Well, from my personal test with an unpacked exe that the betatesters have once had (probably still have) access to, UPX compresses the file better than ASPack does and I compared them just like JackFoo - untouched original exe (packed with ASPack) vs. unpacked exe now packed by UPX (ie I didn't pack anything with ASPack).
HTH
Roman
just curious...
Moderators: Hacker, petermad, Stefan2, white
-
ghisler(Author)
- Site Admin
- Posts: 50479
- Joined: 2003-02-04, 09:46 UTC
- Location: Switzerland
- Contact:
Yes, TC uses Aspack. It's not meant for protection at all - I would use a tool like Asprotect if I wanted this. I'm using Aspack because it shrinks the EXE more than CAB (and much more than ZIP). This has two advantages:
1. I can still ship the program on a floppy!
2. Users can copy the installed program to a floppy and take it with them, e.g. to use on other PCs.
Why I don't use UPX? It wasn't available in a stable enough version when I decided to pack the EXE. Now I don't want to risk to switch to it, because it would certainly cause again a lot of problems with virus scanners...
1. I can still ship the program on a floppy!
2. Users can copy the installed program to a floppy and take it with them, e.g. to use on other PCs.
Why I don't use UPX? It wasn't available in a stable enough version when I decided to pack the EXE. Now I don't want to risk to switch to it, because it would certainly cause again a lot of problems with virus scanners...
Author of Total Commander
https://www.ghisler.com
https://www.ghisler.com
2ghisler(Author)
I'm using UPX since many years. Usually i compress all Programmfiles (*.exe, *.com, *.dll, *.sys)
when they're distributed uncompressed in original state.
· to save space and thus time needed to defragment my Harddrive.
· a minor protection against some lame Viruses, which don't know how to handle compressed Programfiles.
Rest assured, that i never expirienced any suspicious virusscanner alarm with UPX-compressed files.
How about an alternate download containing TC-Distribution in uncompressed form.
This way everybody would have the freedom to choose their favorite compressiontool.
I'm using UPX since many years. Usually i compress all Programmfiles (*.exe, *.com, *.dll, *.sys)
when they're distributed uncompressed in original state.
· to save space and thus time needed to defragment my Harddrive.
· a minor protection against some lame Viruses, which don't know how to handle compressed Programfiles.
Rest assured, that i never expirienced any suspicious virusscanner alarm with UPX-compressed files.
How about an alternate download containing TC-Distribution in uncompressed form.
This way everybody would have the freedom to choose their favorite compressiontool.
-
fabiochelly
- Power Member
- Posts: 603
- Joined: 2003-02-05, 12:03 UTC
- Location: Rambouillet, France
Hi,
Before using UPX, I were using Aspack to compress the programs I distribute.
After several years, I can assure now that UPX-compressed exe are as stable or more stable than Aspacked ones and no virus scanner has ever reported a problem with my programs.
In fact, I think that UPX is also a better choice because it is open sources, and there is no way to know if Aspack doesn't add some tracing code or spy to your exe.
Before using UPX, I were using Aspack to compress the programs I distribute.
After several years, I can assure now that UPX-compressed exe are as stable or more stable than Aspacked ones and no virus scanner has ever reported a problem with my programs.
In fact, I think that UPX is also a better choice because it is open sources, and there is no way to know if Aspack doesn't add some tracing code or spy to your exe.
Fabio Chelly.
#60241
Lorsqu'on s'occupe d'informatique il faut faire comme les canards...
Paraître calme en surface et pédaler comme un forcené par en dessous
#60241
Lorsqu'on s'occupe d'informatique il faut faire comme les canards...
Paraître calme en surface et pédaler comme un forcené par en dessous
-
ghisler(Author)
- Site Admin
- Posts: 50479
- Joined: 2003-02-04, 09:46 UTC
- Location: Switzerland
- Contact:
Did you experience any slowdown in starting the EXE? Some virus scanners are very bad with this (with Aspack).After several years, I can assure now that UPX-compressed exe are as stable or more stable than Aspacked ones and no virus scanner has ever reported a problem with my programs.
Author of Total Commander
https://www.ghisler.com
https://www.ghisler.com
-
fabiochelly
- Power Member
- Posts: 603
- Joined: 2003-02-05, 12:03 UTC
- Location: Rambouillet, France
No, in fact, it depends on the size of the exe: if the exe is small, the load time is almost the same or a little slower (in ms) if compressed.
If the exe file is big (more than 3-5 MB), I saw that compressed exe load faster because unpacking in RAM is faster than reading a bigger file on a hard disk.
If the exe file is big (more than 3-5 MB), I saw that compressed exe load faster because unpacking in RAM is faster than reading a bigger file on a hard disk.
Fabio Chelly.
#60241
Lorsqu'on s'occupe d'informatique il faut faire comme les canards...
Paraître calme en surface et pédaler comme un forcené par en dessous
#60241
Lorsqu'on s'occupe d'informatique il faut faire comme les canards...
