Zarkov 6.55 Settings

[F.Huber]

A simple binary comparison shows that Zarkov 6.50 and 6.55 are indeed different, but with a very tiny difference only.
An educated guess would be that internal renaming was simply forgotten, because the change was so tiny.

I would say, 38947 bytes difference is not really a "very tiny difference"!

(about dates: you cannot rely on given dates, they could have been changed already long ago and the original date might be long gone,
after file operations, like zipping and unextracting, or moving to other HDs or whatever actions)

In principle you're right, but not for these 2 Zarkov files. With special tools (e.g. PEStudio) you can check the real creation dates (i.e. the compiler-stamps), and both versions were indeed created/compiled at their file dates.
Zarkov_650.exe is from 17.9.2011 and Zarkov_655.exe from 23.7.2011, i.e. Zarkov_655 is in fact almost 2 months older, so I'm sure this filename with '655' is just wrong (especially since the internal version is also '6.50').

[AdminX]

A simple binary comparison shows that Zarkov 6.50 and 6.55 are indeed different, but with a very tiny difference only.
An educated guess would be that internal renaming was simply forgotten, because the change was so tiny.

I would say, 38947 bytes difference is not really a "very tiny difference"!

(about dates: you cannot rely on given dates, they could have been changed already long ago and the original date might be long gone,
after file operations, like zipping and unextracting, or moving to other HDs or whatever actions)

In principle you're right, but not for these 2 Zarkov files. With special tools (e.g. PEStudio) you can check the real creation dates (i.e. the compiler-stamps), and both versions were indeed created/compiled at their file dates.
Zarkov_650.exe is from 17.9.2011 and Zarkov_655.exe from 23.7.2011, i.e. Zarkov_655 is in fact almost 2 months older, so I'm sure this filename with '655' is just wrong (especially since the internal version is also '6.50').

Wow, Thanks for putting me on to a new tool. I just added PEStudio 9.18 to my system. So I take it that this 6.50 might be incorrectly named.

[Guenther]

A simple binary comparison shows that Zarkov 6.50 and 6.55 are indeed different, but with a very tiny difference only.
An educated guess would be that internal renaming was simply forgotten, because the change was so tiny.

I would say, 38947 bytes difference is not really a "very tiny difference"! ;-)

(about dates: you cannot rely on given dates, they could have been changed already long ago and the original date might be long gone,
after file operations, like zipping and unextracting, or moving to other HDs or whatever actions)

In principle you're right, but not for these 2 Zarkov files. With special tools (e.g. PEStudio) you can check the real creation dates (i.e. the compiler-stamps), and both versions were indeed created/compiled at their file dates.
Zarkov_650.exe is from 17.9.2011 and Zarkov_655.exe from 23.7.2011, i.e. Zarkov_655 is in fact almost 2 months older, so I'm sure this filename with '655' is just wrong (especially since the internal version is also '6.50').

Hi Franz,

For me the file size for the Zarkov versions I had compared is identical, with 193.684 bytes (same as Ted)
and the diff is very tiny as given below by UltraEdit.

Code: Select all

Comparing: T:\Engines_Archive\Z\Zarkov\Zarkov_655.exe
To: T:\Engines_Archive\Z\Zarkov\Zarkov_650.exe
====
====
3	 <! +N
5	 <! ¸ÿÿÿÿééþÿÿèë¾
	 !> ¸ÿÿÿÿééþÿÿè»¾
	 !> ¸
	 !> ¸
13	 <! fƒ¸
	 !> ²
31	 <! 
45	 <! t¾À‰t$‰$è‡l
	 !> t¾À‰t$‰$èWl
55	 <! `
	 !>
 	 !> 
107	 <! ‰,$èÑù
	 !> ‰,$è¡ù
122	 <! èúm
	 !> èÊm
177	 <! éžûÿÿöÆ„9
178	 <! ê…Étñ…L$\t€å8„ñ
	 !> é®ûÿÿöÆ„
	 !> ê…Étñ…L$\t€å8„C
	 !> üÿÿkÓ4‹L$D‹f‰‚xøB
180	 <! €å0tLƒL$LƒÃ‹;…ÿuÅé¿üÿÿº2
	 !> €å0tLƒL$LƒÃ‹;…ÿu½éâüÿÿº2

Code: Select all

Datei: Zarkov_650.exe
SHA-256: e2e3b2abbaed0202ca81af7909a6e69858b3b9b033136e1e4992af310dd7a4ab
Datei: Zarkov_655.exe
SHA-256: 23f8f403ee2d58c096d61a06d12363c15b8455b9cdf5fd358e75c3d89c16daad

[Guenther]

A simple binary comparison shows that Zarkov 6.50 and 6.55 are indeed different, but with a very tiny difference only.
An educated guess would be that internal renaming was simply forgotten, because the change was so tiny.

