This is partly a rant and also a legitimate, life-long question.

I recently decided to upgrade my 3DS Max from 2013 to 2015 (one of the perks of being a student) and I noticed that the file size of the installer is 7.27 GB, which I thought was pretty insane because 2013 was only 4.13 GB. What the hell have they put in it in the last 2 years that makes up more than 3 GB? In comparison, Blender 2.72 is only 59 MB. I understand that Blender is a much smaller application, but I certainly don’t think it’s 123 times smaller.

But Autodesk applications aren’t the only offenders. Look at Microsoft Office vs OpenOffice.org, and Adobe Photoshop vs GIMP. I feel like the big companies are just padding out their software garbage data (possibly to reduce piracy?). As a somewhat experienced programmer now, I feel like I understand software development quite well--but this is something that rapes my brain and spits on the foundation of common sense that humanity has worked so hard to build.

So my question is: what the hell is going on with these application file sizes?

Does that Max installer include video tutorials?

Office 2013 ProPlus setup files will still fit on a single CD (yes, that's CD, not DVD). That's not too shabby.

The code size is probably quite small, a few megabytes of the executable. For the bigger apps it may be in the double-digits of megabytes, but still only a tiny percentage.

The size is probably all the extras.

You've got UI graphics and buttons and images and textures and feedback sounds and help files and examples and sample projects and templates and help files with support web pages with all their attendant graphics and animations and videos. Then you've got tools and their helper programs and their UI graphics and buttons and images and feedback sounds and examples and samples and help files.

Then you've got side installers like language runtime libraries, dot net runtime libraries or java runtime libraries or flash runtime libraries or lua or whatever else they are using for scripting's runtime libraries.... and if they integrated those, their help files and scripting debuggers and their attendant UI graphics and buttons and sounds and help files and graphics and videos....

Yes, code gets bigger and sometimes bloated, but the code they write is not the source of the gigabytes.

MaxScript has a debugger now? I hope so!

Then you've got side installers like language runtime libraries, dot net runtime libraries or java runtime libraries or flash runtime libraries or ....

This kind of stuff is the big difference between commercial and open source.

Open source distributions historically assume a higher level of user competence in getting stuff set up and working. They can assume that the user can handle some dependency resolution themselves if their system doesn't have a necessary module installed that is so common it can be assumed to be present. Commercial products generally don't do this. They'll throw the kitchen sink into the installer if one of their testers filed a bug about installing on a system that doesnt have a kitchen sink.

They'll throw the kitchen sink into the installer if one of their testers filed a bug about installing on a system that doesnt have a kitchen sink.

Well, almost. It isn't about the kitchen sink, it is about ensuring the components are present.

Our QA requirement was that the installer would work on a fresh OS install. Take an XP/Vista/Win7/Win8/Whatever fresh install image, run the game install, and hit play. If something fails it is a bug. Repeat for whatever variations they want to support for the product.

To the customer a failed installation is a problem with the product. Most (normal) people do not understand nor care to understand OS system dependencies.

And really, it IS a concern for the product. Failed installs are a bad experience. For digital downloads you can either have an online installer that pulls down only the components you need, or you can have an offline installer that of necessity must contain all the parts you might potentially need.

Since offline installers must include all the potentially needed parts, they can be huge downloads. An offline install of a product with many examples and video tutorials means a massive download.

That is why I tried to make it a point in my comment above. There is a difference between the application (which is typically small), the things resources the application needs like graphics and icons and sounds, and things that might potentially be needed.

These days people are increasingly crying for video tutorials. (I don't see why, it is often faster and easier to read than to wait for video unless perhaps the are illiterate.) For an online install you can optionally choose to not download the components. But for an offline install there really isn't an option except for the bundle to download a few gigabytes of videos where people read the documentation files to you.

To the customer a failed installation is a problem with the product. Most (normal) people do not understand nor care to understand OS system dependencies.

And nor should we have to. I have far better things to do with my time than worry about dependencies. 7Gb installer? I have 5 terabytes free and a 130MB/s connection .. I give 0 fucks about 7Gb.

OTOH if you make me spend 30 mins hunting down dependencies, I will go find another product that doesn't assume my time has no value.

Frob I realise, you weren't arguing for dependencies.

These days people are increasingly crying for video tutorials. (I don't see why, it is often faster and easier to read than to wait for video unless perhaps the are illiterate.)

Agreed. Also kinda hard to search a video for a keyword!

These days people are increasingly crying for video tutorials. (I don't see why, it is often faster and easier to read than to wait for video unless perhaps the are illiterate.)

They're the same kind of people who would if you were teaching them would ask you to show them how to do everything on the program instead of just telling the directions. They simply won't understand something unless they see that something being done.

Open source distributions historically assume a higher level of user competence in getting stuff set up and working.

AKA they give zero flips about the fields of configuration management and quality assurance. :lol:
J/K (mostly) :D