Sign In
Create Account
Last active: i think using UPX will be an option more than an obligation...
HD can contain gigaoctect of data and i prefer create for distribution
or private storage a smaller zipped file instead of any UPX/PKLITE/DIET files
IMHO of course
UPX
Started by
vivil
, Apr 03 2004 08:26 AM
1 reply to this topic
vivil
- Guests
Last active: - Joined: --
hello,
i think using UPX will be an option more than an obligation...
HD can contain gigaoctect of data and i prefer create for distribution
or private storage a smaller zipped file instead of any UPX/PKLITE/DIET files
IMHO of course
i think using UPX will be an option more than an obligation...
HD can contain gigaoctect of data and i prefer create for distribution
or private storage a smaller zipped file instead of any UPX/PKLITE/DIET files
IMHO of course
#1
-
Posted 03 April 2004 - 08:26 AM
-
Posted 03 April 2004 - 08:26 AM
Back to top
- Administrators
- 10727 posts
- Last active:
- Joined: 02 Mar 2004
I'll add it to the list, but it might be a while. In the meantime, you can decompress them yourself (you probably already know how to do this): upx -d "MyScript.exe"
Btw, I was a little reluctant to use UPX on the main EXE. But after thinking about it, it seemed to me that the CPU time spent decompressing a file is probably a lot less than the extra disk time that would be needed to read a file twice as large. In other words, I think AHK and compiled scripts will launch faster due to UPX whenever their EXE files aren't already cached by the OS.
Btw, I was a little reluctant to use UPX on the main EXE. But after thinking about it, it seemed to me that the CPU time spent decompressing a file is probably a lot less than the extra disk time that would be needed to read a file twice as large. In other words, I think AHK and compiled scripts will launch faster due to UPX whenever their EXE files aren't already cached by the OS.
#2
-
Posted 03 April 2004 - 12:12 PM
-
Posted 03 April 2004 - 12:12 PM
