From: Varence <varence_NOfhSPAM AT hotmail DOT com>
Subject: Re: e: Why the executables r so big ????
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Message-ID: <02e54bec.79e180d5@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com>
Lines: 29
Bytes: 1033
X-Originating-Host: 203.56.239.113
Organization: http://www.remarq.com: The World's Usenet/Discussions Start Here
References: <c_LD3.2608$_3 DOT 44552 AT news DOT tpnet DOT pl> <37E01676 DOT D74EEBDC AT pmail DOT net>
X-Wren-Trace: eJq/l5aPyILJzI+AmtSYlrepgpCLk9uFk9iWlp7O0YrG0o/N2ojczdjKz8w=
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 11:35:34 -0700
NNTP-Posting-Host: 10.0.2.16
X-Complaints-To: wrenabuse AT remarq DOT com
X-Trace: WReNphoon3 937593201 10.0.2.16 (Fri, 17 Sep 1999 11:33:21 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 11:33:21 PDT
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

  Packers like UPX don't improve your binary's performance 
in any way.  They pack the binary (as the name suggests) so 
it's compressed.  It doesn't do any optimization on the 
code or change how the routines are used within it.  
    So essentially, not only does packing a binary not 
improve it's performance, it actually adds a small overhead 
at initialization for the unpacking process.


In article <37E01676 DOT D74EEBDC AT pmail DOT net>, Fredrick Backman 
<fredrick DOT backman AT pmail DOT net> wrote:
> Keep in mind though that the difference in 
> _performance_ may not improve
> very much if you make the .exe file smaller, IMHO the 
> main reason to go
> through this is (a) to make the download .ZIP file 
> smaller and (b) it's
> cool to have a 235kb exe rather than 700.
> Cheers
> Fred
> --
> Fred Backman
> Lead Wizard
> Binary Spells
> www.binaryspells.com


* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!