Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

how do I disable all non-essential components in the CS6 installer

Jun 16, 2012 5:30 PM

Tags: #install #cs6 #installer #components

A new question in the spirit of and, where I asked this question for CS4 and CS5 and eventually discovered how to do this (at least for CS4; CS5 was a mess...): How do I disable all the non-essential components in the Photoshop CS6 installer?


I already found the payloads/Media_db.db sqlite 3 database and wiped the DependencyData table. This goes a long way - unlike CS5, which was a maze of hidden xml configs and sqlite databases, for CS6 just wiping this single table will give the user full control over what the installer will put in the computer. With the dependencies wiped, we can now see all the stuff it's actually going to install:


  • Bridge (normal and x64) - 187 and 262 MB
  • CMaps (normal and x64) - 7.2 and 7.2 MB
  • CSXS Extensions - 1.3MB
  • CSXS Infrastructure - 6.8MB
  • Color - photoshop, EU, JA, NA - 1.5, 2.1, 3.0, 2.5MB
  • Video profiles - 4.7KB
  • Dynamic Link Media Server - 96MB
  • DynamicLink Support - 6.1MB
  • ExtendScript Toolkit - 19MB
  • Extension Manageer - 16MB
  • Fonts recommended (normal and x64) - 110 and 110MB (why are there x86 and x64 versions? more of an open question than one that really needs an answer, but this is not how fonts work. There are no separate x86 and x64 flavoured OpenType fonts)
  • Fonts required (normal and x64) - 123 and 123MB
  • Hunspell Linguistics Plugin (normal and x64) - 181 and 181MB
  • Linguistics (normal and x64) - 46 and 46MB
  • Mini Bridge (normal and x64) - 4.0MB
  • PDF Library Files (normal and x64) - 75 and 75MB
  • Photoshop (normal and x64) - 486 and 563MB
  • Photoshop Support - 9.4MB
  • Player for Embedding 3.3 (normal and x64) - 21 and 26MB
  • Switchboard 2.0 - 1.1MB
  • Type Support (normal and x64) - 6 and 6MB
  • Winsoft Linguistics Plugin (normal and x64) - 8.2 and 8.5MB
  • XMP Panels - 4.9MB
  • ColorCommonSetCMYK - 13MB
  • ColorCommonSetRGB - 8.6KB
  • Camera Profiles Installer - 285MB
  • MSVC++2005 redist. (normal and x64) - 11 and 11MB
  • MSVC++2008 redist. (normal and x64) - 11 and 11MB
  • MSVC++2010 redist. (normal and x64) - 11 and 11MB
  • MSVC80_CRT (normal and x64) - 0.0 and 0.0KB
  • PDF Settings - 2.4MB
  • Camera Raw 7  (normal and x64) - 22 and 24MB
  • Suite Shared Configuration - 3.2MB


Some of these things we really want installed (Photoshop, CMaps, XMP panels, Type Support and required fonts and color profiles are pretty much the minimal set required for a functional Photoshop installation), but some of these things really have no right to be silentedly installed. There's a good gigabyte of nonsense that someone who just wants Photoshop has no need for. Denying them the option to unselect these things during installation is a bit evil (whatever happened to the 'advanced' or 'custom' installation option? That was a good option).


That said, there's still something funky going on - unselecting all components indicates that the installation will required 0.0KB on disk. However, selecting Photoshop CS6 x64, which indicates its size is 563MB, results in an installation that requires 677MB on disk. Similar things happen for other components; CMaps is 7.2MB, but when you select it, it suddenly requires 121MB on disk.


