baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) (11/06/90)
I have to say that in my opinion, Compactor seems to beat it hands down in terms of general ease of use, speed, and Multifinder friendliness. Archive sizes seem comparable, and in both you can double-click on folders to see their contents (something you couldn't do with the original Stuffit). But Compactor is fast as all get-out, even in the background, and Stuff Classic really just pokes along. (This is using Stuff Classic's default "Best Guess" mode). Ray Lau and Alladin seem to have spent a lot of time adding all sorts of bells and whistles to the Stuffit package, but I was astounded at how slowly it operates -- even on my FX. I'm also less than thrilled with the bloated size of the package itself (Compactor, including User's Guide and Release Notes, comes to about 140K; StuffIt Classic is well over 600K, including documentation), and the fact that the installer goes and creates two or three folders in my System Folder. Makes it difficult to give the program to someone else, since you have to remember to also give them the "Optimizers" folder and the "Help" folder, etc., etc. This is the first time I've used any version of the "Deluxe" package (I've been using 1.5.1 until now). I paid my Stuffit shareware fee a long time ago, but I don't have any intention of spending any more money on it -- at least until performance is improved. Compactor is small, fast, easy to use, and works well. What more do we want? -- Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart, Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you." baumgart@esquire.dpw.com | cmcl2!esquire!baumgart | - David Letterman
starta@tosh.UUCP (John Starta) (11/07/90)
baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) writes: > [...] > Makes it difficult to give the program to someone else, since you have > to remember to also give them the "Optimizers" folder and the "Help" > folder, etc., etc. Since Classic is distributed in the form of an installer, it would only make sense to give it to someone else in that form. It is distributed in that form to save space and to make sure you get the entire package each time. Why is that a negative in your book? John
baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) (11/07/90)
In article <kw48R1w163w@tosh.UUCP>, starta@tosh (John Starta) writes: >Since Classic is distributed in the form of an installer, it would only >make sense to give it to someone else in that form. It is distributed in >that form to save space and to make sure you get the entire package each >time. Why is that a negative in your book? > >John Because I don't want to keep the installer around after I've installed it (it does take up another 400K or thereabouts). So a friend stops by, says, "Gee, that looks like a useful utility. Can you make a copy for me?" and I have to remember to copy the application, its subfolder, the two folders it creates in the System folder, etc. I know it's not a big deal, but I prefer having the application and all its support files together. After all, what's the point of putting these things in the System folder? Most word processors and DTP packages keep their myriad dictionaries and printer definition files in subfolders within the application folder, and that seems to work fine. And certainly on an Appleshare network, it makes little sense to duplicate the Help and Optimizer files in everyone's System folders, rather than just having them live in one place on the server. Anyway, it's not a big deal, just a general inconvenience. And if all the files could live together in the same folder (or in sub-folders), you wouldn't *need* an installer in the first place. -- Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart, Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you." baumgart@esquire.dpw.com | cmcl2!esquire!baumgart | - David Letterman
spencer@osc.edu (Stephen N. Spencer) (11/07/90)
This talk of the StuffIt Classic installer installing three folders in the System Folder begs the question: Can StuffIt Classic be configured to look in the application folder rather than the System Folder for the three folders it now installs in the System Folder? It seems like a more compact solution to have one folder (say, the StuffItClassic folder) with the application and associated subfolders contained therein, though having them elsewhere is a reasonable alternative. Any ideas? steve -- Stephen N. Spencer | The hay's in the barn, boys. ACCAD, 1224 Kinnear Rd. | It's time to go hunting. Columbus OH 43212-1163 | - Hayden Fry before the Iowa/Illinois game spencer@cgrg.ohio-state.edu||71160.3141@compuserve.com||stephen_spencer@osu.edu
peter@hari.Viewlogic.COM (Peter Colby) (11/07/90)
