1. DOS Translator Issues
Rob,
I translated a file named sequencef.e. In emake.bat, the file name was
sequencef.c, but the actual file created was SEQUENCE.C, causing an error
with emake.bat. I renamed the file, and it worked fine. The windows
translator works correctly. (I'm doing this on a WinXP Home box.)
Also, I wanted to note that UPX will now compress DOS executables. I got
a smaller file when using UPX than when using the Causeway compression:
253,269 bytes UPX
388,529 bytes CW
Same file, compiled using OpenWatcom v1.3.
Matt Lewis
2. Re: DOS Translator Issues
Matt Lewis wrote:
> I translated a file named sequencef.e. In emake.bat, the file name was
> sequencef.c, but the actual file created was SEQUENCE.C, causing an error
> with emake.bat. I renamed the file, and it worked fine. The windows
> translator works correctly. (I'm doing this on a WinXP Home box.)
OK. Thanks. I guess that's due to the DOS 8-character limit
on newly created files. I suppose I should really be using a
Windows console program to act as the translator for DOS.
> Also, I wanted to note that UPX will now compress DOS executables. I got
> a smaller file when using UPX than when using the Causeway compression:
>
> 253,269 bytes UPX
> 388,529 bytes CW
>
> Same file, compiled using OpenWatcom v1.3.
That very interesting.
I didn't realize CW could be beaten by that much.
I'll have to (at least) document that option.
Thanks,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
3. Re: DOS Translator Issues
- Posted by "Juergen Luethje" <j.lue at gmx.de>
Apr 15, 2005
-
Last edited Apr 16, 2005
Robert Craig wrote:
> Matt Lewis wrote:
>> I translated a file named sequencef.e. In emake.bat, the file name was
>> sequencef.c, but the actual file created was SEQUENCE.C, causing an error
>> with emake.bat. I renamed the file, and it worked fine. The windows
>> translator works correctly. (I'm doing this on a WinXP Home box.)
>
> OK. Thanks. I guess that's due to the DOS 8-character limit
> on newly created files. I suppose I should really be using a
> Windows console program to act as the translator for DOS.
I believe when the DOS translator uses my 'Lfn.zip' library, that would
also solve the problem. 
<snip>
Regards,
Juergen
4. Re: DOS Translator Issues
- Posted by Vincent <darkvincentdude at yahoo.com>
Apr 15, 2005
-
Last edited Apr 16, 2005
Matt Lewis wrote:
>
>
> Rob,
>
> I translated a file named sequencef.e. In emake.bat, the file name was
> sequencef.c, but the actual file created was SEQUENCE.C, causing an error
> with emake.bat. I renamed the file, and it worked fine. The windows
> translator works correctly. (I'm doing this on a WinXP Home box.)
>
> Also, I wanted to note that UPX will now compress DOS executables. I got
> a smaller file when using UPX than when using the Causeway compression:
>
> 253,269 bytes UPX
> 388,529 bytes CW
>
> Same file, compiled using OpenWatcom v1.3.
>
> Matt Lewis
>
What good is EXE\DLL compression? The physical space you save with
a compressed app is almost all the more computer memory used and extra
memory overhead created when running it. It only causes loading time
to increase (UPX does a very efficent method to minimize loading time,
and minimize overhead too).
Compressed EXE/DLLs offer some sort of encyription which is cool,
but if you think about it.. someone needs only uncompress it and
it goes right back to unencyripted form.
If you want to save HDD space, just use a popualar compression
archiving utility.. Like WinZip, WinRAR, 7z, etc. The results
are almost as good too, and you wont get better results if you
compress your apps and put it into a compressed archieve.
If you ask me, the idea behind EXE/DLL file compression makes sense
if computer memory was much more cheaper and greater in capacity than
hard drives avialable.
You guys should consider all that carefully before compressing your executables.
It really is just pointless to compress EXE/DLLs and
that is at the very best.
Regards,
Vincent
Without walls and fences, there is no need for Windows and Gates.
5. Re: DOS Translator Issues
Vincent wrote:
> Matt Lewis wrote:
<snip>
>> Also, I wanted to note that UPX will now compress DOS executables. I got
>> a smaller file when using UPX than when using the Causeway compression:
>>
>> 253,269 bytes UPX
>> 388,529 bytes CW
>>
>> Same file, compiled using OpenWatcom v1.3.
>
> What good is EXE\DLL compression? The physical space you save with
> a compressed app is almost all the more computer memory used and extra
> memory overhead created when running it. It only causes loading time
> to increase (UPX does a very efficent method to minimize loading time,
> and minimize overhead too).
>
> Compressed EXE/DLLs offer some sort of encyription which is cool,
> but if you think about it.. someone needs only uncompress it and
> it goes right back to unencyripted form.
>
> If you want to save HDD space,
I think that's the main reason for using UPX. Also, there are UPXed
files that fit on a floppy, while they will be too big when not UPXed.
> just use a popualar compression
> archiving utility.. Like WinZip, WinRAR, 7z, etc. The results
> are almost as good too, and you wont get better results if you
> compress your apps and put it into a compressed archieve.
I can't see why ZIPing an executable could be an replacement for using
UPX. How are you going to execute a ZIPed .exe file?
> If you ask me, the idea behind EXE/DLL file compression makes sense
> if computer memory was much more cheaper and greater in capacity than
> hard drives avialable.
>
> You guys should consider all that carefully before compressing your
> executables. It really is just pointless to compress EXE/DLLs and
> that is at the very best.
