> It would probably even load faster to decompress it in ram.
An executable is not loaded into RAM completely and then started. It's memory mapped and only the parts that actually get used are loaded (when they are needed).
This is why large binaries get slower when you compress them, because then the demand-paging doesn't work anymore
I did the test with a 280mb Windows EXE some years ago, compressed down to like 70 megs or so but took multiple seconds longer to start up than the original
For some scenarios might make sense (running binaries across the network maybe) but in most cases an uncompressed binary will start up faster
An executable is not loaded into RAM completely and then started. It's memory mapped and only the parts that actually get used are loaded (when they are needed).
This is why large binaries get slower when you compress them, because then the demand-paging doesn't work anymore
I did the test with a 280mb Windows EXE some years ago, compressed down to like 70 megs or so but took multiple seconds longer to start up than the original
For some scenarios might make sense (running binaries across the network maybe) but in most cases an uncompressed binary will start up faster