In article <2787@esquire.dpw.com>, baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) writes: |> Because I don't want to keep the installer around after I've installed |> it (it does take up another 400K or thereabouts). So a friend stops |> by, says, "Gee, that looks like a useful utility. Can you make a copy |> for me?" and I have to remember to copy the application, its |> subfolder, the two folders it creates in the System folder, etc. Why not keep it around on a spare disk (I mean you DO keep "backup copies" of your software, right?. |> I know it's not a big deal, but I prefer having the application and |> all its support files together. After all, what's the point of |> putting these things in the System folder? Most word processors and |> DTP packages keep their myriad dictionaries and printer definition |> files in subfolders within the application folder, and that seems to |> work fine. And certainly on an Appleshare network, it makes little |> sense to duplicate the Help and Optimizer files in everyone's System |> folders, rather than just having them live in one place on the server. Actually, StuffIt Deluxe (which has the same support files issue) can find just about everything in the application folder thus making it unnecessary to keep stuff in the system folder. I believe the only exceptions (for SD) are the Magic Menu stuff and the Preferences file. I would try the same for StuffIt Classic as well. |> Anyway, it's not a big deal, just a general inconvenience. And if all |> the files could live together in the same folder (or in sub-folders), |> you wouldn't *need* an installer in the first place. There are other reasons for having an installer program - as mentioned, one is to ensure that the complete set of files for the program stays (unmodified) in one place. I personally HATE the installer for a number of other reasons (like it doesn't work for me, and I can't interrogate it to find out what files are there so I can decide what I need or what I happen to be missing from the last time it crapped out on me. Peter C -- (O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O) (O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O) (O) !the doctor is out! (O) (0) peter@viewlogic.com (0) (O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O) (O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)
jlhaferman@l_eld09.icaen.uiowa.edu (Jeff Haferman) (11/07/90)
From article <kw48R1w163w@tosh.UUCP>, by starta@tosh.UUCP (John Starta): > baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) writes: > >> [...] >> Makes it difficult to give the program to someone else, since you have >> to remember to also give them the "Optimizers" folder and the "Help" >> folder, etc., etc. > > Since Classic is distributed in the form of an installer, it would only > make sense to give it to someone else in that form. It is distributed in > that form to save space and to make sure you get the entire package each > time. Why is that a negative in your book? > > John It's a negative in my book because it takes up twice as much storage space to keep the StuffIt Classic Folder AND the Installer around. Also, what is it installing in my system file? And what if I should decide to throw StuffIt Classic away? My system file still has the StuffIt stuff in it. StuffIt Classic is way too large. StuffIt 1.5.1 suited me fine. I can't say I see any -major- improvements in Classic. Bigger isn't necessarily better. I too like Compactor's compact size. like it installing Jeff Haferman internet: jlhaferman@icaen.uiowa.edu Department of Mechanical Engineering DoD 0186 BMWMOA 44469 AMA 460140 University of Iowa Iowa City IA 52240
leonardr@svc.portal.com (Leonard Rosenthol) (11/08/90)
In article <2787@esquire.dpw.com>, baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) writes: > In article <kw48R1w163w@tosh.UUCP>, starta@tosh (John Starta) writes: > >Since Classic is distributed in the form of an installer, it would only > >make sense to give it to someone else in that form. It is distributed in > >that form to save space and to make sure you get the entire package each > >time. Why is that a negative in your book? > > > >John > > Because I don't want to keep the installer around after I've installed > it (it does take up another 400K or thereabouts). So a friend stops > by, says, "Gee, that looks like a useful utility. Can you make a copy > for me?" and I have to remember to copy the application, its > subfolder, the two folders it creates in the System folder, etc. > Ah, but like most publically distributable software, it comes with a redistribution notice stating that when redistributed it must include the following.....If someone were to ask for a copy of Compactor, for example, you include the docs, etc. like Bill asks for, don't you?? The Installer is nothing more than a special self-extractor (which is how Compactor is redistributed) - it just knows how to put files in other places. It is also useful as it is _ONE_ file that you can download, double-click on, and redistribute as is. No muss, no fuss, > I know it's not a big deal, but I prefer having the application