UPX File Packer

[Critux]

Hi All,

I was wondering if using UPX on system files decreases system performance?

(suggested to be used from the nano98 site)

Also, could anyone please email me the *three required Windows 95 files for nano98?

email address (spam free format):

critux at linuxmail dot org

* EXPLORER.EXE, COMDLG32.DLL and SHELL32.DLL

[Kelsenellenelvian]

No upx files do not slow down the system.

[eidenk]

I think I've read somewhere that a dll packed with UPX gets mapped in memory as many times as it is in use by processes whereas an unpacked one is only mapped once no matter how many processes are using it. I don't know if it is true. If it is, packed system dlls will use much more RAM than unpacked ones.

[phkninja]

eidenk: The quick answer is that yes you are right. According to the guys in redmiond this is the case. BUT most of the time you will find that Windows will not reallocte the space in memory to another program, or unlink the dlls fro the process queue, so you usually get the same dll in memeory numerous time anyway (cause they dont like writing code that returns memory top the heap). Instead they do their usual of "if it aint broken totally {if it will run even though its buggy} then just leave it and go to the next bug ridden piece of software".

[LLXX]

You may notice a barely perceptible decrease in speed when loading the DLLs/EXEs and while starting up the system, caused by the need to unpack in memory before it is run. However, once the DLL has been loaded, it will remain unpacked and function at the normal speed.

[somewan]

Hi All,

I was wondering if using UPX on system files decreases system performance?

(suggested to be used from the nano98 site)

It takes some time to uncompress compressed data, but my hunch

is that in practice, it's unlikely to ever take long enough to

be an issue on a 200 MHz or faster PC.

Remember that people used to compress their whole harddrives in

the heyday of Stacker and DoubleSpace and nevertheless found the

performance hit acceptable. The only complaint I can recall is

about the slowness of the DR-DOS disk compression on a 486DX-33Mhz.