bsnes upx'd?

FitzRoy · Post by **FitzRoy** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:27 am

The curious in me just wants to know why, if bandwidth on his current host is so sparse that small gains from UPX are needed to conserve it, it is so hard to find a host where this is not an issue? Surely, the most generous thing you can do for a host who suffers from that extra 600mb a month is to find a host with whom it would not be a burden?

It's all rather confusing. Donations in the form of webspace are accepted from some and not others, then we hear problems concerning bandwidth that makes me think of stories my grandmother used to tell of having to use the same bathwater during the depression as her seven brothers before her...

Meanwhile, the size of bsnes has seen far more volatility due to images being included and removed, yet no mention of bandwidth problems in those cases, and UPX remains justifiable added complexity. I'm perplexed.

franpa · Post by **franpa** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:20 am

how is upx more complex?

FitzRoy · Post by **FitzRoy** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:47 am

Compression/decompression and everything that arises from it vs the absence of such?

mudlord · Post by **mudlord** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:54 am

Most people don't use upx at all.

How do you know that? A lot more apps use UPX and similar programs than you think.

I'm not stopping any of you using upx on a program and then upload it. I will resize it back after download it. To me upx is pointless to make programs smaller size when I can just zip it a lot faster.

And in that case I'll use something harder to reverse so you lamers don't interfere with my work. I might have to do that with the game trainers I am starting to write.....

Clements · Post by **Clements** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:05 am

The only program I've heard of that doesn't use UPX or a similar compressor is MAME. Everything else I've come across uses UPX or similar.

That's a whole lot of un-UPXing Dullaron must have done for effectively zero difference in performance.

Post by **Nach** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 8:00 am

Older versions of MAME used it.

One of the official UPX examples is also MAME.

http://upx.sourceforge.net/#examples

Dullaron · Post by **Dullaron** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 8:26 am

Ok guys I believe you. Sorry about that.

<From Haze> it increases memory usage (because the whole exe has to be loaded and decompressed rather than parts of it)

it reduces file size (which could save bandwidth)

it causes false-positive errors with virus scanners from time to time.

that's all there is to it.<end>

mudlord · Post by **mudlord** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 8:54 am

<From Haze> it increases memory usage (because the whole exe has to be loaded and decompressed rather than parts of it)

I seriously have to wonder Dullaron why you have a vendetta against UPX...I doubt anyone ran into RAM issues over UPX with bsnes yet....

I never thought something as simple as executable compression would spawn a debate over its use with BSNES. I mean....sheesh....

it causes false-positive errors with virus scanners from time to time.

Do we really have to care about end user's sensitivity, or can we just tell end users to be wary of false positives on some retarded AV packages? Do we as developers ultimately have to make up for some issues due to AV products. I seriously don't think so.

Dullaron · Post by **Dullaron** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:30 am

http://www.mameworld.info/ubbthreads/sh ... art=1&vc=1

This have nothing to do with bsnes.

You can see I did ask this. "Why it effect MAME builds?"

Sorry I didn't post the link when I post his reply.

mudlord · Post by **mudlord** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:47 am

Sorry I didn't post the link when I post his reply.

No probs, but it would have been helpful as then I would have known the context of the reply.

But still:

bsnes with UPX = no issue
MAME with UPX = potential for issues with memory usage

Nightcrawler · Post by **Nightcrawler** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:15 pm

FitzRoy wrote:The curious in me just wants to know why, if bandwidth on his current host is so sparse that small gains from UPX are needed to conserve it, it is so hard to find a host where this is not an issue? Surely, the most generous thing you can do for a host who suffers from that extra 600mb a month is to find a host with whom it would not be a burden?

It's all rather confusing. Donations in the form of webspace are accepted from some and not others, then we hear problems concerning bandwidth that makes me think of stories my grandmother used to tell of having to use the same bathwater during the depression as her seven brothers before her...

Meanwhile, the size of bsnes has seen far more volatility due to images being included and removed, yet no mention of bandwidth problems in those cases, and UPX remains justifiable added complexity. I'm perplexed.

