On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:51:08 GMT Tony Moore <old_coas...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> In fact, I'm using wireless 'broadband', which achieves about > 50KB/sec, but since its tariff is traffic based, I try to avoid > 'large' downloads. Ouch. Tricky to consider 50KB/sec broadband; but to then be charged extra! > > Do I need to write some sort of incremental upgrade downloader tool > > if downloading 2MB is a chore for people? I've been thinking about > > this for a while. > > The current download zipfile is 2492KB, whereas its zipped !RunImage > is 1636KB. Assuming that nothing else has changed, an incremental > upgrade would save about one third of the download time/size (unless > there is a way of patching the !RunImage file). This would be > helpful, but not as large a difference as might be expected. Binary patching of the !RunImage could be possible, with the likes of rsync. I'll try to investigate over the weekend. B.
