From: "Damian Yerrick" <mail DOT me DOT at DOT your DOT own DOT risk AT pineight DOT 8m DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Why the executables r so big ????
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 11:26:52 -0500
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <7s0ekg$f09$1@solomon.cs.rose-hulman.edu>
References: <c_LD3.2608$_3 DOT 44552 AT news DOT tpnet DOT pl> <37E01676 DOT D74EEBDC AT pmail DOT net> <02e54bec DOT 79e180d5 AT usw-ex0102-016 DOT remarq DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: yerricde.laptop.rose-hulman.edu
X-Trace: solomon.cs.rose-hulman.edu 937672144 15369 137.112.205.146 (18 Sep 1999 16:29:04 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news AT cs DOT rose-hulman DOT edu
NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Sep 1999 16:29:04 GMT
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com


Varence <varence_NOfhSPAM AT hotmail DOT com> wrote in message
news:02e54bec DOT 79e180d5 AT usw-ex0102-016 DOT remarq 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.

But in most cases, it takes longer to read an unpacked binary from
a piece of spinning metal (a hard disk) than it takes to unpack a
UPX-packed binary.

Damian Yerrick
http://pineight.webjump.com/