Back to Clusters page
Clusters free download for Mac

Clusters Reviews

1.7.2
18 October 2013

Background file compressor (formerly known as Squeeze).

B-Jefferson-Le-Blanc
21 August 2010

Most helpful

@MACTECHHEAD: I think you misperceive the purpose and method of Squeeze. It is not a general purpose compression application. There are a number of those already available that create compressed files in various forms and formats. These are useful for storing and archiving files. Squeeze uses a compression scheme built into OS X 10.6.x which saves some space and yet allows files to be accessed and operate as if they were not compressed. This compression is routinely applied to most system files. Squeeze enables you to expand the use of this method to other files of your choice, which you can, in fact, drag and drop onto Squeeze. I used Squeeze for awhile when some of my hard drives were filling up. Ultimately, though, to relieve my space concerns I replaced those drives with larger ones. Not everyone will have this option available to them, however, and for them Squeeze may extend the usefulness of their computers for some time.
Like (7)
Version 1.3

Read 54 Clusters User Reviews

Rate this app:

BobbyThompsonRocks
28 December 2017
This was a great little app, as it stands now I can't seem to get it to work since the 10.13 upgrade.

This app was a great way to gain a few extra GB of disk space on a packed HD. I also found on older systems (ones without SSDs) that it actually reduced the load times of larger applications, in some cases quite substantially...

Since the Mac OS X 10.13 update this doesn't appear to break anything, but it sits permanently idle. When I try adding a folder to the app I'm warned that it appears I'm adding a folder that is not part of the boot volume (even though I am)...

It may simply be that apple's new format no longer benefits from what this app does. If you are using an older system pre-dating 10.13, and especially if you have a non SSD, I'd still recommend this app.
Like
Version 1.7.2
Mvasilakis
25 November 2015
I guess development on this is dead? Does anyone know if it works with 10.11? If not are there any alternatives? Terminal commands?
Like
Version 1.7.2
1 answer(s)
gmfkdaslas
gmfkdaslas
24 June 2016
I'm using it on 10.11 and it works fine. Only thing is that you need to launch the app once due to Gatekeeper - go to the /Library/PreferencePanes/Clusters.prefpane and show the files, find the "ClustersHelper" app and right click and open. Click allow/open to any prompts and then it should work.
Like (1)
Aargl
16 November 2015
The last blog entry on their website is from March 2012...:-/ Anyway, Clusters has been working ok for years, here on OS 10.9.5. In fact, when installed, and once it has compressed the files, you don't even know it's there — I was wondering if it was still working, indeed! ;-) To check the gain, the easier solution I found is to Get Info on a big folder and compare it to the result for a Terminal command (du -sh path_to_the_folder) — multiplied by 1024×1024×1024, if you want a fair reading, Finder considering that 1 KB = 1000 bytes). The result for my /Applications folder gives 36GB against 28GB, a nice 8GB gain! If you're interested in HFS+ file compression, this article highlights a few utilities: http://www.cnet.com/news/unix-commands-for-managing-hfs-compression-in-os-x/ Some links are broken, but you'll easily find them — afsctool seems what you need to use for compressing files and folders without copying them.
Like
Version 1.7.2
1 answer(s)
Aargl
Aargl
05 January 2017
I found today that I disabled Clusters a long time ago, it seems, and forgot to turn it back on: I've just reactivated it and gained more than 3 Gb free space, an additional proof that it still works on 10.9.5, if it was needed! :-)
Like
Dhess01
25 May 2014
Prefpane not opening under 10.9.3
Like
Version 1.7.2
2 answer(s)
Dhess01
Dhess01
28 May 2014
Sorry, I retract that. Fixed the ACLs on ~/Library/PreferencePanes and all is working again.
Like
flash1296gmailcom8977
flash1296gmailcom8977
20 August 2014
The PrefPane installs under OS X 10.9.4 and it seems to be capable of adding ƒolders to compress, but NOTHING happens.

I used this a few years ago under earlier OS's and it was great.
Like
Kenbotwinick
10 February 2014
I have been waiting since Dec. 20th for this company to respond to my tech support request. I can't get my serial number to register in a second account on the same machine. Supposedly, I'm supposed to be able to, but it won't work, and they won't get back to me...
Like
Version 1.7.2
freshlesh
23 January 2014
I am a fan of Clusters for a long time. I tend to use up all the available space on my drives and this extends my general usability. But I have noticed false reads of the space on my main drive. Once I restart it goes back to normal but I am curious is this is an issue with Clusters or some other drive issue.
