Message-ID: <00e901bda399$4ee20140$364e08c3@arthur>
From: "Arthur" <arfa AT clara DOT net>
To: "DJGPP Mailing List" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: This is not a problem but...
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 20:58:09 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

>> But it doesn't compress any executable, does it? Only COFF exes. I want
one
>> that'll shrink any and all programs.
>
>Laszlo (the author of DJP) is working on UPX, it supports: DOS EXEs, DOS
COMs,
>DJGPP EXEs, Watcom EXEs and will support Win32 EXEs too.


Cool

>> I've just thought of another advantage of these programs. As the disc
file
>> is reduced, it not only saves space but time to load.
>
>No the decompression is slower than current disks using cache.
>
>> As RAM (especially EDO
>> or SDRAM) is *much* faster than the hard disc, the time taken to load the
>> compressed file and then uncompress it is actually less than the time
taken
>> to load the uncompressed prog. This is assuming that the difference in
sizes
>> is significant.
>
>Yes but the cache will kill it. Programs are loaded from the cache in the
case of
>compilers, linkers, etc. The decompression is fast but takes some time.

Granted, but I'm talking about files a few megabytes in size. The only cache
faster than decompression is onboard cache, of which I have only 512k. There
is also the cache Windows uses when loading, but I don't believe that that's
a couple of megabytes in size.

James Arthur
jaa AT arfa DOT clara DOT net