I have to agree with your logic here. I don't care whether BSNES is UPX'd or not. However, it seems silly UPX and the extra 60k saving? is the center of the argument for conserving bandwidth. If there's not enough space or bandwidth for a file of that size, alternative free hosting should certainly be looked into.

tcaudilllg2 · Post by **tcaudilllg2** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:54 pm

I think he wants an assurance that it won't be taken down. Most filehosters have a very strict policy regarding anything having to do with emulators.

On the other hand... GoogleCode? Sourceforge? Emulators are hosted on Sourceforge, lots of them.

byuu · Post by **byuu** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:27 pm

(SourceForge || GoogleCode) + http://byuu.cinnamonpirate.com/bsnes/license/ ==

FitzRoy · Post by **FitzRoy** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:55 pm

tcaudilllg2 wrote:I think he wants an assurance that it won't be taken down. Most filehosters have a very strict policy regarding anything having to do with emulators.

On the other hand... GoogleCode? Sourceforge? Emulators are hosted on Sourceforge, lots of them.

Okay, so what kind of hosting does every other emulator use? I'm certain there are a myriad of hosting services in the world that are not paranoid about the legality of emulation. This would not be a difficult thing to find.

So the real issue is a personal and undisclosed preference that may or may not make sense to anyone else. Fine, there's nothing left to debate then. But let's not pretend.

Post by **grinvader** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:56 pm

byuu wrote:(SourceForge || GoogleCode) + http://byuu.cinnamonpirate.com/bsnes/license/ ==

Pandas are awesome even sad.
Does that mean googlecode + your site == awesome ?

>:D

funkyass · Post by **funkyass** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:58 pm

Nightcrawler wrote:
I have to agree with your logic here. I don't care whether BSNES is UPX'd or not. However, it seems silly UPX and the extra 60k saving? is the center of the argument for conserving bandwidth. If there's not enough space or bandwidth for a file of that size, alternative free hosting should certainly be looked into.

all the complexity currently is handled by byuu. So is the bandwidth. The only additional complexity undertaken beyond's byuu has been by nitpickers.

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:07 pm

funkyass wrote:all the complexity currently is handled by byuu. So is the bandwidth. The only additional complexity undertaken beyond's byuu has been by clueless nitpickers.

Fixed.

FitzRoy · Post by **FitzRoy** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:10 pm

Almost everything that goes on in these forums could be considered nitpicking. Why stop now?

But I don't disagree that suggestions can be made in a better manner than "byuu, don't do this."

bobthebuilder · Post by **bobthebuilder** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:20 pm

If I am close to 60 fps, would unpacking bsnes actually help

I guess the reason why this came up for bsnes and not other programs is that bsnes is awesome and nobody cares if their paint program is functioning as fast as possible

creaothceann · Post by **creaothceann** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:35 pm

UPX should affect only the startup time.

King Of Chaos · Post by **King Of Chaos** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:59 pm

bobthebuilder wrote:If I am close to 60 fps, would unpacking bsnes actually help I guess the reason why this came up for bsnes and not other programs is that bsnes is awesome and nobody cares if their paint program is functioning as fast as possible

Well, what settings are you using? There's some ways to potentially increase your speed, including using no filters and directdraw under system.video in the advanced section of bsnes' configuration.

bobthebuilder · Post by **bobthebuilder** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:17 pm

I know why I can't get 60fps, it is because I love the ntsc filter too much...

When zsnes has an official release with blarrgs sound core and video filter I will use it for my casual gaming with friends, but I will continue to use bsnes for my own purposes

Dullaron · Post by **Dullaron** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:34 pm

bobthebuilder wrote:MAME with UPX = potential for issues with memory usage

Maybe it have something to do with the size and coding limited? Like MAME is 29.1mb with a lot of coding.

Y~K · Post by **Y~K** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:52 pm

FitzRoy wrote:But I don't disagree that suggestions can be made in a better manner than "byuu, don't do this."

That's because I'm amazing!

ZH/Franky · Post by **ZH/Franky** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 6:13 pm

Dullaron wrote:
bobthebuilder wrote:MAME with UPX = potential for issues with memory usage
Maybe it have something to do with the size and coding limited? Like MAME is 29.1mb with a lot of coding.

Well, mame emulates multiple systems though, right?
I guess the huge filesize is pretty normal.