Like (1)
Version 1.7.2
Jazzyguy
19 October 2013
An excellent Application which saves space on my hard drive.
Like (1)
Version 1.7.2
Unicorn
04 July 2013
I think that clusters may actually be slowing down my OS (otherwise it's the space that was used up). After I re-installed my OS and apps, I noticed that *everything* was MUCH faster. I do love the idea of saving space, but not at the cost of the speed and reliability of my overall experience. This app should run completely seamlessly in the background, with adjustable priority/speed. It also should take fewer resources while doing its job. The places in which you'd gain the most space would be documents, pictures, and apps. Videos, archives, audio, and other extremely large files will barely get any change. (the /system and /library is also excluded). On Average I'd say that you'd gain 10-15% more space on your hard drive. However, I would not recommend this for SSD users because this is specifically meant for a HD. I would recommend extra storage over compressing, because if you lose that much data it's bad, and there's most likely some files on your HD that you haven't used in months. I would recommend investing in a small SSD and replacing the disc drive with it, or a 64G SanDisk class 10 SDXC card. Running the OS/apps from either is well worth an investment, especially for the new MBP or Air. All in all, this app is really is good if one were too lazy to sort through their data or cannot afford another storage device. It's okay for students/businesses if they have no other options. If it's just out of curiosity or wanting to make the best use of your HD, it's really not worth it in the long-run.
Like
Version 1.6.5
I finally got a response after a few weeks... According to what they told me my email had gotten lost in a sea of spam... They worked with me and ended up releasing an update which fixed my issues. It's now working fine for me...
Like (1)
Version 1.6.5
June8
25 May 2013
Company seems to be closed. I couldn't get any reply to my mails since about a month.
Like (1)
Version 1.6.5
Eric•Woehler
01 May 2013
I have used Clusters since the days when it was known as Squeeze. No problems, no complaints - works welll in the background compressing everything I have thrown at it. Two minor glitches/issues - the Total Savings as reported by the app is a cumulative total over time, so the longer it has been on your machine, the greater the Total is, so use this figure with caution. The other GUI hiccup is I have a folder listed that is greyed out - it is listed as "Other" with "Savings obtained from previously selected folders" - presumably from my previous MacBook before I migrated to current MacBook. I can't delete this entry when I believe I should be able to .. Otherwise can recommend this app - it does what is says it will do, and for me, no issues with CPU spikes etc as reported by others.
Like (2)
Version 1.6.5
1 answer(s)
polocanada
polocanada
20 March 2015
Same here.. I removed the compressed folder from the "Folders" section, I added them to exclusions and I even deleted the folders afterwards completed and the app window still shows "Savings obtained from previously selected folders". That's on v. 1.7.2 which seems to be still current unchanged since 2013. Not a big deal but it's confusing because the "Total Savings" also shows incorrect size, it's cumulative including savings for data that are no longer compressed or deleted.
Like
Rob-h
18 April 2013
I might have considered this product, however the demo appears to be crippled because it limits you to saving a maximum of 50Mb and expires after just one hour! How on earth am I supposed to really put this product thru its paces, see how it performs, whether I encounter any issues, whether it really benefits my setup (Mac Pro with 6Tb of internal storage) and the way I work if all I get is one hour and an absurdly low compression limit? I've heard of 30 day trials, 14 day trials even 1 day trials but this is daft.
Like (2)
Version 1.6.3
VictorPrijker
16 April 2013
No complaints here, great little gem. In my case, it's 60 Gb of free disk (in both my internal 320 GB HD and 120 Gb SSD). One issue I have is about virtual machine image disks, like the one from VMware or Parallels. Should I allow Clusters to compress them?
Like
Version 1.6.3
BobbyThompsonRocks
04 April 2013
I installed Clusters on a new MacBook Air, and am seeing Clusters CONSTANTLY consuming between 110% and 150% of my CPU cycles, even though clusters is NOT actively compressing anything... Both the menu bar icon and the system preference show clusters is not actively compressing anything, but after an extended period of being 'idle', clusters is somehow consuming the bulk of my idle CPU... I emailed support with no response...
Like
Version 1.6.3
2 answer(s)
BobbyThompsonRocks
BobbyThompsonRocks
10 April 2013
Oddly enough I seem to have found a work around or 'fix'... When I installed the app I had only added my Applications folder, as I found a long time ago that larger Apps load faster when compressed with Clusters... I added a second folder and ever since then Clusters has behaved normally. It appears if you have only one folder it consumes a large volume of the CPU bandwidth, but if you have 2 folders in the list it will behave as expected...
