Google Chrome takes 6 GB of my hard disk

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.

 

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

 

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

Well, I never...

 

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.

 

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.

 

That is very few in comparison of what the NSA stores about you ;-)

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Dear Michael & friends:

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.

 

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

 

I solved the problem doing a full uninstall with a cleaning utility, and
reinstalling it. It is neccessary to do this process from time to time.