Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!psuvax1!psuvm!cmh117
From: CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu (Charles Hannum)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: LZEXE - Is it too good to be true?
Message-ID: <90103.231205CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: 14 Apr 90 03:12:05 GMT
References: <4953@vanuata.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <10262@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
 <90101.182631GILLA@QUCDN.BITNET> <9960@yunexus.UUCP>
Organization: Penn State University
Lines: 20


In article <9960@yunexus.UUCP>, rreiner@yunexus.UUCP (Richard Reiner) says:
>
>                                              AXE, which is a (much
>slower) functional equivalent of LZEXE.

BTW:  The reason that AXE is much slower is that it uses a better compression
algorithm (generates smaller files), but in exchange sacrifices some of the
startup speed of LZEXE, which appears to do merely a simple LZW compression of
the executable.

I don't use AXE because it's just TOO damned slow.  But on a reasonably fast
machine, it might be worthwhile if it cuts the executable size down enough.


Virtually,
- Charles Martin Hannum II       "Klein bottle for sale ... inquire within."
    (That's Charles to you!)     "To life immortal!"
  Please send mail to:           "No noozzzz izzz netzzzsnoozzzzz..."
  hannum@haydn.psu.edu           "Mem'ry, all alone in the moonlight ..."