Like
BobbyThompsonRocks
BobbyThompsonRocks
19 April 2013
And then it broke again... The process has gone back to consuming an average of 125% CPU bandwidth while in idle... No idea what it's doing but that is a lot of CPU bandwidth seemingly being lost...
Like
Briman4031
27 January 2013
This is a no-brainer 5 stars from me. I set Clusters to compress everything except for system files. To date, I've saved 50.4 GB on a 500GB hd. 50 GB!!! I've transferred all files and applications from a previous mac to a new MBP without hiccup. All compressed files still work as usual. I only allow clusters to run while plugged in, and I pause it when I need the extra RAM. Granted, the original Macbook these files started on, was running OSX Tiger, which I believe doesn't use the HFS+ file compression. In moving all of these files to a new MBP system and allowing clusters to do it's thing, the space savings is jaw-dropping. Your results may vary if you start on a HFS+ compressed system. Absolutely no complaints here.
Like
Version 1.6.3
Parkerbennett
26 October 2012
Still trying to wrap my head around this. Why doesn't Apple use this if it's built in? Trying to think of potential drawbacks -- for example, you should probably exclude Dropbox or other shared folders if you're sharing with anyone pre-Snow Leopard or, I'm assuming, Windows users...
Like (1)
Version 1.6.3
1 answer(s)
ultratiem
ultratiem
26 October 2012
They do. Apple pretty much compresses everything in the System directory to cut down on the OS's footprint using the same technology this program leverages.
Like (1)
Mitch-de
27 September 2012
No fear ;) I use Clusters (Squeeze) since the beginning and only removed last version before updating to ML. All compressed files stay compressed and stay usabele without clusters. Only if you would boot with old 10.5 DVD/extternal HD you will get problems because compressed HFS* isnst supported by < 10.6. I saved over 15 GB space selecting some Apps and some Folders. Great! Only at first install the first check/compress background process takes some time / slows down system minimal, but less than spotlight first run. Later the system will not get any slowdowns - it only works
Like
Version 1.6.2
2 answer(s)
Frankof
Frankof
27 September 2012
Have you tried it on the Aperture (or iPhoto) library, too? Will there be significant savings? I don't want to try it, just to see that the library cannot be compressed much (which is possible, because lots of the data there is already in compressed format, such as jpg), and then have to upload/backup 100GB of data to TimeCapsule for nothing...
Like
liang-case
liang-case
27 October 2012
Use JPEGmini to shrink iPhoto Library or the entire user account. Save me lots of space.
Like
Frankof
27 September 2012
No review today, only a comment: I had 1.6.1, registered, and went through the update process by uninstalling and reinstalling as recommended by the author. ALL my settings are gone (I have a time machine backup, so I think I could bring them back, if only I knew where they are; they are not in the .plist in preferences, that I already found out...). Also, it is no longer possible to hide the icon in the menu bar. The preference for it is still there in the tab "General", but it doesn't do anything. I refrain from giving a rating today, because it would REALLY be a bad one, and I want to give the author the chance to fix those bugs. I used to like Clusters, and I want to continue liking it...
Like
Version 1.6.2
1 answer(s)
Frankof
Frankof
27 September 2012
ok, found out that the menu bar icon does go away, when you first uncheck the box in "general", than switch off Clusters, than switch it on again. Still a bug, though...
Like
BobbyThompsonRocks
31 August 2012
This app has one benefit I found which was unexpected for me... When I compress my Applications folder with this, I find my larger apps load much quicker than before they were compressed... Effectively the reduction in size means it can be read faster (and apparently in memory expansion has little delay), so in the end my apps are up and running noticeable faster...
Like (1)
Version 1.6.1
3 answer(s)
Surfspirit
Surfspirit
04 September 2012
Really, You didn't knew that? That's the only point of HFS+ Compression!!!
Like
Frankof
Frankof
27 September 2012
@surfspirit: I also didn't know that it will have this effect. Ok, it is somehow logical, but I would never dare to use the compression on the whole application folder - I would be afraid to f*ck things up this way...
Like
Surfspirit
Surfspirit
27 September 2012
I already use it in all folders EXCEPT System folder, System folder has some items that CAN NOT use HFS+ compression since it would make those items and system unbootable, all the others folders it can be used, user library for example have lot's of code that some apps put there. Drive Genious app, can also look your entire disk for duplicates and replaces them with an alias, that can make some gigabytes free, since you will be amazed about so many duplicates that exists on Mac OS X. Remove languages you don't use and PPC or intel 32/64 code of them, in the end you will have a lot better OS, faster and cleaner, of course you should have some computer background in doing all this stuff, but here's the info, for who wants it. Also I take out all the @2x.png files that are specific to retina displays, and use ImageOptim.app to reduce and optimize app image resources, this will eventually break the code signatures of apps, but I sign them my self...! Sorry for the long info!
