Page 1 of 1

Unpacked EXE Performance

Posted: 2004-04-24, 19:47 UTC
by pdavit
Unpacked version of Total Commander's executable file can be downloaded from our two unofficial plug-in sites: www.totalcmd.net and www.clubtotal.tk

Posted: 2004-04-25, 10:56 UTC
by Flint
I tried it, but found absolutely no changes. Maybe, my computer is too fast to see them (Athlon XP 1700+). Now I use the normal packed file from the full installation.

Posted: 2004-04-26, 18:43 UTC
by ghisler(Author)
For me, the packed version even loads a bit faster...

Posted: 2004-04-27, 18:42 UTC
by pdavit
ghisler(Author) wrote:For me, the packed version even loads a bit faster...
Hmmm! That's new! ;)

Ok, since AFAIK I cannot edit the poll options to add a new one you are free Christian to add a fifth option that should read something like: "Performance on my packed version is actually better".

Posted: 2004-04-29, 17:45 UTC
by Hacker
Well, reading the packed version from disk should be faster by definition...

Roman

Posted: 2004-04-29, 22:39 UTC
by Aezay
Whats the size of the unpacked version?

Posted: 2004-04-30, 06:47 UTC
by pdavit
Aezay wrote:Whats the size of the unpacked version?
2Mb

Re: Unpacked EXE Performance

Posted: 2004-05-18, 14:38 UTC
by white
pdavit wrote:Unpacked version of Total Commander's executable file can be downloaded from our two unofficial plug-in sites: www.totalcmd.net and www.clubtotal.tk
Where can I download it from www.totalcmd.net? I cannot find it.

Posted: 2004-05-18, 19:37 UTC
by pdavit

Posted: 2004-06-07, 20:40 UTC
by stud
Hacker wrote:Well, reading the packed version from disk should be faster by definition...
Probably not when there is a virus scanner active... Since many viruses spread in a packed form, the scanner will sometimes monitor the unpacking of the exe in memory in a sandbox.
Im using Norton Antivirus 2004, and running a P IV 2.4 Ghz with 1GB RAM, which should be fast enough, but still the unpacked version displays the main window in about half a second, while the packed version needs about a second. I dont think the unpacking itself needs as long.
(I did not ever measure this exactly, but i dont think that this is placebo.)

Posted: 2004-07-23, 12:03 UTC
by Cartman
From my experience with older computers (Pentium 1, Celeron 333) I never experienced any slowdown with packed EXE files.
I used to pack nearly _all_ EXE files with UPX due to my small harddisk.
Considering that computers nowadays are much faster, I think that packing makes EXEs load faster, because of the relatively slow harddisks.

@stud:
If you're using an "on-access-virus-scanner" all the time, you could buy a "100GHz Pentium X", and the thing still would be very slow.
These "on-access-virus-scanners" are IMHO a major pain in the a**!
If I scanned my whole PC once, why should I scan all the files all the time again and again and again and again and.....? That doesn't make sense to me.
When I download stuff, I certainly scan it by hand before running it, but I never use "on-access-virus-scanners". They drive me crazy.
But this is way OT! :)