This site is no longer active and is available for archival purposes only. Registration and login is disabled.

WinCE PE Compactor?


Postby Arisme » May 5, 2005 @ 3:26pm

Arisme
pm Insider
 
Posts: 1453
Joined: Jan 27, 2002 @ 1:07am
Location: France


Postby diProtector » Dec 15, 2005 @ 11:01am

Try diProtector - software protection against reverse engineering on different platforms for PDA developers (http://www.diprotector.com)
diProtector
pm Member
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Dec 15, 2005 @ 10:56am


Postby joshbu [MSFT] » Dec 20, 2005 @ 7:55pm

RE: Windows CE file system compression.

Windows CE supports 3 different 'compression' schemes (NONE, XPRESS, and LZX.) Each is a trade-off between decompression speed and compression rate. It's possible to use different schemes on different paritions within the flash, but usually things break down thus:

If the device has NOR flash, we recommend NONE for non-pageable code paritions (so they can XIP,) and possibly XPRESS for other code paritions or maybe still NONE if there is sufficent flash. If the OEM uses NONE all throughout, the entire OS can XIP, in which case there is no page pool, resulting in megabytes of RAM savings against a modest hit in code fetch time.

If the device has NAND flash (and most new ones do,) then compression is highly recommended, as you must block fetch for the flash part anyways.

Now, this really only applies to the OS paritions. I'm not really aware of anyone using compression on the user store parition, or on SD storage. I'll have to check to see if code executing from those paritions is even pageable.

I guess what I'm saying is don't rule out compaction because of the OS. On NAND espicaly, when data fetch is slower, there could be a load time advantage to be had.
joshbu AT microsoft dot-you-know-where
Windows CE Software Design Engineer

“This posting is provided “AS IS” with no warranties, and confers no rights.”
joshbu [MSFT]
pm Member
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Apr 10, 2004 @ 12:28am
Location: Redmond, WA


Postby fzammetti » Dec 20, 2005 @ 8:07pm

It should be noted that a classic packer is different, and has a different purpose usually, than OS-level file system compression.

The way packers work (or at least did last time I wrote one) is to take an executable, and basically encode the entire thing in some fashion (whether compressed, encrypted or both) and then put a "wrapper" executable around that which knows how to decompress the real executable.

I've never dealt with one on any version of Windows, my experience was all back in the DOS days (and the C64 days before that). There, it was pretty easy to do... once you compressed the real executable, your "decompaction" routine would just reverse the process and place the real executable into memory at an appropriate location (like DecompactionRoutineLength+1) and jump to the first instruction. I'm not sure how you do the same thing with a Windows PE, be it desktop or not, but the theory has to be essentially the same.

File system compression on the other hand... wait, it actually is the SAME THING, its just that the decompaction routine is built into the OS. As well as the compaction routine, and both are done on-the-fly.

Still, usually different goals though. Classic compactors were more about obfuscation than space saving. :)
...and so I said to Mr. Gates: "$640 billion should be enough for anyone!"
User avatar
fzammetti
pm Insider
 
Posts: 1496
Joined: Jun 4, 2002 @ 6:21pm
Location: Omnytex Technologies


Postby diProtector » Feb 8, 2006 @ 8:09pm

diProtector
pm Member
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Dec 15, 2005 @ 10:56am


Postby kornalius » Feb 8, 2006 @ 8:18pm

Regards,
Kornalius
President
ArianeSoft Inc.
http://www.arianesoft.ca
User avatar
kornalius
pm Member
 
Posts: 1704
Joined: Dec 9, 2003 @ 6:04pm
Location: Montreal, Québec, Canada


Postby diProtector » Feb 8, 2006 @ 8:23pm

diProtector
pm Member
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Dec 15, 2005 @ 10:56am


Postby mamaich » Feb 10, 2006 @ 2:18am

mamaich
pm Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Dec 14, 2004 @ 3:16am


Postby mamaich » Feb 10, 2006 @ 2:22am

mamaich
pm Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Dec 14, 2004 @ 3:16am


Postby diProtector » Feb 10, 2006 @ 8:40am

diProtector
pm Member
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Dec 15, 2005 @ 10:56am


Postby mamaich » Feb 12, 2006 @ 3:37am

mamaich
pm Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Dec 14, 2004 @ 3:16am


Postby diProtector » Feb 12, 2006 @ 8:44am

diProtector
pm Member
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Dec 15, 2005 @ 10:56am


Postby mamaich » Feb 13, 2006 @ 3:48am

Attachments
here.rar
broken files
(902.27 KiB) Downloaded 738 times
mamaich
pm Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Dec 14, 2004 @ 3:16am


Re: WinCE PE Compactor?

Postby mamaich » Mar 27, 2006 @ 4:00am

UPX is now updated to compress WinCE excecutables. Currently it can compress WM2003[se] apps without problems, WM5 apps can be compressed after some manual hacking.
mamaich
pm Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Dec 14, 2004 @ 3:16am


Re: WinCE PE Compactor?

Postby jaguard » Mar 27, 2006 @ 5:45am

jaguard
pm Member
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Mar 2, 2004 @ 6:45pm


PreviousNext

Return to Windows Mobile


Sort


Forum Description

A discussion forum for mobile device developers on the Windows Mobile platform. Any platform specific topics are welcome.

Moderators:

Dan East, sponge, Digby, David Horn, Kevin Gelso, RICoder

Forum permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

cron