Re: dynamic module compression?
From: Bob I (birelan_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/14/05
- Next message: Bob I: "Re: System re-start"
- Previous message: Bruce Chambers: "Re: Dual boot Win 2000 and Win XP Pro"
- In reply to: Bill Baka: "dynamic module compression?"
- Next in thread: Bill Baka: "Re: dynamic module compression?"
- Reply: Bill Baka: "Re: dynamic module compression?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 08:01:37 -0600
The instructions need to be "uncompressed" for the CPU to process them.
The CPU would have to "compress AND decompress" for every pagefile
operation. PKlite is a "subset" of PKZIP which is still in use today.
Now IF you can't afford cheap memory and insist on using a 4500 rpm hard
drive and are running a 3.8 ghz HT cpu, then compressing the pagefile
may offer a speed increase. Otherwise upgrading the memory and not
loading every program that was on the HD at boottime is enough to get by
with todays hardware. Please be aware that there are various
"RAMboosters", "RAMoptimizers" etc. available to seperate you from your
money. You're better off buying memory with the money and they are a
waste of time and effort on todays hardware.
Bill Baka wrote:
> I was just wondering if anyone had ever heard of or thought of a way too
> compress dll's and exe's that are going into memory and sucking up so
> much of it. Poking around inside of most dll's there is mostly zeros for
> padding but they take up memory. Pkzip or winzip (winrar) will all
> compress most system files by a fairly large amount. Couldn't this be
> done on the fly by the CPU a whole lot faster than swapping to a disk? I
> mean what are all those GHz good for if you can't take advantage of
> them? Is this too obvious or just something Microsoft doesn't want to do
> so memory sales and bigger hard drives are always needed? Back in the
> days of DOS, like 1990, there was a program called pklite which
> compressed the files size on the hard drive. The files were then
> dynamically decompressed when called upon for a task.
>
> It sure would be nice to not have to have 512MB or more of memory for
> best performance and not have to use a hard disk swap at all.
>
> Any thoughts on this?
> Bill Baka
- Next message: Bob I: "Re: System re-start"
- Previous message: Bruce Chambers: "Re: Dual boot Win 2000 and Win XP Pro"
- In reply to: Bill Baka: "dynamic module compression?"
- Next in thread: Bill Baka: "Re: dynamic module compression?"
- Reply: Bill Baka: "Re: dynamic module compression?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
