Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!midway!gsbsun!valley
From: valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu (Doug Dougherty)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: PKLITE, what's the catch???
Keywords: PKLITE
Message-ID: <1991Jun26.141813.29418@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 26 Jun 91 14:18:13 GMT
References: <1991Jun26.012138.13729@mlb.semi.harris.com>
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (NewsMistress)
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 18

routh@eltanin.rtp.semi.harris.com (Kevin Routh x622) writes:

>I just got a neat program called PKLITE version 1.05 and have decreased
>my hard disk usage by 4 Meg.  What's tha catch (aside from the obvious
>extra second or two it take to load a exe)?  Are there any gotcha's
>associated with using PKLITE?  E-mail responses are fine, let's not
>clutter the net.

As far as I know, no catches.  Obviously, it doesn't work with some files.

What I'd like to know is what the comparison (on the usual criteria) is
between the various EXE compressors.  (Diet, PKlite, LHEXE)
I've been using LHEXE (I think that's the name; it seems to have slipped
my mind - ANyway, it's the one from France) and it seems to work OK.
Just wondering if any of the others are any better...
--

	(Another fine mess brought to you by valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu)