in some log or Receipt or search for 
it.  Hard-coding a path is obviously easier.

But for most others, the updater is part of the app and relative 
addressing is easier.  With Office, the updater is in the same directory 
as the app suite, so that's almost the same.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   I won't burn your Koran because I don't want you to burn my Bible;
   but if you burn my Bible, no one's going to die.
                                    — Robert Rhee

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52201

In article <l5uua7$utl$1@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau
<Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> > I used to keep lots of apps in a completely separate folder from
> > /Applications but stopped doing so when various updates failed due to
> > the developers' assumptions that their app would live there.
> >
> > A lousy assumption IMHO.
> 
> Of all of the apps on my machine, the ONLY ones that make that stupid 
> assumption are from Microsoft and from Apple.
> 
> In Apple's case, it might not be stupidity; it might be laziness.
> Since the updater is not part of the application, it has to either 
> hard-code a path or use look it up in some log or Receipt or search for 
> it.  Hard-coding a path is obviously easier.

apple's updater does hard code paths.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52219

On 11-13-2013, 03:20, nospam wrote:
> <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>> In Apple's case, it might not be stupidity; it might be laziness.
>> Since the updater is not part of the application, it has to either
>> hard-code a path or use look it up in some log or Receipt or search for
>> it.  Hard-coding a path is obviously easier.
>
> apple's updater does hard code paths.

Thank you for repeating the obvious.

-- 
Wes Groleau

    Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/pants-fire/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52244

Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 11-13-2013, 03:20, nospam wrote:
> > <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> >> In Apple's case, it might not be stupidity; it might be laziness.
> >> Since the updater is not part of the application, it has to either
> >> hard-code a path or use look it up in some log or Receipt or search for
> >> it.  Hard-coding a path is obviously easier.
> >
> > apple's updater does hard code paths.
> 
> Thank you for repeating the obvious.

Wes, just in case you were still unaware, I wanted to let you know that
the Apple Updater hard codes paths.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52249

On 2013-11-14, Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
>
> the Apple Updater hard codes paths.

Apple really took a step or two backwards with regard to software
development when the NeXTies took over, which led to complaints from a
truly huge number of developers. Then again, they also gained some
successful technologies at the same time; and some might argue that
Apple would not have survived otherwise. 

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52262

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2013-11-14, Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> >
> > the Apple Updater hard codes paths.
> 
> Apple really took a step or two backwards with regard to software
> development when the NeXTies took over, which led to complaints from a
> truly huge number of developers. Then again, they also gained some
> successful technologies at the same time; and some might argue that
> Apple would not have survived otherwise. 

The good outweighed the bad IMO (sure as hell I was tired of software
incompatibilities, bugs and resulting crashes causing system instability
and corruption in classic MacOS), but I'll always wonder what a
successful well managed, well staffed development of one of the failed
replacement MacOSes (Pink, Copeland, BeOS - a possible acquisition
instead of NeXT OS, at one point, to mention three I recall off the top
of my head) could have been.

Still, I was well tired of overenthusiastic MacWorld articles about the
replacements that never were, by the time NeXT morphed into OS X. By
then I was just happy to have _any_ modern workable Mac-like
replacement.

-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52265

In message <1lce0z4.1buxi32i536l3N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> 
  Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

>> On 2013-11-14, Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
>> >
>> > the Apple Updater hard codes paths.
>> 
>> Apple really took a step or two backwards with regard to software
>> development when the NeXTies took over, which led to complaints from a
>> truly huge number of developers. Then again, they also gained some
>> successful technologies at the same time; and some might argue that
>> Apple would not have survived otherwise. 

> The good outweighed the bad IMO (sure as hell I was tired of software
> incompatibilities, bugs and resulting crashes causing system instability
> and corruption in classic MacOS), but I'll always wonder what a
> successful well managed, well staffed development of one of the failed
> replacement MacOSes (Pink, Copeland, BeOS - a possible acquisition
> instead of NeXT OS, at one point, to mention three I recall off the top
> of my head) could have been.

