Note that tce is a tgz but not a tcz.
oops... accidentally wrote tgz when I of course meant tcz. Hope my edits to original post have now fixed that.
It is up to the user how they want to run their system, and there will be differences depending on which extensions are used . . . The main point is that you'd save the most amount of memory if you do not store tcz's in RAM. You can choose whether or not to do so.
Yes, I accept that it is up to the user. However, my point is that TC "Core Concepts" appears to me to say that using tcz's instead of tce's simple will save RAM, when in practice, simply replacing tce's with tcz's doesn't seem to offer that advantage at all. If you simply populate your tce folder with tcz's and on grub kernel line have a tce=... option then there seems to be little (if any) RAM gain at all; without definite instructions I think many users may thus be mislead by the tcz "Core Concepts" description/claim.
Of course a user might use tclocal with tce's; in which case tce's will no longer be sitting in RAM but instead reside on a persistent location (so no advantage there in using tcz's either surely?)
So if Core Concepts doesn't indicate how to save RAM with tcz's, where is the possibility currently documented anywhere?
I presume one can loop mount a tcz from a persistent location, rather than it being mounted on [EDIT] /tmp/tcloop as occurs when using tcz's with grub kernel line option tce=... and not using tclocal.
[EDIT]
Perhaps I am simply stupid, but it seems to me that others continue to have inadequately answered misconceptions, brought about by the current TC documentation, regarding the advantages or otherwise of using tcz extensions, as in Kagashe's original post ("inadequate" purely in the sense of not being clarified in terms of tcz installation documentation):
http://forum.tinycorelinux.net/index.php?topic=231.0