AutoZip

[TuMbLeWeEd]

Take a look at this

MY 30th NEWB POST =D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This thing is very nice for learning purpose (did it myself, so i to learned it the hard way in my early days)

Compression is a very tricky

In the current form you will never get a file that is smaler then the original:

(that is AutoIt can't handle binary's well, so it's limitid to strings)

- it dous convert "AAAAAA" to "A(6) for strings, and strings are text, and text are words => i dont now of any words that have more then twice the same char => becommes only bigger then because "AA" wil become "A(2)" and that is twice the size

- now you should say hey, text has no binary data i can't read so if i convert to pure binary then it has some use because "11111100000111100010111" can be easely done this way because you have only got 2 char's (not realy, but ... ) to deal with.

Stuck again, try to write that result to a file and you'l now wat i mean.

I try'd some stuff back then in python that can handle binary files. I was tingking about: If i can convert a binaryfile to Text and keep the size +- the same and then ZIP it or somthing i was gonna get a file that was a lot smaler (compressing text is a huge size down). But NOPE, F*cç)àé"&é@##"éé damn

- now i was a bit stubburn (still am ) and dont wanted to give up so i made a hex pattern searcher, first of all: it not so easy to do and second: IT'S DAMN SLOW (did that in python, and it was 150 seconds for a 10mb file) and tird: the profits i made was as good as nothing. Did not get the filesize under 190% off the original, now when i zipped it it was somting off 98% of the original and that was only because i wrote the file in Hex so the zip util had only to binary the thing to get the size down.

SO NOTE: I GAVE UP (but it still crosses my mind occasionaly)

[rysiora]

want to know the truth? nobody will use AutoZip. normal zip is "better", don't you think?

[layer]

want to know the truth? nobody will use AutoZip. normal zip is "better", don't you think?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

that was the meanest first post I've ever seen

EDIT: we can now handle binary files with larrys great API*** UDF's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited June 25, 2005 by layer

[Zedna]

Discussion about Sleep(1):

I think Sleep(0) is the solution.

It will only process another messages if there are some

else it will do nothing. It is mentioned this way in WIN32 API help for Sleep.

This will not slow down your code and

allow some better behaviour during loop.

[ryeguy]

$begin = TimerInit()
for $i=1 to 1000000
next
$dif = TimerDiff($begin)
MsgBox(0,"Time Difference",$dif)

took 5949.24189010312 milliseconds

$begin = TimerInit()
for $i=1 to 1000000
sleep(0)
next
$dif = TimerDiff($begin)
MsgBox(0,"Time Difference",$dif)

took 11825.0478313068 milliseconds

The fact that autoit still calls the function still causes a delay. You guys need to remember that when you have this one process, it runs at 100% cpu usage. If you were to split it into 2, you would get 2 50% usage processes. They run at half the speed, but there's 2 of them - in the end you get the same result. I have had this idea and tried it too, and this is what I have concluded. Even if you added sleeps and used multiple proccesses, the fastest way to do this is still having one proccess with no sleeps - this is max cpu usage, the fastest.

The poster above tried to find a way to lower cpu usage while not making the execution slower - when the whole reason the cpu usage drops is because the script IS slower.