Well, to be fair I don't think that BeOS was ever anything more than
something some people outside of Apple thought was a neat idea.

Pink was interesting though, and I remember (trying to) follow its
development before it morphed into/was replaced by Copeland which
somehow never appealed to me.

> Still, I was well tired of overenthusiastic MacWorld articles about the
> replacements that never were, by the time NeXT morphed into OS X. By
> then I was just happy to have _any_ modern workable Mac-like
> replacement.

Oh, well, no. OS X  appealed to me very much because it was UNIX, not
just because it was newer than Mac OS 8/9. I would have been hard
pressed to find a reason to switch to a different OS at the time if it
wasn't for the gains of getting a real¹ UNIX command-line.


¹ Albeit, for certain values of 'real' back in 10.0-10.3.

-- 
Stupid men are often capable of things the clever would not dare to
contemplate... --Feet of Clay

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52267

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <1lce0z4.1buxi32i536l3N%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> 
>   Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> >> On 2013-11-14, Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > the Apple Updater hard codes paths.
> >> 
> >> Apple really took a step or two backwards with regard to software
> >> development when the NeXTies took over, which led to complaints from a
> >> truly huge number of developers. Then again, they also gained some
> >> successful technologies at the same time; and some might argue that
> >> Apple would not have survived otherwise. 
> 
> > The good outweighed the bad IMO (sure as hell I was tired of software
> > incompatibilities, bugs and resulting crashes causing system instability
> > and corruption in classic MacOS), but I'll always wonder what a
> > successful well managed, well staffed development of one of the failed
> > replacement MacOSes (Pink, Copeland, BeOS - a possible acquisition
> > instead of NeXT OS, at one point, to mention three I recall off the top
> > of my head) could have been.
> 
> Well, to be fair I don't think that BeOS was ever anything more than
> something some people outside of Apple thought was a neat idea.
> 
> Pink was interesting though, and I remember (trying to) follow its
> development before it morphed into/was replaced by Copeland which
> somehow never appealed to me.
> 
> > Still, I was well tired of overenthusiastic MacWorld articles about the
> > replacements that never were, by the time NeXT morphed into OS X. By
> > then I was just happy to have _any_ modern workable Mac-like
> > replacement.
> 
> Oh, well, no. OS X  appealed to me very much because it was UNIX, not
> just because it was newer than Mac OS 8/9. I would have been hard
> pressed to find a reason to switch to a different OS at the time if it
> wasn't for the gains of getting a real? UNIX command-line.
> 
> 
> ? Albeit, for certain values of 'real' back in 10.0-10.3.

I don't think a unix base was necessarily the best solution, but I can
certainly understand why it strongly appealed to some. I'm not knocking
it as such (I've certainly taken advantage of it! :-) ), just wondering
what might have been.

-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52283

On 11-15-2013, 00:13, Lewis wrote:
> Oh, well, no. OS X  appealed to me very much because it was UNIX, not
> just because it was newer than Mac OS 8/9. I would have been hard
> pressed to find a reason to switch to a different OS at the time if it
> wasn't for the gains of getting a real¹ UNIX command-line.

I had a "MachTen" Unix add-on in OS 9, so I could continue to give the 
family something usable  for non-geeks (which back then Linux was not, 
unless a geek spent way to much time keeping it that way).

So OS X appealed to me for the same reason.  But ALSO for the reason 
that when OS X came out, the stability of an OS 9 environment (meaning 
OS and its apps in general) had been bested by Microsoft.

OS X saved Apple from oblivion.  Yeah, I know, the iPhone did that--I'm 
not so sure Apple would have lived long enough to release iPhone in 2007 
had they not released OS X in 1999.  I know that if it were not for OS 
X, I would have been dual-booting Windows and Linux when the iPod 
launched in 2001.