Like
Dwcowell
27 August 2012
Hand to roll back to 1.5.6 via Time Machine. Version 1.6 would not run on my 10.6.8 machine. The helper app would continually crash.
Like
Version 1.6
Moofing
22 July 2012
Been using a while and I'm happy with it. 16gigs saved, with over 2 gigs freed having compressed a specific Library Mail folder that I've marked "Old". I hope they add very specific FAQs regarding what is safe to compress so we don't have to experiment. That will get them that last star. Have a star less to MacUpdate for bad programming of this window; it won't let me revise stars after selecting. Oh well.
Like
Version 1.5.6
1 answer(s)
liang-case
liang-case
30 July 2012
Have you tried it in Mountain Lion yet? Does Cluster work under Mountain Lion? Thanks,
Like
I haven't had many problems with Clusters and it has saved 7.98 GB of space on my MacBook Pro, which tells me that it does its job. I did have to set several exclusions, to include my Parallels virtual machines and a game, which I didn't realize would have been problems until they were problems. After setting the exclusions I removed the damaged apps (and virtual machines) and reinstalled them - no problems since.
Like (2)
Version 1.5.6
fireyouritguys
17 April 2012
Works, but disappointing how little it actually compresses. I bought it hoping to feee up space on my 128GB Macbook Air SSD. I was using 91GB and it freed up jus over 1GB. That's almost $13 a gigabyte for storage! Hardly worth the trouble and certainly not worth the money. I was hoping for at least 5-7GB in savings. It saved just of 300MB out of 5.2GB in Applications (6%), and just under 800MB in my user profile which had 64GB (1.5%) for an overall performance of around 1%.
Like
Version 1.5.6
Unicorn
22 February 2012
Pretty good app that basically re-defines how much data something takes. I'm not sure if this is correct, and I can't remember where I found this info, but according to [source] the Mac OS defines data storage larger than it actually is. I believed it was said to be as 1,256kb for 1mb instead of 1,000kb for 1mb. (and so forth.) This person made a terminal command that re-programs that definition, and offered it freely. (If I find that source againI will reply here.) Now, this app isn't worth it for people who regularly keep 100G+ of free space on their HD. (assuming it is 250G). It is very useful, works on Lion (10.7.3), but is selective in how much data it saves you. (based on the file type.) For a better idea if you really need this, look this up on youtube. you may have to search "squeeze" (which is what it used to be called apparently.) This app certainly seems like it wasn't easy to make, but overall it should offer better features for the price they charge. Now, this DOES take plenty of CPU power (about 1-30%). (you can monitor with the free "istat" menu for dashboard.) You can tell it what folders you want it to compress and which ones not to. Or you can add an entire directory ("desktop" for example). For an idea of how much data you can save, it depends on how much data of certain files you have. The most it will save on is apps, docs, txt, rtf, etc. The Least you will save on is videos and picture files.
Like (1)
Version 1.5.6
1 answer(s)
PorkPieHat
PorkPieHat
17 March 2012
As I understand it, the standard size of 1 MB is actually 1,024 KB (and 1KB = 1,024 bytes, 1 GB = 1,024 MB, etc.). You're correct that Apple cheats by instead using the SI (Metric) system that measures everything in increments of 1,000) to make its hard drives seem larger than they actually are. Though it causes all kinds of problems, Apple doesn't seem to care that most other players in the industry use the standard system.
Like (1)
poffuomo
06 December 2011
It does one thing but it does it great.
Like (1)
Version 1.5.6
JamesHarrisPhoto
03 December 2011
I'm a BIG fan of Xslimmer by the same company. Xslimmer has saved a lot of disk space on my drives, but I have continuing problems with Clusters slowing my machine down to a crawl, even after it finishes its compression. I won't give it a star rating since I'm not sure the problem isn't inherent to my machine, but I've had to remove every version shortly after installing it. Hope they can get this fixed.
Like (2)
Version 1.5.6
1 answer(s)
Franko
Franko
03 December 2011
I agree about XSlimmer. Hoping you emailed the guys at LNS regarding the slowdown. Perhaps you included a folder/disk that gets accessed often?
