Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!gatech!prism!mailer.cc.fsu.edu!nu!boyd
From: boyd@nu.cs.fsu.edu (Mickey Boyd)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: New TOS versions
Message-ID: <1991May3.121259.16281@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>
Date: 3 May 91 16:23:59 GMT
References: <672747111.0@egsgate.FidoNet.Org> <3092@krafla.rhi.hi.is>
Reply-To: boyd@nu.cs.fsu.edu (Mickey Boyd)
Organization: Florida State University Computer Science Department
Lines: 25

In article <3092@krafla.rhi.hi.is>, adamd@rhi.hi.is (Adam David) writes:
>
>Doesn't Pinhead simply compress executables into a self-extracting form that
>takes less disk space and therefore less time to load?
>Is this what TOS 1.4 fastload does, or is there any benefit in using both
>methods?

No, you are thinking of Packer or DC Squish (or some variant therein).  What 
Pinhead does is prevent the clearing of memory before loading binaries.  Since
any well written program should not depend upon a blank "slate" to run 
correctly, this is safe and speeds up load time dramatically.  The TOS 1.4 
fastload bit does the same thing.  Note that some programs do depend upon 
"clean" memory to work.  Pinhead has a provision to allow for clearing of 
memory for only the programs that need it (and only the amount of memory 
that is needed).  I don't think Pinhead hurts anything in TOS 1.4, and it 
is more flexible than the fastload bit method.  I am sure this is discussed 
in detail in the Pinhead docs (I think 1.8 is the latest version).  It should
be on atari.archive.umich.edu.
--
    ---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
             Mickey R. Boyd          |  "Kirk to Enterprise.  All clear 
          FSU Computer Science       |      down here.  Beam down    
        Technical Support Group      |      yeoman Rand and a six-pack . ."
      email:  boyd@fsucs.cs.fsu.edu  |               
    ---------------------------------+-------------------------------------