You are here

UPX'ing firefox 2.0.0.1

11 posts / 0 new
Last post
0l0f
Offline
Last seen: 17 years 2 months ago
Joined: 2007-02-14 16:05
UPX'ing firefox 2.0.0.1

Have anyone else tried to UPX firefox 2.0.0.1?

Im getting this error:

File size Ratio Format Name
-------------------- ------ ----------- -----------
upx: firefox.exe: CantPackException: compressing certificate info is not support
ed

Packed 1 file: 0 ok, 1 error.

2.0 worked fine, are there any solution?

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 4 min ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
Signed Binary

It's a signed binary. UPX can't compress these without messing up the certificate. So, it won't compress them. There is no workaround I am aware of.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

0l0f
Offline
Last seen: 17 years 2 months ago
Joined: 2007-02-14 16:05
Argh... Im seriusly thinking

Argh...

Im seriusly thinking of moving to opera now firefox takes around 28mb with my extensions now.

cygnlith
Offline
Last seen: 17 years 2 months ago
Joined: 2007-01-31 21:25
Actually

You can compress signed binaries with the latest unstable beta versions of UPX.

0l0f
Offline
Last seen: 17 years 2 months ago
Joined: 2007-02-14 16:05
Thanks for the

Thanks for the information

And no 28mb is nothing today thats true, what i care about is how fast it starts.

Steve Lamerton
Steve Lamerton's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 7 months ago
Developer
Joined: 2005-12-10 15:22
Well,

I though UPX actually slowed executable startup time down because it had to decompress, although if true I guess that only an issues with slower pc's.

Yours

Steve Lamerton

m2
Offline
Last seen: 13 years 2 months ago
Joined: 2006-12-12 12:00
Yes and no.

To start application, OS needs to load it to memory. Because upxed executables are smaller - you need less time for that. But then comes decompression.
What's more important? It depends on the machine you're connected to. Slow CPU means slower decompression. USB 1 - slow load time. (Actually slow CPUs and USB 1 usually come together...)When you have some background calculations - decompression times will significantly grow. When you're moving some files from your usb drive - the same happens to load times.
From my experience: when you run from hard drive - uncompressed executable will start faster.
USB2 - it highly depends on your compressor, your drive speed, CPU. executables compressed with LZMA compression (most compressors use it: upx 2.9x beta, MEW, Upack, kkrunchy, PECompact) are slower. UPX 2.0 doesn't use LZMA, because of this it makes quite big executables, but decompresses them faster. It's still slightly slower then uncompressed exe. But it varies on executable (some files compress really well and then load time can be significantly reduced. Example: libethereal.dll 30 -> c.a. 3 MB)
USB 1.1 - uncompressed exe will hardly start fast. Even Upacked files(Upack has really slow decompression stub) files are usually faster.

"Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do." Asimov

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 4 min ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
UPX 2.0

That's why I use UPX 2.0 (no lzma). It's a solid balance of size and speed. And you shouldn't use 2.9 for production stuff (this right from the developer's mouth's).

Plus, you can't use any of the other app compressors on GPL/LGPL/etc binaries and redistribute. It's illegal.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 4 min ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
28M is big?

USB flash drives are getting cheaper and bigger on an almost weekly basis. To the point that we're around $10 per GB now. Most places don't even bother stocking anything smaller than 512MB... and they'll be ditching those sizes within a month or so. In another 6-12 months, 8GB and higher drives will be the norm. 16GB drives are already readily available for not too much of a premium over the $10 per GB rate.

So, while 28MB may have been big when 32MB drives were the norm, it's a different world now.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

Ryan McCue
Ryan McCue's picture
Offline
Last seen: 14 years 6 months ago
Joined: 2006-01-06 21:27
Speak for

yourself your country, I got a 512MB for AUD$50
----
Ryan McCue
Person 1: Oh my god. You will never believe what just happened.
Person 2: What?
Person 1: I can't remember, I've forgotten.

"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."

Steve Lamerton
Steve Lamerton's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 7 months ago
Developer
Joined: 2005-12-10 15:22
Well,

my shiny new drive cost me £9.50, which is US$18.53 or AU$23.54, not a bad price if I do say so myself Smile

Yours

Steve Lamerton

Log in or register to post comments