| |
AlexC
Registered: Jan 2008
Posts: 299 |
best cruncher running on c128
While everyone is using Exomizer those days on PCs I am wondering what was the best cruncher that could utilize fast mode of c128 (in c64 mode). |
|
... 16 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
Mace
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 1799 |
Quote:But whats the point really? Expansion of knowledge, I'd say. ;-) |
| |
algorithm
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 705 |
Yes, I agree that the person wants the answer to the query and gets answers which is great but almost feels like something such as.. 'How can i improve my typing speed to type the below faster..'
poke 49152,169
poke 49153,0
poke 49154,141
poke 49155,32
poke 49156,208
poke 40157,96
when a quick alternative would be something such as
m $c000 a9,00,8d,20,d0,60
Hihih. Just me in a funny mood. ignore ;-}
|
| |
Mace
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 1799 |
Quote:How can i improve my typing speed to type the below faster.. I believe there were people who could type this in screencodes, which might be even faster, but harder to know from the top of your head :-)
[inverse on]shift+q[inverse off]cbm+k ...etc... |
| |
algorithm
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 705 |
Quote: Quote:How can i improve my typing speed to type the below faster.. I believe there were people who could type this in screencodes, which might be even faster, but harder to know from the top of your head :-)
[inverse on]shift+q[inverse off]cbm+k ...etc...
By the time the commodore/shift key and combo keys are pressed together with the required key it would be faster just to type something such as 'a9' Just all for fun really. for productivity and anything decent, then assembler it is |
| |
Richard
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 621 |
Didn't Crest's version of the Cruncher AB use 2MHz? |
| |
The Shadow
Registered: Oct 2007
Posts: 304 |
There is a functional reason for using a Commodore based cruncher. It saves space. The Darksqueezer's decruncher uses only slightly more than a block of memory. If you are going to spend hours composing music, cracking a game, creating a demo then to spend an extra few minutes crunching it with a good Commodore cruncher is not that big a deal. Using a PC based cruncher only serves for a specific need such as the Gold version of Ultima IV. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
hu? and what exactly stops you from using exomizer for...anything else too? o_O |
| |
Mace
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 1799 |
Yeah, what Groepaz says.
I don't see why you wouldn't be able to use PuCrunch or Exomizer for anything that you'd want to do with a C64-based cruncher.
In fact, using Exomizer might be even easier if you're developing on a PC. |
| |
The Shadow
Registered: Oct 2007
Posts: 304 |
I have always admired the power of the Darksqueezer. Antitrack sent me this email a few months ago. I asked him how Darksqueezer compares to the PC based crunchers and he said...
Andy,
The idea for DSQ-REU-version emerged after going to the universities' "data
structures and algorithms" lectures. It flashed up in an instant, after learning what a
"chained list" is. Technically speaking, it is nothing new - data structures have been
around for much longer ; the inventors of LZW77/78 surely also had more memory
than an average c-64. ARJ, and LHA were around for *years* on Amiga and PC
computers before I transfered a tiny part of their ideas to the commodore world.
The first coding of it (i.e. most of what you are seeing in the article) just took 20
minutes on a weekend. Fascinated by the new gained crunching speed, I crunched
dozens of testfiles over and over and refined a few parameters for DSQ on the way,
whilst working on it. All REU-improved DSQ versions were done on a weekend in just
a couple of hours.
Exomizer can compete very well, but the problem is the decruncher. Its code is so
long, due to own Huffmann (and other) tables, that he almost fills the whole area
$0400-$0800. How many multiload games offer so much free memory?
Anyhow, the difference are typically just a few blocks or even just a few bytes, thus it is not really worth the trouble of transfering the data from PC to 64 and back IMHO.
Long time ago, Rockstar modified DSQ a bit so the decruncher would be smaller
than $0100 bytes. That's nice enough for extreme cases of lack of memory.
Compression wise, Exomizer can compete very well.
The bad thing about other PC crunchers like ARJ and ZIP is, they need extra
memory to decrunch. For example. if you want to decrunch a 60 kb file on the PC
using ARJ, he will need 60kb RAM for output and 60kb RAM as a scratchpad. We
don't have so much RAM inside the c-64. For the PC however, there is no such a
problem.
Yours
ATT
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
your point beeing? exomizer certainly gives a better result than pretty much any c64 based packer. (in a fraction of the time) and the depacker isnt quite as ridiculously huge as he says, i wonder where he got that number from :) (just look at the decruncher sources that come with it). and the same is true for pucrunch too (slightly worse pack results, but even shorter decruncher, and much faster packing and decrunching) |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 - Next |
