No it's not the title of STRANGER, but yes I would say that I am a little put off by what appears to be your first post on this board.

Quote:

Not sure I understand the continual increase in size of the KIX executable over time. Are the developers getting lazy on optimization?



As I view it, that is a personal attack on the author whom I hold in high regards. Thus I would initially maybe have wanted to attack you back, but I did not. I pointed out (imho) what I felt were the tasks/issues/drawback/time involvment with using a Compression Algorithm against KiXtart. Now you seem to have switched course a little and are asking for two versions of KiXtart, which I originally did not reply to you about.

Again, I'm not saying that Ruud can't do such, but rather I do know that his time is VERY limited as he is no longer allowed to work on KiXtart at work, so just like many of us I would assume he has to balance his personal life with his family and work as well as his hobby (KiXtart).

I'm sure though that he might be quite willing to drop support for Windows 9x and leave current users of KiXtart at version 4.22 (but agian that is my opinion and may not be shared by Ruud)

Not trying to "argue" with you, just that I don't see much merit myself in your FIRST posting about compression, but I do agree there is merit in the idea of dropping Windows 9x support (not so much for the decrease in file size, but perhaps in allowing better/faster things to be done for the NT/2000/XP/2003 class of systems), in fact it would probably be great to quit supporting NT 4 as well, but think there is still a LOT of those systems around the World, but again maybe leaving NT 4 at v4.22 of KiXtart might not be such a bad idea either. After all it is quite a great little scripting engine as it currently is at 4.22

I apologize if you felt that I was attacking you personally as that was not my intent, but rather was meaning to point out that I did not see proof of merit for what you were asking and don't recall other users sharing the same issue either. That is why I see/saw it as something almost like the OS Holy Wars. Sort of like: "Gee, have you tried this cool new little toy, it's that best thing since sliced bread., Come on guys, you've got to try it." You didn't present it as a legitimate issue as I recall since you then went on to say how much bandwidth you did have, so agian I find/found it difficult to believe there is a real issue here that needs to be solved.

I do agree on the dropping of Windows 9x support and even NT from a going forward point of view and maybe a new topic for such should be started, but I still find it difficult to find a real need for the author to go out of his way to try and decrease the file size by such a small amount.