and > all its support files together. After all, what's the point of > putting these things in the System folder? Most word processors and > DTP packages keep their myriad dictionaries and printer definition > files in subfolders within the application folder, and that seems to > work fine. And certainly on an Appleshare network, it makes little > sense to duplicate the Help and Optimizer files in everyone's System > folders, rather than just having them live in one place on the server. > There are a couple of reasons why the stuff is in the System Folder. One has to do with multiple uses - Since these files, obviously, have to be opened to use and if they were only one copy for many people, only one person could optimize or read help at a time. The System Folder is the where Apple has recommened putting files that might be used by more than one app at a time. Second is that these same files can be used by more than just Stuffit Classic - they are the same optimizers and such used by Stuffit Deluxe, Magic Menu and Shortcut and as such they need to be in a common location, which the System Folder definately is. If they were kept in the local folder, then you would have to keep lots of copies - and Shortcut couldn't find them easily. This way they are in one common location and everyone who wants them can find them! You will notice that most of the newer products which follow the Human Interface Guidelines, such as those from Claris, now put their dictionaries, etc. in the System Folder. If you don't like it, blame Apple it was all their idea ;-) -- Leonard Rosenthol Software Ventures Corp. MicroPhone II Development Team
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (11/08/90)
In article <2787@esquire.dpw.com> baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) writes: >>time. Why is that a negative in your book? > >Because I don't want to keep the installer around after I've installed >it (it does take up another 400K or thereabouts). So a friend stops >by, says, "Gee, that looks like a useful utility. Can you make a copy >for me?" and I have to remember to copy the application, its >subfolder, the two folders it creates in the System folder, etc. > >I know it's not a big deal, but I prefer having the application and >all its support files together. After all, what's the point of >Anyway, it's not a big deal, just a general inconvenience. And if all > Steve Baumgarten It seems to me that you would copy the Installer to a floppy, if someone wanted a copy of Stuffit Classic, you take out the floppy, and give him a copy of the Installer application, no pain, no strain. The reason that some of the files go into the system folder or into Folders therein is because of Apple guidelines to this effect if I recall. Preference files, Help files, etc... That way no matter where you move the Application, it can always find its support files. Sounds like a much easier way to handle things than what you propose, you seem to be advocating doing it the hard way..IMHO... -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM
jlhaferman@l_eld09.icaen.uiowa.edu (Jeff Haferman) (11/08/90)
From article <3129@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>, by jlhaferman@l_eld09.icaen.uiowa.edu (Jeff Haferman): > > It's a negative in my book because it takes up twice as much storage space > to keep the StuffIt Classic Folder AND the Installer around. Also, what > is it installing in my system file? And what if I should decide to throw > StuffIt Classic away? My system file still has the StuffIt stuff in it. > > StuffIt Classic is way too large. StuffIt 1.5.1 suited me fine. I can't > say I see any -major- improvements in Classic. Bigger isn't necessarily > better. I too like Compactor's compact size. > Correction on my original posting - it installs FOLDERS in the System Folder. I don't like this either, but what really gets me is that they are called "Help" and "Preferences". That's really dump. How about something like "StuffIt Help" and "StuffIt" preferences. Ray Lau must be getting silly at the ripe old age of 19. Jeff Haferman internet: jlhaferman@icaen.uiowa.edu Department of Mechanical Engineering DoD 0186 BMWMOA 44469 AMA 460140 University of Iowa Iowa City IA 52240
levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) (11/08/90)
In article <3132@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> jlhaferman@l_eld09.icaen.uiowa.edu (Jeff Haferman) writes: |Correction on my original posting - it installs FOLDERS in the System Folder. |I don't like this either, but what really gets me is that they are called |"Help" and "Preferences". That's really dump. How about something like |"StuffIt Help" and "StuffIt" preferences. Ray Lau must be getting silly |at the ripe old age of 19. Well, maybe, but I think actually he was looking ahead to the future, when "Help" and "Preferences" folders within the System folder are to be the standard place for all applications, thus reducing the incredible amount of clutter that a System folder can accumulate after a number of medium to large applications are installed. /JBL = Nets: levin@bbn.com | "I studied the tabletop. It had a nice mosaic or {...}!bbn!levin | pattern of black against green. POTS: (617)873-3463 | "'Well,' I said after a time. 'That really | sucks.'" --SKZB
dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) (11/08/90)
In article <3132@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> jlhaferman@l_eld09.icaen.uiowa.edu (Jeff Haferman) writes: >Correction on my original posting - it installs FOLDERS in the System Folder. >I don't like this either, but what really gets me is that they are called >"Help" and "Preferences". That's really dump. How about something like >"StuffIt Help" and "StuffIt" preferences. Ray Lau must be getting silly >at the ripe old age of 19. Someone mentioned this was because StuffIt follows Apple's new guidelines. I'm not familiar with the guidelines mentioned, but is it possible that Apple specifically recommends folders named "Help" and "Preferences", into which all such files (not just StuffIt's) go? If so, does the StuffIt installer always create these folders (boo, hiss), or does it use existing folders by this name, if such exist? If Apple recommends these two particular folders, and it catches on, that would go at least a little ways toward cleaning up the mess in my System Folder (which is the only one I can't trim down and organize reasonably), and I'm all for it. On the other hand, I really don't need a couple dozen extra "<Mumble> Help" and "<Mumble> Preferences" folders in there. -- Dave Matuszek (dave@prc.unisys.com) -- Unisys Corp. / Paoli Research Center / PO Box 517 / Paoli PA 19301 -- Any resemblance between my opinions and those of my employer is improbable. < You can put a mouse on an IBM. And you can put a radio on a motorcycle. >
starta@tosh.UUCP (John Starta) (11/08/90)
jlhaferman@l_eld09.icaen.uiowa.edu (Jeff Haferman) writes: > [...] > to keep the StuffIt Classic Folder AND the Installer around. Also, what > is it installing in my system file? And what if I should decide to throw > StuffIt Classic away? My system file still has the StuffIt stuff in it. StuffIt Classic doesn't install anything in your system FILE. It does however, place some folders in your system FOLDER. This is done so that Classic, Deluxe, Shortcut and Magic Menu can share the help files, the optimizer modules and the like. If for some reason you decide to remove Classic, all that is required is that you throw the application and some folders in the trash. No resources are within your system file. > StuffIt Classic is way too large. StuffIt 1.5.1 suited me fine. I can't > say I see any -major- improvements in Classic. Bigger isn't necessarily > better. I too like Compactor's compact size. That suits me. Enjoy! John
clarson@ux.acs.umn.edu (Chaz Larson) (11/08/90)
jlhaferman@l_eld09.icaen.uiowa.edu (Jeff Haferman) writes: |Correction on my original posting - it installs FOLDERS in the System Folder. |I don't like this either, but what really gets me is that they are called |"Help" and "Preferences". That's really dump. How about something like |"StuffIt Help" and "StuffIt" preferences. Ray Lau must be getting silly |at the ripe old age of 19. The generic name is so that if there is already a "Help" folder or a "Preferences" folder in your System Folder, the Stuffit Installer will just stick it's files in the existing folders, rather than cluttering up your System Folder with "Stuffit Help" and "Stuffit Preferences" folders in addition to all your other Help and Preferences folders. When I installed Stuffit Deluxe, I had already installed Disktop 4.0, which places a "Preferences" folder in my System Folder. Stuffit just used that one. As I understand it, this is the happening, System 7.0-studly way to behave. chaz -- Someone please release me from this trance. clarson@ux.acs.umn.edu AOL:Crowbone
ho@hoss.unl.edu (Tiny Bubbles...) (11/08/90)
In <3132@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> jlhaferman@l_eld09.icaen.uiowa.edu (Jeff Haferman) writes: >Correction on my original posting - it installs FOLDERS in the System Folder. >I don't like this either, but what really gets me is that they are called >"Help" and "Preferences". That's really dump. How about something like >"StuffIt Help" and "StuffIt" preferences. I agree wholeheartedly. If everyone were as bullheaded, and wrote programs which created "Help" folders in the System Folder, lots of programs would step on each others' help files. Trying to rename the folder caused StuffIt to lose track of the help file, so simply renaming it isn't an option. The best option we found at our site was to throw the rotten thing out. I just hope we got all the pieces. -- ... Michael Ho, University of Nebraska Internet: ho@hoss.unl.edu | "Mine... is the last voice that you will ever hear."