I would say, 38947 bytes difference is not really a "very tiny difference"! ;-)

(about dates: you cannot rely on given dates, they could have been changed already long ago and the original date might be long gone,
after file operations, like zipping and unextracting, or moving to other HDs or whatever actions)

In principle you're right, but not for these 2 Zarkov files. With special tools (e.g. PEStudio) you can check the real creation dates (i.e. the compiler-stamps), and both versions were indeed created/compiled at their file dates.
Zarkov_650.exe is from 17.9.2011 and Zarkov_655.exe from 23.7.2011, i.e. Zarkov_655 is in fact almost 2 months older, so I'm sure this filename with '655' is just wrong (especially since the internal version is also '6.50').

Hi Franz,

For me the file size for the Zarkov versions I had compared is identical, with 193.684 bytes (same as Ted)
and the diff is very tiny as given below by UltraEdit.

Code: Select all

Comparing: T:\Engines_Archive\Z\Zarkov\Zarkov_655.exe
To: T:\Engines_Archive\Z\Zarkov\Zarkov_650.exe
====
====
3	 <! +N
5	 <! ¸ÿÿÿÿééþÿÿèë¾
	 !> ¸ÿÿÿÿééþÿÿè»¾
	 !> ¸
	 !> ¸
13	 <! fƒ¸
	 !> ²
31	 <! 
45	 <! t¾À‰t$‰$è‡l
	 !> t¾À‰t$‰$èWl
55	 <! `
	 !>
 	 !> 
107	 <! ‰,$èÑù
	 !> ‰,$è¡ù
122	 <! èúm
	 !> èÊm
177	 <! éžûÿÿöÆ„9
178	 <! ê…Étñ…L$\t€å8„ñ
	 !> é®ûÿÿöÆ„
	 !> ê…Étñ…L$\t€å8„C
	 !> üÿÿkÓ4‹L$D‹f‰‚xøB
180	 <! €å0tLƒL$LƒÃ‹;…ÿuÅé¿üÿÿº2
	 !> €å0tLƒL$LƒÃ‹;…ÿu½éâüÿÿº2

Code: Select all

Datei: Zarkov_650.exe
SHA-256: e2e3b2abbaed0202ca81af7909a6e69858b3b9b033136e1e4992af310dd7a4ab
Datei: Zarkov_655.exe
SHA-256: 23f8f403ee2d58c096d61a06d12363c15b8455b9cdf5fd358e75c3d89c16daad

Of course it is still possible that Frank once renamed one or both of them wrongly in the past before zipping.
(the '_655' and '_650' part)

[F.Huber]

Hi Guenther,

For me the file size for the Zarkov versions I had compared is identical, with 193.684 bytes (same as Ted)
and the diff is very tiny as given below by UltraEdit.

well, comparing binary files with a texteditor is not a good idea and doesn't give reliable results.
You can either use special tools for this purpose, or you can also do it with the program 'fc.exe',
which is included in all DOS and Windows versions - for these Zarkov files you could enter the
following command at the commandline:
fc /b Zarkov_650.exe Zarkov_655.exe > diff.txt
This makes a binary compile (/b) and stores the result in the file 'diff.txt' - in this file you can see
38947 lines of different bytes.

And about the filenames: also Zarkov_644 is not really 6.44 - it's internal version is 6.41, so the
filenames do not always match the right (internal) version (certainly just a mistake in renaming).

[Guenther]

Hi Guenther,

For me the file size for the Zarkov versions I had compared is identical, with 193.684 bytes (same as Ted)
and the diff is very tiny as given below by UltraEdit.

well, comparing binary files with a texteditor is not a good idea and doesn't give reliable results.
You can either use special tools for this purpose, or you can also do it with the program 'fc.exe',
which is included in all DOS and Windows versions - for these Zarkov files you could enter the
following command at the commandline:
fc /b Zarkov_650.exe Zarkov_655.exe > diff.txt
This makes a binary compile (/b) and stores the result in the file 'diff.txt' - in this file you can see
38947 lines of different bytes.

And about the filenames: also Zarkov_644 is not really 6.44 - it's internal version is 6.41, so the
filenames do not always match the right (internal) version (certainly just a mistake in renaming).

You are right, I thought UltraEdit would be good enough, as it is much more than an 'editor'.

Of course I had other tools handy here and I found that I had e.g. VBinDiff since very long
and it shows a lot of differences, but I did not remember how to save the diff file anymore.