Unpacked EXE Performance

Only forum where polls are allowed. You may announce a new poll in the matching support forum.

Moderators: Stefan2, white, sheep, Hacker

Post Reply

For those using the unpacked exe version of TC have you observed any performance/reliability advantages?

Only for speed.
6
22%
Only for reliability with antivirus sw etc.
6
22%
Both speed and reliability gains.
2
7%
No measurable changes so far!
13
48%
 
Total votes: 27

User avatar
pdavit
Power Member
Power Member
Posts: 1525
Joined: 2003-02-05, 21:41 UTC
Location: Kavala -> Greece -> Europe -> Earth -> Solar System -> Milky Way -> Space
Contact:

Unpacked EXE Performance

Post by *pdavit » 2004-04-24, 19:47 UTC

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
"My only reason for still using M$ Window$ as an OS is the existence of Total Commander!"
Christian Ghisler Rules!!!

User avatar
Flint
Power Member
Power Member
Posts: 3168
Joined: 2003-10-27, 09:25 UTC
Location: Moscow, Russia
Contact:

Post by *Flint » 2004-04-25, 10:56 UTC

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.
Flint's Homepage: Full TC Russification Package, VirtualDisk, NTFS Links, NoClose Replacer, and other stuff!
 
Using TC 9.21a / Win7 x64 SP1, Win10 x64

User avatar
ghisler(Author)
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 37555
Joined: 2003-02-04, 09:46 UTC
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Post by *ghisler(Author) » 2004-04-26, 18:43 UTC

For me, the packed version even loads a bit faster...
Author of Total Commander
http://www.ghisler.com

User avatar
pdavit
Power Member
Power Member
Posts: 1525
Joined: 2003-02-05, 21:41 UTC
Location: Kavala -> Greece -> Europe -> Earth -> Solar System -> Milky Way -> Space
Contact:

Post by *pdavit » 2004-04-27, 18:42 UTC

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".
"My only reason for still using M$ Window$ as an OS is the existence of Total Commander!"
Christian Ghisler Rules!!!

User avatar
Hacker
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11262
Joined: 2003-02-06, 14:56 UTC
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

Post by *Hacker » 2004-04-29, 17:45 UTC

Well, reading the packed version from disk should be faster by definition...

Roman
Mal angenommen, du drückst Strg+F, wählst die FTP-Verbindung (mit gespeichertem Passwort), klickst aber nicht auf Verbinden, sondern fällst tot um.

User avatar
Aezay
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 269
Joined: 2003-02-12, 07:27 UTC
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Post by *Aezay » 2004-04-29, 22:39 UTC

Whats the size of the unpacked version?

User avatar
pdavit
Power Member
Power Member
Posts: 1525
Joined: 2003-02-05, 21:41 UTC
Location: Kavala -> Greece -> Europe -> Earth -> Solar System -> Milky Way -> Space
Contact:

Post by *pdavit » 2004-04-30, 06:47 UTC

Aezay wrote:Whats the size of the unpacked version?
2Mb
"My only reason for still using M$ Window$ as an OS is the existence of Total Commander!"
Christian Ghisler Rules!!!

User avatar
white
Power Member
Power Member
Posts: 2020
Joined: 2003-11-19, 08:16 UTC
Location: Netherlands

Re: Unpacked EXE Performance

Post by *white » 2004-05-18, 14:38 UTC

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.

User avatar
pdavit
Power Member
Power Member
Posts: 1525
Joined: 2003-02-05, 21:41 UTC
Location: Kavala -> Greece -> Europe -> Earth -> Solar System -> Milky Way -> Space
Contact:

Post by *pdavit » 2004-05-18, 19:37 UTC

"My only reason for still using M$ Window$ as an OS is the existence of Total Commander!"
Christian Ghisler Rules!!!

stud
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 2004-06-04, 12:48 UTC

Post by *stud » 2004-06-07, 20:40 UTC

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.)

User avatar
Cartman
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 18
Joined: 2004-07-22, 08:42 UTC

Post by *Cartman » 2004-07-23, 12:03 UTC

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! :)
Dammit! I hate those treehuggin' hippies! ;)

Post Reply