Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!ubvax!fred
From: fred@ubvax.UB.Com (Fred Noon)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: BinHex 4.0 vs. 5.0
Keywords: BinHex
Message-ID: <25350@ubvax.UB.Com>
Date: 22 Dec 89 02:58:52 GMT
References: <30103@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Reply-To: fred@ubvax.ub.com.UUCP (Fredrik Noon)
Organization: Ungermann-Bass Enterprises
Lines: 29

In article <30103@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> david@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (David Dantowitz)
writes:
>All the files I see here say MUST use BinHex 4.0.  I've seen 5.0 on some
>Macs... is this really 5.0?  Why isn't 5.0 used elsewhere?

I beleive that the explanation is that Stuffit's BinHex encode/decode works
by the 4.0, not the 5.0 algorithm.  (It also automatically puts that "(This
must be decoded . . ." message in there.)  The reasons for using 4.0 over
5.0 are:

	1) 4.0 files are ASCII graphic characters (mail programs like them)
	2) 5.0 is supposed to be a little buggy with checksums & possibly
	   other things.

In practice I assume most folks are not using BinHex at all, but rather
doing everything with Stuffit (which, since it can "do it all" -- almost --
is a reasonable stategey).  [BTW: I only have BinHex 5.0 myself.]

I hope that shareware Stuffit is still available: Lau went "commercial"
a short time ago and there is a commertial product hitting the streets
which, I guess, does more things for more $$$.  Stuffit's all I need.
[I paid my shareware fee for version 1.5.1 plus $2 for the next release
to be sent to me.  As it was never sent I assume that it never appeared.
Do I get my $2 back or do they send me the new product, I wonder?]

======================================================================
Fredrik Noon  (ubvax.ub.com!fred)
[If a 68k can't test-and-set then it must be a Macintosh.]
======================================================================