-- 
Wes Groleau

    “Missing a train is only painful if you run after it!”
                                  — Nassim Nicholas Taleb

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52387

On 11/12/13   PDT, 3:05 AM, Daniel Cohen wrote:
> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> I suppose that's possible. But I'd expect the background process that
>> periodically downloads new versions to get rid of all the intermediates
>> that he never updated to, rather than leave all of them around.
>
> We still don't know if that was the OP's issue, though it certainly was
> mine. It's possible that having Vhrome in a subfolder of Applications
> was why my old versions did not delete.

Doubt that!

My Chrome has ballooned over the years, keeping all old versions, and 
curable by either downloading a new one, or opening the app's package, 
going to Contents, and deleting old versions.

It's always been in the apps folder. Mine reached about 4 Gigs a year 
ago, and today was 600 Megs. The clean download, installed just now, is 
149.7 Megs. (Most will be double that number as one previous version 
will be present). For a few of us, all old versions get kept, and I 
don't see anything in Preferences that might set that. Or know what else 
might be borked so the flushing of old versions doesn't take place.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52390

In article <l69jsu$823$1@dont-email.me>,
 John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 11/12/13   PDT, 3:05 AM, Daniel Cohen wrote:
> > Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> I suppose that's possible. But I'd expect the background process that
> >> periodically downloads new versions to get rid of all the intermediates
> >> that he never updated to, rather than leave all of them around.
> >
> > We still don't know if that was the OP's issue, though it certainly was
> > mine. It's possible that having Vhrome in a subfolder of Applications
> > was why my old versions did not delete.
> 
> Doubt that!
> 
> My Chrome has ballooned over the years, keeping all old versions, and 
> curable by either downloading a new one, or opening the app's package, 
> going to Contents, and deleting old versions.
> 
> It's always been in the apps folder. Mine reached about 4 Gigs a year 
> ago, and today was 600 Megs. The clean download, installed just now, is 
> 149.7 Megs. (Most will be double that number as one previous version 
> will be present). For a few of us, all old versions get kept, and I 
> don't see anything in Preferences that might set that. Or know what else 
> might be borked so the flushing of old versions doesn't take place.

I disabled the GoogleUpdater in

 /Library/LaunchAgents/com.google.keystone.agent.plist

so now Google won't update until I want it to update.  It used to piss 
me off that Google would update out from under me.  So now I always 
download and update my copy by hand.

Problem solved.

-- 
DeeDee, don't press that button!  DeeDee!  NO!  Dee...
[I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically ignored]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52395

Dear Michael & friends:

Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
> In article <l69jsu$823$1@dont-email.me>,
>  John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 11/12/13   PDT, 3:05 AM, Daniel Cohen wrote:
>>> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I suppose that's possible. But I'd expect the background process that
>>>> periodically downloads new versions to get rid of all the intermediates
>>>> that he never updated to, rather than leave all of them around.
>>> 
>>> We still don't know if that was the OP's issue, though it certainly was
>>> mine. It's possible that having Vhrome in a subfolder of Applications
>>> was why my old versions did not delete.
>> 
>> Doubt that!
>> 
>> My Chrome has ballooned over the years, keeping all old versions, and 
>> curable by either downloading a new one, or opening the app's package, 
>> going to Contents, and deleting old versions.
>> 
>> It's always been in the apps folder. Mine reached about 4 Gigs a year 
>> ago, and today was 600 Megs. The clean download, installed just now, is 
>> 149.7 Megs. (Most will be double that number as one previous version 
>> will be present). For a few of us, all old versions get kept, and I 
>> don't see anything in Preferences that might set that. Or know what else 
>> might be borked so the flushing of old versions doesn't take place.
> 
> I disabled the GoogleUpdater in
> 
>  /Library/LaunchAgents/com.google.keystone.agent.plist
> 
> so now Google won't update until I want it to update.  It used to piss 
> me off that Google would update out from under me.  So now I always 
> download and update my copy by hand.
> 
> Problem solved.

I did a more simple solution, I deleted it. I don't want to do extra work
when Google releases every security update. With Firefox and Safari I have
enough of browsers on my Mac. 