Regards,
Juergen
6. Re: DOS Translator Issues
Juergen Luethje wrote:
>
> Vincent wrote:
> >
> > If you want to save HDD space,
>
> I think that's the main reason for using UPX. Also, there are UPXed
> files that fit on a floppy, while they will be too big when not UPXed.
>
> > just use a popualar compression
> > archiving utility.. Like WinZip, WinRAR, 7z, etc. The results
> > are almost as good too, and you wont get better results if you
> > compress your apps and put it into a compressed archieve.
>
> I can't see why ZIPing an executable could be an replacement for using
> UPX. How are you going to execute a ZIPed .exe file?
>
>
> Regards,
> Juergen
Those are poor execuses dude.. Most uncompressed translated/compiled
programs will still be small enough to fit on 1.44 MB floppies. And
what about all the other media devices out? Such as Flash Drives
(I have a 256 MB SanDisk Cruzer). Soon enough floppy drives will no
longer be avaliable in new computers, they lasted this long; but their
time is running short with the new emerging technologies.
You are right, you cant run a program thats archieved unless it's self
extracting EXE. If you are using a computer that doesnt have a HDD or
some other writable/readable storage device that is larger in capacity
than a floppy to extract the files to, then the computer will probably
be ancient, and Euphoria would run terrible on it, at least with v2.5
and its slower parsing.
Regards,
Vincent
--
Without walls and fences, there is no need for Windows and Gates.
7. Re: DOS Translator Issues
I am also a fan of UPX. The main advantage for me is bandwidth, not HDD
space. When I deploy an application at work, it gets pushed out to 4,000
users. UPX cuts my deployment cost in half. Call it what you will, but I’ll
take it.
Yours, OtterDad
Don't sweat it -- it's not real life. It's only ones and zeroes. Gene Spafford
8. Re: DOS Translator Issues
OtterDad wrote:
>
> I am also a fan of UPX. The main advantage for me is bandwidth, not HDD
> space. When I deploy an application at work, it gets pushed out to 4,000
> users. UPX cuts my deployment cost in half. Call it what you will, but I’ll
> take it.
>
> Yours, OtterDad
>
> Don't sweat it -- it's not real life. It's only ones and zeroes. Gene Spafford
>
OtterDad,
In this example I translated/compiled Judith Evans's Enhanced
IDE v18-22 on Win32Lib v0.60.5 with Regged Euphoria to C v2.5
Official translator with Open Watcom v1.3. I've done some
examining and came up with this data:
File Size
---------
IDE.exe (uncompressed): 5,547,008 bytes (5,417 KB) (5.29 MB)
IDE.exe (UPX max compressed): 953,856 bytes (931.5 KB) (0.91 MB)
Memory Usage (program idle)
---------------------------
IDE.exe (uncompressed): 7,507,968 bytes (7,332 KB) (7.16 MB)
IDE.exe (UPX max compressed): 11,108,352 bytes (10,848 KB) (10.59 MB)
File Size Difference
--------------------
4,593,152 bytes (4,485.5 KB) (4.38 MB)
Memory Usage Difference
-----------------------
3,600,384 bytes (3,516 KB) (3.43 MB)
Total Space Saved
-----------------
992,768 bytes (969.5 KB) (0.94 MB)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now lets compare the difference between the compressed
executable and the compressed & uncompressed executable
located in a compressed RAR archive (max compression).
File Size
---------
IDE.exe (uncompressed): 5,547,008 bytes (5,417 KB) (5.29 MB)
IDE.exe (UPX max compressed): 953,856 bytes (931.5 KB) (0.91 MB)
IDE.exe (uncompressed)
in RAR archive: 964,807 bytes (941.2 KB) (0.92 MB)
IDE.exe (UPX max compressed)
in RAR archive: 927,105 bytes (905.37 KB) (0.88 MB)
Size Comparison
---------------
IDE.exe (uncompressed) in RAR archive versus
IDE.exe (UPX max compressed) in RAR archive:
37,702 bytes (36.8 KB) (0.036 MB)
*****************************************************************
*IDE.exe (uncompressed) in RAR archive versus *
*IDE.exe (UPX max compressed): 10,951 bytes (10.7 KB) (0.01 MB) *
*****************************************************************
Conclusion
----------
You can save < 970 KB (taking in account memory usage
and file size) but at a cost of much greater memory
usage, added memory overhead (that goes against OS swap
file system) and slightly increased program loading time;
To me the disadvantages outweigh the small benefits.
If you compare the file size difference of a maximum
compressed executable versus a RAR archive with the
uncompressed executable in it, the difference is very
very small. If your clients don't wish to install an
archive utility program to read the archive format
(exa: RAR, ZIP, 7z) then create a SFX (self-extract)
executable which adds at most an additional 50 KB to the
archive. There is no benefit of compression encryption,
if a program cracker wanted to hex-edit your executable
easily, he or she could just decompress it back to it's
original context, the only guess work involved is figuring
out which EXE/DLL compression utility program was used,
and then use it's decompression option (that wouldn't be
hard, since UPX is one of the best and most popular).
So if you "do the math", you will realize that there really
isn't any good advantages to EXE/DLL compression, and only
offers more disadvantages then benefits. I do believe UPX is
among the best for its purpose,
but for a purpose not any better than any other compression
solution, and most likely worse! Why waste your time?
Regards,
Vincent
Without walls and fences, there is no need for Windows and Gates.