Like
Sissy_Princess
26 June 2011
I made the mistake of installing my registered copy of Clusters before I discovered what a shady company LateNiteSoft is. I submitted a simple question using their tech support web form on June 17, 2011. On June 23, I sent a follow-up e-mail (through the online service they use for tech support tracking) requesting an answer. It is now June 26, 2011. I have received no answer of any kind. The tech support request still shows in their online "tracking" where it will apparently remain unanswered. LateNiteSoft registered their domain using DomainsByProxy to hide their mailing address, phone number, and e-mail addresses. There are no e-mail addresses published for them on their web site, no phone numbers, and no physical address. Even their press releases only list the town (Torrelodones) in Spain where they are located, but no address, phone number, or e-mail address. No legitimate company goes to this level of effort to hide from their customers.
Like (5)
Version 1.3.3
2 answer(s)
Sissy_Princess
Sissy_Princess
03 July 2011
It's now July 3rd and still no response from LateNiteSoft. The "case" still shows as open with no activity beyond my having asked the initial question. This lack of support for a package that does data compression on live files? Inexcusable!
Like (4)
ultratiem
ultratiem
31 July 2011
It may be that they hide their information for privacy reasons or to protect themselves from spam. Having a registered website, I always opt to keep as much of my details hidden as possible. For me, I purchased Clusters when it was released. Never used all that much until I purchased an SSD, where every byte saved matters. I sent them a message asking if I could update my registration information to reflect my current email. Within a few hours, I had received an email with my new license code. The email also contains their support email (support@latenitesoft.com). I didn't have any red flags jump up at all. I think you may be jumping the gun. It might just be a technical issue. Try using the email above and see if that helps. The devs maintain some quality products (Xslimmer) and have been around for many years...
Like (2)
Rsmacupdate
23 May 2011
I am looking at this s/w, but it hasn't had an update for a year. I am a little insecure about purchasing it. Is there an update forthcoming and what is the update policy? Are updates free or do we pay again?
Like
Version 1.3.3
3 answer(s)
Rsmacupdate
Rsmacupdate
23 May 2011
My error not a year just about 8-9 months as of this writing. How many users are there and are they really using the product? How satisfied are they? What are the outstanding problems?
Like
GeogProf
GeogProf
10 June 2011
Rsmacupdate, I'm guessing the only one who could answer such questions is the developer. But this is a lousy place to go for support. My experience using Clusters has been very good. Once the dev finally settled on a (terrible) name, Clusters worked as advertised and caused me no problems at all. Though it’s meant more for system folders, I run it only on my Applications folders, and the savings realized on my Core2Duo 10.6.7 iMac and MacBook are as follows: iMac: Applications folder was previously 7.58 GB and now is 3.04 GB (4.54 GB saved, or almost 60%!); MacBook: Applications folder was previously 11.32 GB, and now is 7.31 GB (4.01 GB saved, or 35%). At $13, I'd have been satisfied if Clusters only saved me 35%, so a range that gets at least as high as 60% saved is just gravy. That kind of variability is entirely a function of differing filetypes in my respective Apps folders — Clusters can compress some filetypes a lot and others only a little (though I couldn't say which are which). If other folks report similar savings, then all you have to do is determine if that kind of space savings is worth $13 to you. But if you plan to upgrade to Lion anytime soon, you’d best ask the dev directly by email or phone if the current version is Lion-ready, and if not, will he soon upgrade it? If you get any answers, please post them here!
Like (1)
Sissy_Princess
Sissy_Princess
26 June 2011
I'd pass on this one because the developer does not provide support -- at least not in a timely manner. My tech support question submitted over a week and a half ago is still unanswered. When you're dealing with an app related to real-time data compression on your disk, you need a developer who responds (and publishes actual contact information, like e-mail address, phone number, mailing address, etc.).
Like (3)
Moclippa
03 November 2010
Simple and effective. I have only owned this app for two days but the benefits are quite obvious to me. Workingon a Macbook Pro With highly limited space due to an SSD replacing the harddrive saving space is often a time consuming bi-weekly organisation process. Clusters has thus far freed up 9.06% of my hard drive space( 7% of the the space in the entire. volume!)This is made all the better by the fact that the application automatically manages your set folders and runs in the background constantly at work, lowering the amount of input and distraction of having to constantly tell the application to get to work. No noticable hit on my computer, currently it is utilizing only .01% of the processor, and 20.5 MB of real memory. Great buy, excellent savings, worth the money.
Like (1)
Version 1.3.3
1 answer(s)
Moclippa
Moclippa
03 November 2010
Edit- Sorry, that is 9.06GB (7% of the total volume).
