| |
Pitcher
Registered: Aug 2006
Posts: 61 |
What Packers and Crunchers?
Hi, after recently finding out my old c64 stuff i decided to have a mess, in the older days i used to use sledgehammer and cruel cruncher, are these still the best now? and whats the best versions?, thanks, james |
|
| |
CenTraX
Account closed
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 117 |
I prefer Exomizer V2.0 Beta 4 |
| |
QuasaR
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 145 |
On real hardware I use Beast-Link/64k (Beastlink by Oneway) and Byte Boiler 256k V1.0 (Byte Boiler, only usable with a REU, but then, nearly everything was crunched within 2 minutes!!).
As cross-cruncher there's Exomizer the one you should use! |
| |
Pitcher
Registered: Aug 2006
Posts: 61 |
Yes guys i meant on original 64 hardware |
| |
Zyron
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 2381 |
You have some nice stuff in Hackpack III. |
| |
Fungus
Registered: Sep 2002
Posts: 633 |
I am using my bugfixed version of Sledgehammer Sledgehammer V2.2
And Byteboiler/1way Hackpack IV
on the real machine.
I much prefer using only Exo now tho.
For leveling , levelab2 (also in hackpack 4), and good ole squeezer 2.2 :)
of coz, using exo here too these days.
If I HAVE to pack some memory below 0800 which normally is never the case, then I use unipacker 3.
|
| |
Richard
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 620 |
Recently, I seem to be using ECA Compactor/Linker V4/S (Compactor/Linker V4/S) and some other old tools for C64 stuff. But most of the time, I stick to cross-platform based tools, like PuCrunch and Exomizer. |
| |
Tao
Registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 115 |
Byte-Buster 4.1 + Byte-Boiler usually yields the best results in my experience. |
| |
HCL
Registered: Feb 2003
Posts: 719 |
ByteBoozer totally outperforms anything these days!! |
| |
Zyron
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 2381 |
Of course it does :) |
| |
Richard
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 620 |
Quote: ByteBoozer totally outperforms anything these days!!
Which version? The PC cross-platform version or the original C64 program version? |
| |
WVL
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 888 |
Quote: Which version? The PC cross-platform version or the original C64 program version?
They perform exactly the same..
still, lately I prefer my own packers bcoz of their depack speed. I used both of them for Trans*form, my favorite being Anim8 and Anim8DB (double buffer version).
Still working on a triple-buffer version, hope I can get it done soon :)
(btw, I also packed a lot of frames with ByteBoozer ;D) |
| |
HCL
Registered: Feb 2003
Posts: 719 |
@WVL: Are we talking *animations* here!??! You know it's COMMUNISM to do animations, real coders do everything realtime! |
| |
WVL
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 888 |
Quote: @WVL: Are we talking *animations* here!??! You know it's COMMUNISM to do animations, real coders do everything realtime!
OMG.. blasphemy! |
| |
algorithm
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 702 |
Using Packers on the C64 is hardcore to the extreme. Waiting hours and hours (sometimes over a day) to pack a 64k file
Exomizer seems the way to go (and it compresses data very well) |
| |
TWR
Account closed
Registered: Jan 2004
Posts: 187 |
Quote: Using Packers on the C64 is hardcore to the extreme. Waiting hours and hours (sometimes over a day) to pack a 64k file
Exomizer seems the way to go (and it compresses data very well)
Hours and hours? |
| |
Steppe
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 1510 |
And hours, right. Guess we all remember trying to pack that 199 blocks file to fit it onto the last disk with only 195 blocks free. At the end of the day it turned out to be 201 blocks big and we cursed the crap packer for it. :D |
| |
Graham
Account closed
Registered: Dec 2002
Posts: 990 |
Quote: Using Packers on the C64 is hardcore to the extreme. Waiting hours and hours (sometimes over a day) to pack a 64k file
Exomizer seems the way to go (and it compresses data very well)
"Hours and hours" maybe in 1992, but since the release of Byte Boiler in 1994 you only had to wait a minute.
Hackpack IV |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11165 |
not everyone had a reu though :=P |
| |
Burglar
Registered: Dec 2004
Posts: 1054 |
dont forget the cruncher ab (predecessor of byte boiler), able to pack 115 blocks (or so) very well and very quickly w/o a reu. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5034 |
lol, well you could go watch tv, or go out or anything instead of waiting hours and hours :) |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11165 |
...and then you come back and your mother tells you "oh btw your computer was still on, i have turned it off!".
ARGL |
| |
Steppe
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 1510 |
Always disconnect the power led internally! Then turn TV off and everything looks quiet and innocent. :D |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11165 |
yes that's what i learned to do then aswell :) |
| |
Tao
Registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 115 |
I managed to teach mom, dad, and my brothers how a cruncher screen looked like when blanked. It was so successful that I created a "fakecruncher" that I loaded and ran each time I didn't want to them to turn off the computer when coding something... |
| |
Graham
Account closed
Registered: Dec 2002
Posts: 990 |
My C64 cruncher history:
Super Packer -> Timecruncher -> Cruelcruncher -> The Cruncher AB -> Byte Boiler
Btw, before crunching a program it's usually a good idea to use an RLE-based packer before. This will speed up decrunching (since the more complicated crunching routines have less to decrunch) and often even makes the end-result smaller because the dictionary window gets virtually bigger. |
| |
Richard
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 620 |
I might be uploading a few more utilities (Not all crunchers of course), as soon as I find anything to contribute to CSDB
|
| |
WVL
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 888 |
btw, whenever I have to crunch the first file of a demo, or something else, I always use PuCrunch while developing.. PuCrunch is just so much faster than Exomizer.. (Sometimes I use Exomizer when I'm 100% done). |
| |
Graham
Account closed
Registered: Dec 2002
Posts: 990 |
PUCrunch has far too slow decrunching. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5034 |
yeah, soiled legacy has the long black screens coz of pucrunch :D I had no idea it will be that slow :-/ |
| |
WVL
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 888 |
Well, like I said, I only use it for the first file ;) |
| |
JackAsser
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 1997 |
I don't have any black screens while decrunching using pucrunch. Trick is to depack while loading. ;) |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5034 |
my coding style doesnt allows that as I mostly fill the mem with speedcode and tables :P |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5034 |
my coding style doesnt allows that as I mostly fill the mem with speedcode and tables :P |
| |
JackAsser
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 1997 |
@oswald: I thought u used code generators! ;) |
| |
Scroll
Registered: Jul 2006
Posts: 2 |
I seem to remember that Byte Boiler bugged once in a while (data was corrupted somehow, so it didn't decompress correctly), so I switched to The Cruncher AB, Darksqueezer and/or Pu-Crunch. |
| |
Pitcher
Registered: Aug 2006
Posts: 61 |
Can anyone recommend one that utilises the c-128??? |
| |
QuasaR
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 145 |
All of the named packers use the 2Mhz mode on a C128. So with a REU and a C128 you only need 1 (in words: one!) minute to pack nearly everything... |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5034 |
acessing the vdc mem is slow, but eventho +64k can make things much faster with a clever algorythm. |