Paraître calme en surface et pédaler comme un forcené par en dessous
-
ghisler(Author)
- Site Admin
- Posts: 50479
- Joined: 2003-02-04, 09:46 UTC
- Location: Switzerland
- Contact:
Yes, this is the case with Aspack too - but only with good virus scanners. Some scanners seem to execute the unpack function in some sort of single step mode to detect virus activity, which is extremely slow...If the exe file is big (more than 3-5 MB), I saw that compressed exe load faster because unpacking in RAM is faster than reading a bigger file on a hard disk.
Author of Total Commander
https://www.ghisler.com
https://www.ghisler.com
-
fabiochelly
- Power Member
- Posts: 603
- Joined: 2003-02-05, 12:03 UTC
- Location: Rambouillet, France
It's just a guess, but UPX - being open source - might be easier for the scanner developpers to add support for, i.e. it might result in fewer problems.
As for the compression itself, I find it rather questionable... Sure, it makes the executables smaller - but on the other hand, it causes heavier occupation of the virtual memory, since the compressed executables cannot be swapped in directly from their image.
As for the compression itself, I find it rather questionable... Sure, it makes the executables smaller - but on the other hand, it causes heavier occupation of the virtual memory, since the compressed executables cannot be swapped in directly from their image.
"2. Users can copy the installed program to a floppy and take it with them"
i try to be as polite as i can because i extremely respect you
but i can't ask this question more politely:
why don't you get tc without aspack (and if there's really a crc protection - without it too) on ghisler.com too so users would be able to decide which version they want?
it's the same with irfanview. i tried to ask skiljan about unpacked executable but he must be very busy.
i try to be as polite as i can because i extremely respect you
but i can't ask this question more politely:
why don't you get tc without aspack (and if there's really a crc protection - without it too) on ghisler.com too so users would be able to decide which version they want?
it's the same with irfanview. i tried to ask skiljan about unpacked executable but he must be very busy.
-
ghisler(Author)
- Site Admin
- Posts: 50479
- Joined: 2003-02-04, 09:46 UTC
- Location: Switzerland
- Contact:
I have such a version, and I give the link to those who ask me about it. I don't want to link to it directly because I fear heavy traffic...why don't you get tc without aspack (and if there's really a crc protection - without it too) on ghisler.com too so users would be able to decide which version they want?
Author of Total Commander
https://www.ghisler.com
https://www.ghisler.com
i already sent a mail to support at ghisler.com but why are you afraid of heavy traffic on simtel.net and fileforum.betanews.com?ghisler(Author) wrote:I have such a version, and I give the link to those who ask me about it. I don't want to link to it directly because I fear heavy traffic...
have account owners a limit there?
-
ghisler(Author)
- Site Admin
- Posts: 50479
- Joined: 2003-02-04, 09:46 UTC
- Location: Switzerland
- Contact:
They will not host just an unpacked EXE, they only host whole programs.already sent a mail to support at ghisler.com but why are you afraid of heavy traffic on simtel.net and fileforum.betanews.com?
have account owners a limit there?
Author of Total Commander
https://www.ghisler.com
https://www.ghisler.com
I'd be happy to set up a subdomain on one of my domains that Christian can use to put up a mirror for the full versions as well as the unpacked version. I'm really not concerned about server load, and it might make simtel happy as well.
I'd even be willing to host ghisler.com totally for that matter (DNS update), and he'd get the usual full featured control panel to admin the domain.
As for UPX, I've got an autorun program that I wrote packed with UPX. The CDroms made with the program encorporating it now number over half a million already, and I've never once received feedback telling me that a client's CDrom didn't run.
Even the unstable development branch 1.90 I have several testprograms out there running that have so far not showed a single problem.
As for not packing, I see an advantage there in system memory used as packed executables don't have a common memory pool anymore. Each instance uses a full memory print. For me this has never posed a problem so far with TC, even with 4 copies open.
About taking along TC on a floppy (installed version), it will run as a registered version, and I suppose you could create a lnk file invoking totalcmd.exe /I=a:\Miller.ini /F=a:\MFtp.ini, so it has definite advantages.
Because TC doesn't complain about read-only ini files I mostly take it along on CDrom myself along with other tools (it jus't won't remember your last path, but since the point is running it elsewhere, not an issue).
I'd even be willing to host ghisler.com totally for that matter (DNS update), and he'd get the usual full featured control panel to admin the domain.
As for UPX, I've got an autorun program that I wrote packed with UPX. The CDroms made with the program encorporating it now number over half a million already, and I've never once received feedback telling me that a client's CDrom didn't run.
Even the unstable development branch 1.90 I have several testprograms out there running that have so far not showed a single problem.
As for not packing, I see an advantage there in system memory used as packed executables don't have a common memory pool anymore. Each instance uses a full memory print. For me this has never posed a problem so far with TC, even with 4 copies open.
About taking along TC on a floppy (installed version), it will run as a registered version, and I suppose you could create a lnk file invoking totalcmd.exe /I=a:\Miller.ini /F=a:\MFtp.ini, so it has definite advantages.
Because TC doesn't complain about read-only ini files I mostly take it along on CDrom myself along with other tools
(it jus't won't remember your last path, but since the point is running it elsewhere, not an issue).