Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!star.cs.vu.nl!msschaa
From: msschaa@cs.vu.nl (Schaap MS)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: LZEXE - Is it too good to be true?
Message-ID: <6286@star.cs.vu.nl>
Date: 11 Apr 90 12:14:26 GMT
References: <4953@vanuata.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <10262@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <9770@yunexus.UUCP>
Sender: news@cs.vu.nl
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam
Lines: 24

In article <9770@yunexus.UUCP> rreiner@yunexus.UUCP (Richard Reiner) writes:
 >In article <4953@vanuata.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> pottera@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Alan T Potter) writes:
  >>I recently pulled down LZEXE91.(ARC? ZIP? - can't remember) from Simtel20.
  >>However, I am still wary - you don't get something like this for nothing!
  >>Are there any 'gotchas' I should beware of?  Does anyone have any bad
  >>experiences of using the system?
 >
 >It's just the usual case: you're trading speed for space.  The only
 >'gotcha', other than the incompatibility with software that keeps
 >overlays in the .exe file, is greatly increased startup time.  I'd
 >only reccomend this solution (and the other more elegant variants,
 >like Disk Doubler software, which compresses *all* files on the disk,
 >and hooks the disk read services to uncompress on demand) if you have
 >more cpu speed than disk space -- if you're running a 20M disk on a
 >386/33, for instance.
 >

I've used LZEXE a lot of times, (on an 8086 machine)
and I have never noticed more than about half a second delay
for loading an EXE file.

So that is definitely NO reason not to use LZEXE.

Michael.