http://encode.narod.ru
Direct download link:
http://encode.narod.ru/chk103.zip
Key Features
- Optimized computation of CRC32, CRC64, MD4, MD5, SHA1, SHA256 and SHA512
- 100% portable - no installation or DLLs needed!
- 100% FREE!
To not modify the Windows Registry and not create config files. Probably, in future releases I should add the config file, but still CHK must be able to run from non-writable media.guinness wrote:Tested: Portable
Saves no settings, slightly strange when it provides options such as toggling the view, could you explain as to why encode? Thanks.
1. I did many comparisons during development - CHK is much faster (up to a few times) compared to a number of GUI-based hashing tools. The speed is the number one priority to me. Although my compiler (C++ Builder) is far from fastest, I've done lots of hand tuned optimizations. Even OpenSSL code is slower than mine on this compiler (since some OpenSSL "optimizations" simply degrade speed with BCB compiler). So, CHK is bloody fast, but some command-line hashing tools compiled with Intel C++ can be faster... Check it for yourself! And yeah, it's probably a good idea to add some speed comparison on CHK's homepage.webfork wrote:Very cool. Thanks for posting.
Few questions:
* You mention speed, but have you done any speed tests in comparison to other hashing tools.
* Any chance it'll do recursive checksums and verification?
* License? Is it OSS?
To check if a folder is writeable then look at DeviceIoControl.encode wrote:To not modify the Windows Registry and not create config files. Probably, in future releases I should add the config file, but still CHK must be able to run from non-writable media.
Tested this program against a few other hash tools on the site with SHA-1. My unscientific test was done with a 5 yr old dual-core intel processor. Did a very basic test under WinXP SP3.Check it for yourself!
Easily possible -- test was very basic.encode wrote:A quick note. On modern/adequate hardware the main bottleneck is the disk read time.
Anyone have any suggestions on how to run a test like this effectively?webfork wrote:Easily possible -- test was very basic.encode wrote:A quick note. On modern/adequate hardware the main bottleneck is the disk read time.