Much last last time, I fully appreciate the install team's choices in making sure the installer will always work as long as people don't tamper with it, but I'm not one of those people - I do tamper with it, because I want to control exactly what lands on my disk. So: how do I find out what these secret things are that are not listed after wiping the dependency data so that I can explicitly pick individual components? Which additional steps are required to reveal the hidden dependencies that will apparently still be installed, or aren't factored into the size indication for the various components? And finally, how do I make the installer NOT determine that "this is not a genuine installer, you may have a counterfeit product" =)


I know it's been altered; I modified it, because I think your install process is trying to force stuff onto my computer that I never asked for, nor will ever use (I know they're quality products, they just have no right to exist on my computers. If I had the choice to say no, I'd acknowledge them as quality products instead).


- Mike Kamermans


NB: if Eric Wilde ends up replying to this post: I still remember your willingness to help figure this out for CS5, two years ago. Thank you again for that.

  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2012 1:01 PM   in reply to Mopaxian



    Your name does indeed trigger some memories; but, I don't recall the detials of our last discussion. Let me ping the engineering team to see if we can get a reasonable answer.


    Are you using the AAMEE tool to help create a deployment package or is this for just a couple of seats?

    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2012 3:49 PM   in reply to Mopaxian


    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 20, 2012 1:49 PM   in reply to Mopaxian



    I'm trying to achieve just the same. I edit and change the "required" and "critical" to "recommended" in media_db.db. This procedure was working with the CS5 installers, but since CS6 I get the "Adobe Genuine" error... the problem seems to be the <checksum> and <sig> values in the media_db.sig as in my case, unless I've overlooked it, the filesize remains the same.


    Anyway, I'm just adding myself to the list of people interested in finding a way to do this, by ourselves (calculating checksums, sigs...), or if that's out of the question maybe Adobe could provide a set of modified files wich would allow us more control over the install process.


    For me, that would be enough. No need to modify anything else, I'll manage the consequences and the eventual lack of support derived from a non-standard install.

    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 21, 2012 7:12 AM   in reply to Mopaxian



    I'm using SQLite Browser. I suppose I've overlooked something, but anyways, there's no point in discussing this part as, I believe, is not relevant right now.


    I wasn't specifically asking for the algorithm used, I understand Adobe may be unwilling to share it for security reason. I was.. well... I suppose that I was just thinking aloud regarding different possibilities. That's why I said the part about Adobe providing modified files... to achieve basically what you're proposing.


    The only part I don't know how could be done is... there's quite a few possible versions of the media_db.db & sig. Individual programs, different packages, different versions for different countries... I use a spanish version of the CS6 master collection which I suppose uses a different media_db.db & sig than, say, Adobe Illustrator Japanese version... and therefore checksum & signature would be different for all of them.


    So... maybe Adobe can provide modified media_db.db and media_db.sig for all those install possibilities... or maybe a list of <checksum> and <sig> values for every product media_db.db... or, at least, the master collection one.


    We better wait to read what Adobe's answer is and then we'll know

    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 21, 2012 3:46 PM   in reply to bokeron2008

    I'm afraid I don't have a good answer for you. In short, these workflows aren't supported or tested and we cannot recommend proceeding in this direction.


    Our genuine validation feature is designed to detect tampering of the installer as that is a primary means for counterfeit DVDs. Such tampered installers often put malware on the user's systems in additional to circumventing our licensing code. The worst part is many counterfeit products are virtually indistinguishable from genuine product, down to the packaging and very little price difference. If you do edit the media DBs and get it to work, it is very possible that updates, uninstalls and future product installs won't work properly.


    I think the right answer to this issue is to simply remove from the products those items that are not required to execute the product. That's actually something we're aggressively pursuing this summer so that the product size reduces in future releases, particularly for PS.


    Have you investigated using AAMEE? I don't think that will get rid of all the "extraneous" pieces; but, it does provide some flexibility in creating an install package that can then be pushed out through normal deployment tools (e.g. SCCM).


    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 21, 2012 7:35 PM   in reply to Eric Wilde

    I understand the logic in preventing any tampering, so obviously Adobe can't provide any methods/algorithms to calculate checksums or signatures... but if Adobe could provide a modified media_db with only the "critical"/"required" edited to "recommended", the file would still be protected, the algorithm used would still be undisclosed, all would still be under Adobe's protection... and we'd get what we need at the same time.


