It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Rixasha: Another thing I noticed; the Linux version tarball is 25% bigger than the Windows installer files combined, because .gz uses a compression algorithm from 1977. For this data, just using .xz instead of .gz with just the default options made the file size fairly comparable.

There may be parameters I didn't consider, such as speed of compression, memory use during decompression, or the cost of documentation. I'm fairly sure xz is supported by the target distros, though.
tarballs also have to contain libraries that are needed by the game, where the .deb installation files only need to contain the game and a list of the dependencies in order for apt to satisfy them. so that is another reason for their greater size.
avatar
Rixasha: Another thing I noticed; the Linux version tarball is 25% bigger than the Windows installer files combined, because .gz uses a compression algorithm from 1977. For this data, just using .xz instead of .gz with just the default options made the file size fairly comparable.

There may be parameters I didn't consider, such as speed of compression, memory use during decompression, or the cost of documentation. I'm fairly sure xz is supported by the target distros, though.
avatar
DaveyDarko: tarballs also have to contain libraries that are needed by the game, where the .deb installation files only need to contain the game and a list of the dependencies in order for apt to satisfy them. so that is another reason for their greater size.
Except that GOG doesn't package dependencies in tarballs as far as I know, it's a complete clone of the deb otherwise.
Post edited January 11, 2015 by shmerl
avatar
Rixasha: There may be parameters I didn't consider, such as speed of compression, memory use during decompression, or the cost of documentation. I'm fairly sure xz is supported by the target distros, though.
gzip has a large advantage in terms of decompression time. Somewhere around factor ~3 compared to lzma & co, if I recall correctly.
Though I personally would prefer smaller files as well, especially for those huge games like the witcher.
Memory usage isn't really an issue i think. Unless you are playing on a real retro-DOS PC with 32mb ram.
Post edited January 11, 2015 by immi101
avatar
Rixasha: There may be parameters I didn't consider, such as speed of compression, memory use during decompression, or the cost of documentation. I'm fairly sure xz is supported by the target distros, though.
avatar
immi101: gzip has a large advantage in terms of decompression time. Somewhere around factor ~3 compared to lzma & co, if I recall correctly.
Though I personally would prefer smaller files as well, especially for those huge games like the witcher.
Memory usage isn't really an issue i think. Unless you are playing on a real retro-DOS PC with 32mb ram.
Parallelized decompression helps a lot in case of lzma. I.e. using 4 or even 8 threads boosts it quite a bit. Recently xz supposedly released multithreaded compression and decompression (I didn't test it yet though).

Also, if we are talking about some major games of the size of Witcher 2 and bigger, RAM shouldn't be a concern. You wouldn't play them on low end computers anyway. And better compression matters much more for such massive games precisely. For small games the difference is negligible.
Post edited January 11, 2015 by shmerl
avatar
shmerl: Parallelized decompression helps a lot in case of lzma. I.e. using 4 or even 8 threads boosts it quite a bit. Recently xz supposedly released multithreaded compression and decompression (I didn't test it yet though).
there is also pigz - a multihreaded implementation of gzip ;)
and pbzip2 - a multithreaded rewrite of bzip2
though I have to admit I never closely looked at those.

and 7zip should support multiple cores as well.

anyone up for some benchmarking? :p
avatar
immi101: anyone up for some benchmarking? :p
I’ve done some quick comparison between gzip & xz there:
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/linux_support_on_gog/post1668
avatar
immi101: anyone up for some benchmarking? :p
You can see from w221's results that parallelized xz is pretty good, so there is no reason not to use it while at the same time gaining major size reduction.
Post edited January 11, 2015 by shmerl