-- 
Enviado desde mi iPad usando NewsTap, Juan I. Cahis, Santiago de Chile.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52410

On 2013.11.17, 08:01 , Juan I. Cahis wrote:

> I did a more simple solution, I deleted it. I don't want to do extra work
> when Google releases every security update. With Firefox and Safari I have
> enough of browsers on my Mac.

I want to do even less.  So I use Chrome unless forced to use Safari or FF.



-- 
"The radio was once expected to promote international understanding and 
co-operation;
it has turned out to be a means of insulating one nation from another."
                                                  -George Orwell, 1945

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52170

Barry Margolin wrote:

> In article <vilain-915D87.18543411112013@news.individual.net>,
>  Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
>
>> The OP didn't use Chrome much. It's my default browser.  So if they 
>> hardly run it, it will never update to the latest version and delete the 
>> older versions.  I'm guessing that's what happens.
>
> I suppose that's possible. But I'd expect the background process that 
> periodically downloads new versions to get rid of all the intermediates 
> that he never updated to, rather than leave all of them around.

Competent programming from the folks who brought you the Google Groups
interface?

Well, I never...

:-)

-- 
Paul Sture

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52172

In article <v27ala-2pp1.ln1@news.chingola.ch>,
 Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote:

> Barry Margolin wrote:
> 
> > In article <vilain-915D87.18543411112013@news.individual.net>,
> >  Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote:
> >
> >> The OP didn't use Chrome much. It's my default browser.  So if they 
> >> hardly run it, it will never update to the latest version and delete the 
> >> older versions.  I'm guessing that's what happens.
> >
> > I suppose that's possible. But I'd expect the background process that 
> > periodically downloads new versions to get rid of all the intermediates 
> > that he never updated to, rather than leave all of them around.
> 
> Competent programming from the folks who brought you the Google Groups
> interface?
> 
> Well, I never...

Google is a *big* company. I doubt very much that there's much overlap 
between the Google Groups programmers and the Google Chrome programmers. 
And Google probably doesn't assign their best programmers to Google 
Groups, since it's not a product that they care very much about, while 
Chrome is an important product that they can't afford to assign minimal 
resources to.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52167

Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote:

> > 
> > If that's what's causing the OP's problem, I wonder why it's not 
> > deleting older versions when it's auto-updating.
> 
> That's really weird. After updating, my version goes down to one copy in
> /Applications/Google Chrome/Contents/Versions/.

My package contents contains two versions. Same for Torch. Firefox only
contains one.

-- 
Howard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52141

In article 
<1176124537405817529.659694jiclbchSINBASURA-attglobal.net@news-central.g
iganews.com>,
 Juan I. Cahis <jiclbchSINBASURA@attglobal.net> wrote:

> Dear friends:
> 
> Cleaning my Mac, I discovered that Google Chrome Browser takes 6 GB of my
> hard disk. Is this OK?
> 
> I use it very seldom.

Google apps are Trojan horses to a degree.  They're free in exchange for 
telling Google about everything about how you use them.  All of them 
install system daemons that keep the applications updated, and it's 
buggy.  You can hunt down the daemons and remove them but launching any 
Google app will replace them.

The bugs that I've seen so far:

- Excessive network use
- High CPU use
- Interference with the Power Manager, causing random sleeps or refusal 
to sleep.

It could be leaking data when it's performing updates too.


I nuked all the Google software because I was hitting the random sleep 
bug.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#59680

On Sunday, 10 November 2013 23:08:16 UTC, Juan I. Cahis  wrote:
> Dear friends:
> 
> 
> 
> Cleaning my Mac, I discovered that Google Chrome Browser takes 6 GB of my
> 
> hard disk. Is this OK?
> 
> 
> 
> I use it very seldom. 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Enviado desde mi iPad usando NewsTap, Juan I. Cahis, Santiago de Chile.

YUP! My Chrome was taking up 8GB, turns out i had every 'version' from mid 2010 on their!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web