1. DOS Translator Issues
- Posted by Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at gmail.com> Apr 15, 2005
- 429 views
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
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com> Apr 15, 2005
- 425 views
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
- 408 views
- 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
- 456 views
- 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
- Posted by "Juergen Luethje" <j.lue at gmx.de> Apr 16, 2005
- 416 views
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
- Posted by Vincent <darkvincentdude at yahoo.com> Apr 16, 2005
- 434 views
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
- Posted by OtterDad <otter at full-moon.com> Apr 16, 2005
- 421 views
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
- Posted by Vincent <darkvincentdude at yahoo.com> Apr 17, 2005
- 475 views
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.