rahardj@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Budi Rahardjo) (11/08/90)
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) writes: ..... stuff deleted ..... >The reason that some of the files go into the system folder or into Folders >therein is because of Apple guidelines to this effect if I recall. Preference >files, Help files, etc... That way no matter where you move the Application, >it can always find its support files. Sounds like a much easier way to >handle things than what you propose, you seem to be advocating doing it >the hard way..IMHO... This creates problems for users like me who doesn't have a hard-drive. My boot disk (system folder) is getting bigger and bigger .... finally.. no space left !!. -- budi -- Budi Rahardjo <rahardj@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <rahard@ee.umanitoba.ca> Electrical Engineering - University of Manitoba - Canada
leonardr@svc.portal.com (Leonard Rosenthol) (11/08/90)
In article <1990Nov7.101621@hari.Viewlogic.COM>, peter@hari.Viewlogic.COM (Peter Colby) writes: > I personally HATE the installer for a number of other reasons (like it > doesn't work for me, and I can't interrogate it to find out what files > are there so I can decide what I need or what I happen to be missing from > the last time it crapped out on me. > You didn't hear this from me, but I will give away a secret...The Stuffit Classic Installer (and ANY OTHER product which uses the Aladdin Installer Technology) is really two parts. The data fork of the file is a standard Stuffit Deluxe Archive, while the resource fork contains that standard resources like CODE, etc. What this means is that you can open an Installer file with Stuffit (Classic/Deluxe) by doing either an Option-Open or choosing Show All from the Open Dialog. This will open the Installer up like any other archive and you can extract files manually to your hearts content! -- Leonard Rosenthol Software Ventures Corp. MicroPhone II Development Team
draphsor@elaine0.stanford.edu (Matt Rollefson) (11/08/90)
leonardr@svc.portal.com (Leonard Rosenthol) writes: > You didn't hear this from me, but I will give away a secret...The >Stuffit Classic Installer (and ANY OTHER product which uses the Aladdin >Installer Technology) is really two parts. The data fork of the file is >a standard Stuffit Deluxe Archive, while the resource fork contains that >standard resources like CODE, etc. This is a big surprise. But... > What this means is that you can open an Installer file with Stuffit >(Classic/Deluxe) by doing either an Option-Open or choosing Show All from >the Open Dialog. This will open the Installer up like any other archive >and you can extract files manually to your hearts content! That's all well and good, except that that means we need the program to open the installer to extract the program. Now, if the auto-extractor works to the extent that it always extracts the program, if not the help files, then that's great. If not, well we're sort of stuck, eh? >Leonard Rosenthol >Software Ventures Corp. >MicroPhone II Development Team -- Draphsor vo'drun-Aelf draphsor@portia.stanford.edu
klaus@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) (11/08/90)
Which system folder should those optimizer files be placed in? I don't have a system folder on the disk where my StuffIt is. The system disk I usually use it with is the one with Apple file exchange on it, and I don't want to clutter that one too much. Klaus Kristiansen
lsr@Apple.com (Larry Rosenstein) (11/09/90)
In article <15521@burdvax.PRC.Unisys.COM>, dave@PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) writes: > > Someone mentioned this was because StuffIt follows Apple's new > guidelines. I'm not familiar with the guidelines mentioned, but is it > possible that Apple specifically recommends folders named "Help" and > "Preferences", into which all such files (not just StuffIt's) go? Basically in System 7 there is a new Folder manager that can be used to locate folders such as the Preferences folder without hard-wiring the folder name. It also takes care of creating the folder if it doesn't exist. The Folder Manager supports a Preferences folder, but there's no mention of a Help folder. I think the recommendation is to put any preference files in the Preferences folder; if there is more than 1 file, then the application should create its own folder within Preferences and store them there. One of the other useful folders in System 7 is one for storing temporary files. The system will automatically move temporary files into the trash when you boot. You can take them out of the trash if you need to recover them, otherwise they will be deleted. Larry
