Small Project File LARGE autorun.exe????

[nsti]

This sort of caught me off-guard and I am trying to see if I did something incorrect. My project.am7 is 359K which when complied ends up with an autorun.exe file of 2724K. This takes forever to come up with the cd spins up.

Any suggestions as to why and how to get it reduced to a much smaller footprint? I can say upfront that the code is simple? Graphics are small and yet stored separate from the .exe. So I am not sure as to why the ballooning.

Jack Wilson
Northwest Software...

[RizlaUK]

its the size of the runtime engine, an empty project will still have a file size of over 2MB reguardless of what it contains

[nsti]

R.E. Autorun.exe

WOW! Thats a little over the top... Any way to make it show up faster? Its a good 20 sec.

its the size of the runtime engine, an empty project will still have a file size of over 2MB reguardless of what it contains

[RizlaUK]

maybe a new cd rom!!

i get 5/6 seconds max even on larger projects

age of cd drive and make of disk contribute to cd rom loading speeds

[longedge]

The number of processes/applications, especially things like anti-virus software, that are running and their share of CPU time could also have a bearing on CD loading times.

However I have noticed that AMS applications loaded from CD do seem slow when compared to those that run from the network or local HD even when taking into account the intrinsically slower speeds of a CD drive.

[Intrigued]

I thought someone had found in their testing that Building to a folder structure and putting that on a CD/DVD-ROM resulted in quicker CD/DVD-ROM operations, interactions.

I have not created 'ROM based projects in a long time though... test it and see would be my suggestion.

[rexzooly]

I thought someone had found in their testing that Building to a folder structure and putting that on a CD/DVD-ROM resulted in quicker CD/DVD-ROM operations, interactions.

I have not created 'ROM based projects in a long time though... test it and see would be my suggestion.

very strange tho as most CD Rom drives will run fast i am able to Burn 4 gig in no time so who knows and i don't have my drive on fast burn i keep it down around 4 for dvd's and 16 from CD's as i like to get more life out of my cd's

[RizlaUK]

putting very large or cpu intensive code in on startup or page preload can also slow the autorun, also like Intrigued mentioned, burning a web exe to cd will slow the autorun,

on a large web exe project that is on a disk, i would expect 15+ seconds for the autorun window to appear on my desktop.

[rexzooly]

putting very large or cpu intensive code in on startup or page preload can also slow the autorun, also like Intrigued mentioned, burning a web exe to cd will slow the autorun,

on a large web exe project that is on a disk, i would expect 15+ seconds for the autorun window to appear on my desktop.

Ya this is becuase to as to run from the CD then Copyover to the Temp filer.
i agree with these 2 make it a HDD Copy then just copy it to your CD.

[nsti]

R.E. Small Project File Large autorun.exe

Interesting comments... Thank you...

Let me give you a little more. Once of the things I did with this project is attempt to make is a simple and as compact as possible. There is nothing fancy. Radio buttons that navigate to one of five pages, with a little bit of text. No java, no flash, etc.. Each page contains a button that launches an executable file. All graphics are transparent .pngs, none of them over 3 KB in size.

Someone said that the runtime was 2 mb. which based on past experience? I thought was rather large. Then add the project code on top of. Autorun.exe comes out at a size of 2,724 KB. Comparing the autorun to other CDs I have here in house? This is by far the largest.

I kept this project as simple as possible so I could see how it would react and then later planned on pushing it to see how far I could push it.

As per Rizla, I did try the CD in other drives. All of them did spin up the drive and display the browser? But consistently at a rate of 5 to 9 seconds. Others that I wrote in Demoshield? All less than 3 sec. consistently. This is why I thought I was doing something wrong. I really believe that the size of the file is at the heart of why it takes a bit to get it on the screen.

As for how I have burned the CD. I have tried both... producing the folder and generating the ISO. Seems to make no difference.

Jack Wilson
Northwest Software...

[RizlaUK]

i see what you are getting at, and i agree that AMS has the largest runtime engine around for a devlopment tool of this type, and of course this would add to the launch speed (or lack of as the case may be)

this was coverd here in the forum a while back, and if my memory serves correct IR's offical word on the matter was that we just have to accept the runtime size to have the power and ease of use, any attempt to reduce the runtime size would result in loss of function of some sort.

i spouse this is just the downside of AMS useing a precompiled runtime, all the functionalty of AMS is in the runtime weather you need it or not, make AMS compile the runtime engine and add the function sets as needed and this would reduce the runtime size.......but how much work would it take ??.....i dont think IR are up for that

[Lorne]

We're up for it, it just isn't worth the time/cost for an autorun making tool. 2 MB is peanuts on a CD or DVD and not worth worrying about.

For a dedicated development tool, compactness would be more of an issue, but Autoplay isn't really that, yet.

[nsti]

I'm confused now... By your own site's specifications, AutoPlay is a autorun design tool which means, at least I thought, has particular standards in terms of layout and best practice guidelines.

And ya? By the speed tests I ran on 4 separate computers yesterday, using the cd I created with AutoPlay against those created with Demoshield and other tools that make a more compact autorun.exe file? Yes there is an average difference of 2 to 4 seconds. (Both cd and dvd drives.)

Please understand that I am not upset with the program. It is going to do the job we ask it to do. From 28 years of computer hardware and software development experience and dealing with end-users of all levels of experience? Users simply do not like to wait. So in this case? Smaller is better! I am just use to developing from a side of efficiency.

If you want to consider this a future feature request? Please do. If the runtime contains code that is not needed? It should be not that big of a job to generate an autorun.exe that only contains the code required to execute the features of the .exe without writing another application. It will only make this application that much more powerful, ultimately increasing your bottom line and market competitiveness.

Jack Wilson
Northwest Software...