Why the installer file built by LabVIEW8.5 is so large?

[zjianw1980]

Dear NI engineer:
Hi, Our company has bought the LabVIEW 8.5 recently, and I am trying to use this new version, everything seems fine, after developing my software, I have to build the software into installer with application builder, yes, succeed, LabVIEW 8.5 runtime engine is included, but the installer file is too large, about 65M. In fact, if use the LabVIEW 7.0, about 12M, LabVIEW 7.0 runtime engine is also included. So my quesetion is that what can I do now? Because if the installer file is too large, it will waste too much time for transferring to our customer etc..

Thank you in advance

with regards
ZengJianwen
2008-6-25

[Mythilt]

Are you maybe including some extra installers?  Things like the DAQmx, VISA or MAX installer might also be in the installation.  Check that only the 8.5 installer is included in your installer build specification on the additional installers page.

[altenbach]

Have the customers download and install the 8.5 runtime once from NI. It is not necessary to include it with each distribution.

(My 8.5.1 distributions are around 6-7MB zipped.)

Still, even a 100MB download is not that much these days. If your local connection is slow, maybe you can upload it to a fast server elsewhere so the customers don't tax your connection with downloads.

[SteveRobbins]

I have the same problem in LV8.6.  I just want to install the LV runtime engine and my exe.  But the installer is about 64MB.

There seems to be a lot of stuff in the installer that I don't need.  For example, I don't think I need Logos or the Metauninstaller.

My app doesn't need web access and doesn't talk to any hardware except for a USB device; I have a special driver for that.

The only box I have checked under Additional Installations is the one for the LV8.6 runtime engine.  All other boxes are all unchecked.

How can I trim the installer down to the bare minimum?   I don't know how to edit the setup.ini file.  Are there any app notes on this?

Steve

[smercurio_fc]

Are there app notes? Yes. Can it be reduced? Unfortunately, no: Reducing the LabVIEW Run-Time Engine Installer Size.

[SteveRobbins]

I think I figured it out.  The installer generated by LV was 76.8MB total, and I trimmed it down to 32.4MB.

The installer generated by LV contains a bin folder, and in this folder there are 13 subfolders labled dp, p0, p1, ... p11.  Each of these subfolders contains an intaller part, which is individually executable.

All the stuff for my application, including all my doc files and my special USB driver, are bundled into the dp folder.  The LV8.6 runtime engine installer is in p11.

I just ran those two installer parts by double-clicking eahc of them, and everything I need got installed.  It all runs normally.

The only problem is I noticed that National Instruments no longer shows up in the Add or Remove Programs control panel, so I don't see any easy way to uninstall.  Any suggestions?

Steve

[jimfoxy]

It seems to me that Labview has joined the undignified fast food frenzy. Is it just me who thinks size still matters? Am I the only one who thinks that a human's time might be spent in more productive ways other than waiting for flabby software to install? Am I the only person in the world who is still, sometimes, forced to use a slow internet connection and downloading huge files can be tolerated only if reading a copy of 'War and Peace'? Clearly, I am in the minority.

If all you have to do to get a smaller installer distributable is to knock out a few of the p# folders, then why cannot the installer builder do this automatically and only include the parts of the software actually needed? I would far rather wait many minutes for the installer builder to actually bother to examine my code and include only what it needs, than to have some behemoth creation that can only be sensibly downloaded from a website if you have top notch internet access. It is a poor show not to be able to have a tailored run-time engine / installer option.

I have just stupidly invested quite a large amount of time modifying 'code' originally in LV6.1 but now I am using LV8.5. Back then, it created a lovely little installer of less than 10MB (I used to think that was a bit big). Using LV8.5, the smallest I can get without starting to get nasty is about 70MB (oh, and another 7MB if I include VISA, all of which gives my users a convenient way of selecting a serial port by COM name rather than some cryptic tag). Frankly, it is embarrassing! As far as I can tell, I have used no LV functionality that was not in LV 6.1. Why did I bother? The easiest thing for me now to get a small distributable installer is probably print each VI onto paper and redraw everything in LV6.1.

Is there any other way to convert the VIs into an older version?

Oh, and stop the obsession with bringing out a new LV version every five minutes, please (it seems it is now so fat that it cannot even be put onto a 4.7GB writable DVD). No more updating for me.

Remember guys, computers were supposed to help, not waste time. Focus!

[tst]

Is it just me who thinks size still matters?

No, but it's not as important as other things. This is quite common today and is a tradeoff most users are willing to accept despite its imperfections. If getting the functionality means a large installer, so be it.

Am I the only one who thinks that a human's time might be spent in more productive ways other than waiting for flabby software to install?  

No.

Am I the only person in the world who is still, sometimes, forced to use a slow internet connection...?