Like
Version 1.3.3
Thyx
02 October 2010
Okay, more serious comments (and assuming that cereals and software don't compete in the same market): 1. just doing what needs be done – trying to apply the new 'external drive' ability to a spare time machine volume. I'll get back with results later. 3. A minor annoyance: by now, I've got three different versions of the same preference file. 3. By the way, if you download Clusters rather than using the inbuilt updater, you'll end up with both preference panes. Starting Clusters a second time got rid of Squeezer.
Like (1)
Version 1.3.3
Mac007
27 September 2010
They should have said they're changing the name for the second time. First it was Squeeze, then Squeezer, and now it's Clusters. I hope this name sticks. ;-)
Like (3)
Version 1.3.2
1 answer(s)
Thyx
Thyx
02 October 2010
I hope they talked to Nestle before using this new name… clusters, the cereal, definitely sticks with all its sugar ;-)
Like
Version 1.3.3
B-Jefferson-Le-Blanc
21 August 2010
@MACTECHHEAD: I think you misperceive the purpose and method of Squeeze. It is not a general purpose compression application. There are a number of those already available that create compressed files in various forms and formats. These are useful for storing and archiving files. Squeeze uses a compression scheme built into OS X 10.6.x which saves some space and yet allows files to be accessed and operate as if they were not compressed. This compression is routinely applied to most system files. Squeeze enables you to expand the use of this method to other files of your choice, which you can, in fact, drag and drop onto Squeeze. I used Squeeze for awhile when some of my hard drives were filling up. Ultimately, though, to relieve my space concerns I replaced those drives with larger ones. Not everyone will have this option available to them, however, and for them Squeeze may extend the usefulness of their computers for some time.
Like (7)
Version 1.3
Algos
21 April 2010
It seems after a while of using, squeezed items that have been deleted are still being counted towards the savings. For example, I use Squeeze on my Applications folder. I haven't been installing new applications, but many regularly update, and the saving total keeps going up and up. Also, the compressing I did on some duplicated folders (early on, to test Squeeze) which afterwards have been deleted still count as previous savings. Doesn't seem correct to me.
Like (4)
Version 1.2.1
csaborio
02 April 2010
Any reason why this won't work on external drives? That would make it perfect.
Like (1)
Version 1.2.1
Mcyukon
28 March 2010
A great piece of software! It is very unobtrusive and does its job beautifully. Big thank you to dev for giving it away with macheist, otherwise I would have never tried it.
Like
Version 1.2.1
Flash1296
23 March 2010
Version 1.2 is virtually PERFECT. I cannot expend enough energy recommending this brilliant software.
Like (1)
Version 1.2
Ticonuck
11 March 2010
Super easy to use, unobtrusive, and effective
Like
Version 1.1
Likos
04 March 2010
Doesn't work on volumes other than "main"? I want to compress other internal volumes why wont this work?
Like (1)
Version 1.0.4
1 answer(s)
Latenitesoft-Pedro
Latenitesoft-Pedro
08 March 2010
This has been improved as of Squeeze 1.1, allowing internal partitions to be processed by Squeeze. In previous versions we decided to exclude mounted volumes because they can potentially be mounted in computers that do not run Snow Leopard. Since it is the OS itself that uncompresses the files, users of earlier versions of Mac OS (or users of other operating systems) will not be able to read compressed files. (Sharing or copying files from a Snow Leopard computer always works, because the OS will share the uncompressed file contents, or create an uncompressed copy). Squeeze 1.1 relaxes that restriction by allowing non-removable volumes to be added to the compression queue (and displaying a warning about the potential use of such volumes in other operating systems). Volumes in removable media are still ignored - keep in mind that having Squeeze work on removable media would prevent those disks from being ejected.
Like (4)
Version 1.1
Surfspirit
04 March 2010
Bad, Bad, Bad, why an app like this permanently in the background when you only need to this once!!! And with different preferences permissions,it's juts too bad... Just google for afsctool, it's free and do the same with lot more options, just use the terminal for once! http://web.me.com/brkirch/brkirchs_Software/afsctool/afsctool.html
Like (3)
Version 1.0.4
1 answer(s)
Latenitesoft-Pedro
Latenitesoft-Pedro
08 March 2010
We decided to create a background tool for several reasons: - It will automatically compress new files you add to the folders being monitored. For example, if you add your Applications folder, any new applications you install will be automatically added to the compression queue. You don't need to remember to run Squeeze once in a while: it is intended as a "set and forget" tool. - It will compress files when the system CPU and disk levels are low. - You don't need to wait for it to finish, thus you can let it process large volumes of data even if that takes a lot of time. Some people do prefer an interactive tool, but we thought a background process would be more convenient for the majority of customers. We are thinking about providing an advanced / interactive mode in a future version, but we haven't planned a release for that yet.