    With CS5 some help was provided to achieve exactly this, by yourself and (I'm sorry I don't remember the name) an Adobe engineer I believe, and it was clearly stated we'd do it at our own risk and the resulting install would be unsupported by Adobe. Has therefore Adobe's position changed regarding this ?



    If I've understood it right, AAMEE can't work outside the limits imposed by the instaler, just select the install options normally allowed in order to automate the install process. So, we can leave out the recommended packets... but the required and the critical packets are still out of reach. Don't know if this is really so or I just misunderstood the AAMEE puropose.


    (Anyway, Mopaxian explains it better than me, the only difference is (I believe) he needs just Photoshop an I'd need a solution for the Master Collection)

    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 4, 2012 11:32 AM   in reply to Eric Wilde

    There already exist "lite" hacked CS6 versions.


    I fail to see the wisdom in preventing your legal users do what any run of the mill hacker can achieve effortlessly. Adobe's security measures seem to be defeated even before the product starts selling, yet they insist all this "nuisances" to their paid customers are in the name of security.


    It is madness to make things harder for the paid customers than to the... "unpaid" ones. Guess where the path of least resistance leads ?


    So... now that the security system has been defeated... will the paid customers be allowed to do what illegal users can already do ? Please ?

    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 4, 2012 9:24 PM   in reply to bokeron2008

    Hi folks,


    I've been away on both vacation and business travel over the last few weeks. Sorry for the delayed response. I'm still travelling on business this week and so will continue to be slow in response for about another week.


    I can understand your requests here and I really do want to enable you both. As you state, it isnt in our best interests to provide a generalized solution. My main problem in providing the hashes for you both is that this is an extremely rare need and the installer team has a whole bunch of more urgent issues to deal with (such as enabling customers unable to install.)


    I'll ask them if I can share an unsupported way to workaround this issue; but, I really don't want to share them here on this forum. Expect a private email today (today, as in I'm in Asia and my day is just starting while your day ends.)

    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,514 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 5, 2012 9:10 AM   in reply to Mopaxian

    I find it amusing that you may have considered my input on this (in other threads) as ''mocking''.


    I wish to run a lean system every bit as much as you do.  It's just that in the process of hacking into someone's installer you can't really know what components their system requires to run under what conditions.


    That said, there's nothing in the world wrong with asking Adobe for a lean installation, and for the ability to customize the install to eliminate features you don't need.  I'm frankly (pleasantly) surprised that Adobe has responded.  All I can say to that is thank you, Eric.


    But it's pretty clear that someone in Adobe management thinks that offering more options makes the product too complicated for the masses, and that options add testing and support cost.  So expert users are caught between the attraction of using relatively inexpensive software, financed by the masses, and having it do exactly what we need and no more.


    Best of luck.



    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 18, 2012 6:08 AM   in reply to Mopaxian

    Wow, it's amasing! I just send a private message to Eric.


    Eric and Mopaxian, guys, you are simply the BEST!

    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2013 11:45 PM   in reply to Mopaxian

    I've got the correct files kindly from Eric, but now facing a problem during the installation.

    When I launch the installer I see the 34 components under PS CS6 section.

    If I install without unselecting any components it installs just fine.


    But if even uncheck 1 single component the installer fails at 2% with the following error (in the below error I've unchecked Camera Profiles Installer.


    Exit Code: 7

    ERROR: DW039: Selection of payload {539AEF15-3A2B-4A31-A587-7E90F7D9C700} Camera Profiles Installer is not allowed. It is non-selectable and should be removed from deployment.xml file


    Any ideas?

    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 17, 2013 6:44 PM   in reply to Mopaxian

    I've had so few requests (less than I can count on one hand's fingers) that I'd rather just keep them at request only.

    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (1)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points