No, but you're getting there. I haven't even seen a dial up connection in years. 

If all you have to do to get a smaller installer distributable is to knock out a few of the p# folders, then why cannot the installer builder do this automatically and only include the parts of the software actually needed? 

Because that's not all you have to do. As you've seen even from this simple example, the created installer is not perfect. If you add more dependencies (quite common when using LabVIEW) it would get even worse.

Why did I bother?

Good question. Newer versions of LV have loads of improvements, but if you don't use them, staying with an older version might have been better for you. Why did you switch?

Is there any other way to convert the VIs into an older version? 

The only way to do it all the way back to 6.1 is to back-save in any intermediate version (8.0, 7.1 and 7.0). You can try posting it here and asking people to do it or you can try asking someone at NI.

Oh, and stop the obsession with bringing out a new LV version every five minutes, please.

I actually feel that innovation is a good thing. That said, I wouldn't object if NI took the time to improve the existing features before adding new ones, but if they did only that, we would never get new features. Ultimately, no one is forcing you to upgrade when a new version comes out.

[jimfoxy]

>>The only way to do it all the way back to 6.1 is to back-save in any intermediate version (8.0, 7.1 and 7.0). You can try posting it here and asking people to do it or you can try asking someone at NI.

Thanks very much - I shall give it a try.

>>a tradeoff most users are willing to accept

You mean that it is the marketing dept that force software out the door as soon as possible, and if that means it contains loads of useless code, who cares, so long as it works? Can't be much job satisfaction around these days.

>>I haven't even seen a dial up connection in years.

I was having to use one the other day. Besides, there is a lot of instrumentation distributed around the world with poor internet access. Much of my equipment is in Antarctica. For remote field access, you are lucky to get 2kbit/s using Iridium. I am not saying that you should be able to expect to download and install new software at those rates but, speed limitations are still there for many users. Our bases in Antarctica have no more than 128kbit/s shared between many machines.

>>Why did you switch?

>>no one is forcing you to upgrade when a new version comes out

Because I was stupid, I guess. That and the fact that our shared software cupboard (unfortunately, it is not virtual) has limited capacity and when it came to installing LV on my new machine I thought I should use the latest version - I don't think LV6.1 is in the cupboard anymore. The capacity of the cupboard is not helped by having to house two new fat LV wallets twice a year. So, indirectly, because NI send out new versions so frequently, one could say that I was forced to upgrade.

Anyway, thanks for the tip about downgrading. I shall spend a day reading a book and installing all those intermediate versions of LV I need. It will be interesting to see if it works (I have doubts).

[tst]

---

jimfoxy wrote:

>>a tradeoff most users are willing to accept

You mean that it is the marketing dept that force software out the door as soon as possible, and if that means it contains loads of useless code, who cares, so long as it works? Can't be much job satisfaction around these days.

---

I don't think it's marketing, but management, but that's a whole different discussion. In any case, I don't think that the frequent release cycle is what causes installer bloat - what I was thinking of is that LV apps tend to have many dependencies (VISA in your case, but many others have things like DAQmx, RT, vision, etc.) and if it would take NI a huge amount of engineering effort to build smarter installers just for the sake of minimizing their size, I would rather they didn't do it because it would either make LV cost more or cause it to have less features (or both). The modern installers (only post 8.5, I believe) run automatically, so even if they take time, you don't have to be there for them to run.

---

>>I haven't even seen a dial up connection in years.

I was having to use one the other day. Besides, there is a lot of instrumentation distributed around the world with poor internet access. Much of my equipment is in Antarctica. For remote field access, you are lucky to get 2kbit/s using Iridium. I am not saying that you should be able to expect to download and install new software at those rates but, speed limitations are still there for many users. Our bases in Antarctica have no more than 128kbit/s shared between many machines.

---

It's possible that this is a justification in your case to avoid using the newer versions and stick to the older ones. Personally, I find that the newer ones have many features which are extremely useful. One point which may be interesting in your case is that the files in 8.x (and particularly 8.6) are a lot smaller than in older versions, mainly due to compression, I believe. I don't know if this applies to EXEs as well and how it's offset by the size of the installer, but it's a point to consider. In any case, many of the new features could not have been introduced without making the RTE bigger. Does that mean they should not have been introduced? If they wouldn't be introduced, NI would basically still be making LV 6.1, which you already have.

---

Anyway, thanks for the tip about downgrading. I shall spend a day reading a book and installing all those intermediate versions of LV I need. It will be interesting to see if it works (I have doubts).

---

I would be careful with that. These versions weren't really designed to be installed side by side in reverse order, especially if you install drivers as well (because drivers are shared and are not equally supported in different versions). It should be easier to ask your local NI office to do this.