Like (9)
Version 1.1
What gets "squeezed" depends on the type of file you are trying to compress. Since Squeeze uses a built-in OS X 10.6.x utility to "safely" compress files, it is constrained by what that utility can do. In addition, many, if not most, system files are already compressed, which is one way Snow Leopard conserves space on a hard drive - something that was not highlighted in the general descriptions of why Snow Leopard is "smaller" than OS X 10.5.x. Clearly there was more to the story than the fact that 10.6 doesn't install a full set of printer drivers. I suspect that without this automatic compression of system resources, it would not, indeed, be smaller than Leopard. At the same time, the fact that uncompressing files when they are needed and then re-compressing them afterwards does not appear to impact system performance is quite remarkable. Be that as it may, I personally would hesitate to use Squeeze on my entire hard drive without first testing it on at least some applications. That said, different people are bound to have different numbers of files on their boot drives that are subject to compression, hence they will get different percentage results from Squeeze. Heretofore it was possible to use Terminal to invoke the Snow Leopard compression routine. Once again, we owe some thanks to an enterprising third-party developer for liberating us from the Terminal by providing a UI that enables us to do the job more easily.
Like (2)
Version 1.0.4
4 answer(s)
Robotank
Robotank
04 March 2010
I think the lack of PPC code in Snow Leopard also saved quite a bit of space.
Like (1)
Version 1.0.4
B-Jefferson-Le-Blanc
B-Jefferson-Le-Blanc
04 March 2010
Good point. Though there is still plenty of PPC code around in most people's Applications folder for anyone who installed Rosetta to run there legacy apps.
Like (1)
Version 1.0.4
Robotank
Robotank
05 March 2010
Yes, you're quite right. Moreover, most third-party non-legacy applications are still universal binaries, so anyone with a lot of these may still lose quite a bit of space to PPC code (not to mention extra code for 32/64-bit apps). You're also quite correct about Snow Leopard using compression out of the box on system files. These facts combined with the fact that video and audio files can't generally be compressed (formats like MP3, MP4, AVI, etc. already contain heavily compressed data--that's why they take up so much less space than CDs, DVDs, etc.) leads me to suggest that those who will benefit most from Squeeze are people with big Applications and Documents folders (like me!). I just made a fresh backup of my HD, so I'm going to try unleashing squeeze on my apps and documents tonight. I'm curious to see what results I'll get.
Like
Version 1.0.4
B-Jefferson-Le-Blanc
B-Jefferson-Le-Blanc
05 March 2010
In intend to test a few apps at a time with Squeeze to be sure it doesn't affect their performance. There are utilities to strip out the unnecessary PPC (or Intel) code from universal apps, but I hesitate to try this strategy. I'm not that desperate for extra space. I have, however, removed extra language support from my system. These, too, can bulk up an application. In sum, there are a variety of diets you can apply to save space, of which Snow Leopard compression is just the latest. I have most of my data on a secondary hard drive; the biggest single space hog on my boot drive is the Boot Camp partition.
Like
Version 1.0.4
Majestik7
01 March 2010
Started with 224 GB used on my MacBook Pro. "Squeezed" the entire HD. Ended with 213.5 GB or 4.5% saved. It was free so I will not complain, but wonder why others are getting 10% and more savings. I am using the latest 1.0.2.
Like
Version 1.0.2
2 answer(s)
T-ray
T-ray
02 March 2010
Depends on what you are compressing. Music/Videos won't compress as much as documents and other files. So the amount of savings is totally relative. People are getting greater savings by running it on folders which doesn't contain a lot of MP3s and MP4s.
Like (3)
Version 1.0.3
Flash1296
Flash1296
27 September 2010
Some items will not compress at all while some can compress 80% or more. Try compressing a random “.dmg“ with Stuffit Deluxe or Finder or any other compression scheme you like and you will see what I mean. Also things that have already been compressed cannot be noticeable compressed any further by this extraordinary application. The only thing that I fail to understand is this: If this is Apple's compression algorithm then why doesn't Apple make it available to ordinary consumers via a Pref. Pane as we are seeing here ?
Like
Version 1.3.2
Flash1296
01 March 2010
I neglected to mention the most important factor - How much Hard Drive space is saved. Thus far I am seeing 10 to 12 %, depending on file type.
Like (1)
Version 1.0.2
Flash1296
01 March 2010
Beyond awesome. Works perfectly - as advertised. Version 1.0.2 bug fixes are significant.
