flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Windows Freeware

Goto page 1, 2  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
pete



Joined: 20 Apr 2009
Posts: 110
pete
Often i find myself digging through some freeware sites to find life-comforting applications that fit my needs: small and fast, no fancy gui, not feature-blown. Here i post a link to a site where i picked two applications which i'm using for years now:
WoundedMoon

The applications i can recommend are in the Win32 section:
Popcorn (e-mail client) and the great TurboNavigator.
Post 23 Jul 2009, 07:43
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
rxantos



Joined: 19 Jul 2008
Posts: 41
rxantos
They seem to be nice applications, thanks for the tip.
Post 24 Jul 2009, 03:24
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Pirata Derek



Joined: 31 Oct 2008
Posts: 259
Location: Italy
Pirata Derek
The Popup Killer written in fasm is cool Very Happy
Post 24 Jul 2009, 12:57
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 9002
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
Pandora recovery, try bing or google it.
it works charm, and free.

btw, do you happen to know any freeware that could check duplicate files? same size and md5, something like that?
Post 02 Aug 2009, 12:40
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
I use Total Commander file manager to compare single files. Not free but the only thing it has is an annoying lag screen. I couldn't live on the computer without it, and with that crappy Windows Explorer.
Else there is "TreeComp" written in Pascal to compare directories.
Post 02 Aug 2009, 21:30
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 9002
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
i found a software clonespy, quite nice and works (fast also)
it compares files by calculating hash value of each files then compare them.
Post 03 Aug 2009, 18:11
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Why not byte-for-byte instead?
Post 03 Aug 2009, 19:32
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1159
Azu
Because most people don't use RAM drives to store their files on, so the seek time would add up to insane amounts (~10ms per byte.. times a few million bytes on average!), completely outweighing the benefit of stopping the hash calculation early on mismatches.
Post 03 Aug 2009, 20:40
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
Azu wrote:
Because most people don't use RAM drives to store their files on, so the seek time would add up to insane amounts (~10ms per byte.. times a few million bytes on average!), completely outweighing the benefit of stopping the hash calculation early on mismatches.
Not to mention that when you want to check a drive for duplicate files (as opposed to comparing two files for equality), checking hashes means less disk access than comparing bytes.

_________________
Image - carpe noctem
Post 05 Aug 2009, 12:05
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
f0dder wrote:
Azu wrote:
Because most people don't use RAM drives to store their files on, so the seek time would add up to insane amounts (~10ms per byte.. times a few million bytes on average!), completely outweighing the benefit of stopping the hash calculation early on mismatches.
Not to mention that when you want to check a drive for duplicate files (as opposed to comparing two files for equality), checking hashes means less disk access than comparing bytes.
Ever heard of caching?
Besides, hashes have to be computed too by reading through the entire file.

Two files may have the same hash(es) even if they are not the same. Statistically speaking, without taking real-life situations into account, the chances are pretty big. (but in real life they are very small indeed).

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 05 Aug 2009, 14:37
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1159
Azu
Borsuc wrote:
f0dder wrote:
Azu wrote:
Because most people don't use RAM drives to store their files on, so the seek time would add up to insane amounts (~10ms per byte.. times a few million bytes on average!), completely outweighing the benefit of stopping the hash calculation early on mismatches.
Not to mention that when you want to check a drive for duplicate files (as opposed to comparing two files for equality), checking hashes means less disk access than comparing bytes.
Besides, hashes have to be computed too by reading through the entire file.
The overhead of reading a file and calculating the hash for it would be nothing in comparison to the disk-seeking overhead of comparing files one byte at a time.

Borsuc wrote:
Two files may have the same hash(es) even if they are not the same. Statistically speaking, without taking real-life situations into account, the chances are pretty big. (but in real life they are very small indeed).
If you manage to find even one single collision in SHA-512, please share your discovery. It would be absolutely ground-breaking to the entire cryptography community.
Post 05 Aug 2009, 14:43
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
It's simple mathematics really.
SHA-512 has 64 bytes.

A file with e.g: 1 megabyte, has 1048576 bytes.

SHA-512 has 2^64*8 possible combinations of values. The 1MB sized file has 2^1048576*8.

Divide 2^64*8 by 2^1048576*8 and you get the chances (raw brute approximation), statistically speaking, for two files to have the same hash and be the same.

I think you'll find out it's a very low, very very very low, number. But this is just theoretically.
Post 05 Aug 2009, 14:59
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1159
Azu
Since when did you recognize theoretical problems?

Most of your posts recently (in other threads) have been calling anyone who does a paranoid freak, even when those chances were orders of magnitude higher than this one.
Post 05 Aug 2009, 15:08
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Borsuc wrote:
Statistically speaking, without taking real-life situations into account, the chances are pretty big [to have the same hash without being the same]. (but in real life they are very small indeed).
Smile

and I never said that this is a real-life situation. I only mentioned it for kicks and a possible (very rare) disadvantage of hash checks.
Post 05 Aug 2009, 15:10
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1159
Azu
Yet you refuse to admit the possibility of a (much more likely) hole in your own systems. Why, when you believe this? Confused
Post 05 Aug 2009, 15:15
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
You only have to compute and compare hashes for files of the same size - the risk of two same-size files leading to the same hash but having different content? Especially if we're talking real-life and not theory? Smile Smile Smile

As for disk caching... good luck solving disk thrashing on a small-memory system with large files.
Post 05 Aug 2009, 15:20
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Azu wrote:
Yet you refuse to admit the possibility of a (much more likely) hole in your own systems. Why, when you believe this? Confused
Who said I believe it? I just mentioned it.
And yes of course this isn't useful for low-memory systems, but then, it may be useful for systems with SSDs also.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 05 Aug 2009, 15:24
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1159
Azu
Borsuc wrote:
Azu wrote:
Yet you refuse to admit the possibility of a (much more likely) hole in your own systems. Why, when you believe this? Confused
Who said I believe it? I just mentioned it.
When you state something, it is implied that you believe it.



Borsuc wrote:
Azu wrote:
Because most people don't use RAM drives to store their files on,
And yes of course this isn't useful for low-memory systems, but then, it may be useful for systems with SSDs also.
Duh.. hence the "Because most people don't use RAM drives to store their files on," (all solid state drives use random access memory by definition).
Post 05 Aug 2009, 15:37
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
By RAM drive i thought you meant a ramdisk virtual drive on actual RAM (I use 1GB one for instance on B:), not a generic random access drive
Post 06 Aug 2009, 18:53
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1159
Azu
I meant drives based on randomly accessible memory do not have seeking concerns like most do.
Post 06 Aug 2009, 18:55
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
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 vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.