Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!gatech!mcnc!rti!bcw
From: bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Windows installation disk compression?
Summary: Off the original thread ...
Message-ID: <1991Feb15.021050.11081@rti.rti.org>
Date: 15 Feb 91 02:10:50 GMT
References: <1991Feb10.193254.12810@novell.com>
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, RTP, NC
Lines: 33

In article <1991Feb10.193254.12810@novell.com>, tporczyk@na.excelan.com (Tony Porczyk) writes:
> In article <1991Feb8.041654.16071@rti.rti.org> bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright) writes:
> ->A couple of points about this issue of using .ZIP or .ARC -format
> ->files for distributing software:
> ->    1)	If you distribute just the archive, then the end-user will
> ->	have to get a copy of PKZIP/PKUNZIP or ARC or one of the other
> ->  [stuff deleted]
> ->    2)	If you distribute both the archive _and_ the unpacking
> ->	software, you will in all probability have to pay a licensing
> ->	fee to the company that makes the unpacking software.  I don't
> 
> 3) distribute self-extracting archive.
> 
> The next 2 pages do not apply.

Except that the original question was about why not use a standard
format like pkzip.  A self-extracting archive, although useful, is
not a standard format in the same sense as a .zip file.

Moreover, Windows is already distributed with a compression program,
and has a very fancy "self-extracting" script built into it.  I'm not
sure I see how your proposed solution is significantly different in
its effect from the current situation (granted that there is perhaps
a _minor_ difference in implementation, depending on how you define
the words "self-extracting archive").

Remember that if you do a simple-minded decompression of _all_ the 
Windows drivers and fonts whether the target PC has the required 
hardware or not, you will end up needing a _lot_ more disk space to 
store all that extra stuff on.  So you're likely to want to put some
intelligence into the extract code - not unlike the way it is now.

						Bruce C. Wright