Like (3)
Version 1.0.2
Glenn-C-Montalbano
01 March 2010
License code will not verify. The helper app has full access to the internet but it still can not verify the license code. Email to the developer has not been answered. This code was given free from MacHeist - I wonder if it was not entered into the database? I tried another code using a different email and still have the same problem.. Sure glad I did not pay for this...
Like (1)
Version 1.0.2
1 answer(s)
Beerlington
Beerlington
02 March 2010
Does your Macheist email address have a + character in it? I had this problem and the developer had to update my license with a different email address.
Like
Version 1.0.2
Rockin
28 February 2010
Wouldn't risk it. Install ok, added my documents and downloads folders, save a massive 250MB from 46GB, wow not! so I turned it off in the System Preference Pane. Now I just get a grey bar on startup and the disk wont repair in disk utilities : ( Cant think what else might have cause this... Any ideas
Like
Version 1.0
1 answer(s)
Hal2007
Hal2007
01 March 2010
I doubt that your issue has to do with Squeeze, as the documents and downloads folder aren't needed at startup time. Must rather be some problem with your system folder. Moreover, Squeeze uses a built-in system tool to do the compression. Some Apple apps are even internally compressed that way, which explains the huge HD savings you get when you install Snow Leopard. The dev states you can even transparently decompress without even having Squeeze installed.
Like (2)
Version 1.0.2
Dhess01
27 February 2010
Lots of user results and explanation by the devs over here (in between the wooting): http://www.macheist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=16895
Like (1)
Version 1.0
Walruscp
27 February 2010
I really like Squeeze so far, but I have noticed it starts to eat up memory. After running it for about 24 hours, it's now hogging up 85 MBs of RAM, which is a tad much for an app like this. Here's hoping to some updates to fix the memory hog issues (and the Hazel incompatibility issues, too)!
Like (3)
Version 1.0
Dhess01
26 February 2010
Ditto. And after a quick google: "10.6: Compress files with HFS+ compression" http://tr.im/PWPd One source seems to indicate that only read-only files are compressed. Perhaps only as OSX utilizes it. http://tr.im/PWIk Other sources indicate that in retaining backward compatibility of files when copying to an older OS, they are decompressed before copying. The compressed data is hidden in the resource fork so that older systems can't read and possibly corrupt the compression data. HFS compressed external drives then should probably not be used with older systems. And the resource forks new job may cause pause for overzealous hidden file cleaners out there. And then there is the issue of protecting your compression data when backing up. Thankfully, it looks like Carbon Copy Cloner and Superduper are already set up to preserve it. An in-depth look at the behind the scenes of HFS+ compression: http://tr.im/PWN8 Incidentally, I may have bumped into an issue with Squeeze. Closed the lid on my MBP while it was compressing. On wake, Squeeze popped up an error saying the compression database was corrupted and it needed to start the job from scratch and I would need to re-ad my folders to be compressed. OK. Interestingly, Squeeze no longer "sees" the same "Savings" as before. Maybe it only recognizes the compression performed after rebuilding its database and not what was compressed previously.
Like (5)
Version 1.0
1 answer(s)
Robotank
Robotank
26 February 2010
Thank you for the information and links. I'm interested in Squeeze (especially after picking up a free licence from MacHeist), but I can't help thinking that it sounds too good to be true, that there must be a catch, despite the developer's assertion to the contrary. I'll do some research then decide if I want to unleash Squeeze on my hard drive.
Like
Version 1.0
anonymous-tapir-4715
26 February 2010
Thanks for the free Squeeze through MacHeist. Now, perhaps, the tiniest bit of information like, what it is, what it's for, what it does and doesn't do ... on the site or hey, in a ReadMe? Just saying.
Like (1)
Version 1.0
anonymous-dragon-2409
26 February 2010
Is it safe to just add the main hard drive as a folder, so everything compresses? What are the downfalls in doing this?
Like
Version 1.0
2 answer(s)
Elyk
Elyk
26 February 2010
That's what I did - It saved me 18 gigs over night.  I haven't noticed a single problem yet. One note:  It says I only saved about 500 MBs in System Preferences however in the Menu Bar it says 18 gigs.  
Like
Version 1.0
B-Jefferson-Le-Blanc
B-Jefferson-Le-Blanc
01 March 2010
I've been cautious using Squeeze so far and have saved over 10 GB on my boot drive. I only compress files I don't use often. It may be safe to do more, but until I'm sure no harm is done I'll continue to be careful.
Like (3)
Version 1.0.2