> I vote no, if anyone's counting.
(A), It's not a vote,
> Stephan, if compressing it is that important to you, why not just compress
> your own copy?
(B), I have, but everyone should enjoy the benefits of having a smaller
Prime95 executable, as minor as they may be.
> It really sounds as though many of the resident list experts
> feel this is a bad idea.
(C), Some people were (and some still are) confused: packing an executable
does _not_ have to be undone by the end user; in fact, the end user need
never ever EVER know about it. There _are_no_drawbacks_. No compute cost,
no memory cost, only a space savings. Which isn't bad. Few things in life
come with no drawbacks. Take advantage of the ones that do.
Packed executables also have an advantage on networked systems: they can be
transmitted to other computers faster, thereby creating the illusion of
increased startup speed. Although I don't think Prime95 can be run this way
(it needs local copies, no?).
Stephan T. Lavavej
_________________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