kenh@hscfsas1.harvard.edu (Ken Hancock) (11/10/90)
In article <3132@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> jlhaferman@l_eld09.icaen.uiowa.edu (Jeff Haferman) writes: > >Correction on my original posting - it installs FOLDERS in the System Folder. >I don't like this either, but what really gets me is that they are called >"Help" and "Preferences". That's really dump. How about something like >"StuffIt Help" and "StuffIt" preferences. Ray Lau must be getting silly >at the ripe old age of 19. Actually, this is one of the only things I'd care to defend. System 7.0 will do the same thing to save System Folder clutter. All Preferences files will go in a Preferences folder, all Help files will go in a Help folder. Ray did that part of it right, at least. StuffIt is deadly slow, as someone said. I ran it on a IIci in Finder, so it had 8 megs to work with. The smart thing to do would be do allocate a large input buffer and a large output buffer -- I should see very little disk access. Instead, I see almost constant disk access. Supposedly, StuffIt Deluxe users (myself included) have been promised a faster version RSN. I can only say I hope so... Ken -- Ken Hancock | INTERNET: kenh@hscfsas1.harvard.edu Isle Systems | Disclaimer: My opinions are mine, Macintosh Consulting | your opinions are yours. Simple, isn't it?
ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) (11/10/90)
In article <1990Nov8.004050.2653@ccu.umanitoba.ca> rahardj@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Budi Rahardjo) writes: >ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM (Norman Goodger) writes: >..... stuff deleted ..... >>The reason that some of the files go into the system folder or into Folders >>therein is because of Apple guidelines to this effect if I recall. Preference >>files, Help files, etc... That way no matter where you move the Application, >>it can always find its support files. Sounds like a much easier way to >>handle things than what you propose, you seem to be advocating doing it >>the hard way..IMHO... > >This creates problems for users like me who doesn't have a hard-drive. >My boot disk (system folder) is getting bigger and bigger .... finally.. >no space left !!. >-- budi Budi, if you are trying to use any number of utilities today without a hard disk, that is unfortunately your problem. To try and strap developers into considering the minority of users that have not purchased a hard drive (considering the cost is very reasonable now) does not seem all that viable. Very few applications will run with all their files without a hard disk. Its almost a requirement now to buy a computer with one IMHO... ---- -- Norm Goodger SysOp - MacInfo BBS @415-795-8862 3Com Corp. Co-SysOp FreeSoft RT - GEnie. Enterprise Systems Division (I disclaim anything and everything) UUCP: {3comvax,auspex,sun}!bridge2!ngg Internet: ngg@bridge2.ESD.3Com.COM
jsp@key.COM (James Preston) (11/13/90)
In article <1990Nov7.101621@hari.Viewlogic.COM> peter@hari.Viewlogic.COM (Peter Colby) writes: >In article <2787@esquire.dpw.com>, baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve >Baumgarten) writes: >|> Because I don't want to keep the installer around after I've >installed >|> it (it does take up another 400K or thereabouts). > >Why not keep it around on a spare disk (I mean you DO keep "backup >copies" >of your software, right?. Peter, you remind me of that old joke where the guy goes to the doctor and says, "Doc, it hurts when I do this." And the doctor replies, "Then don't do that!" I hope this doesn't sound like a flame, but you've really hit one of my pet peeves here. All Steve is saying is that in his world, with the way he is used to doing things, the installer is inconvenient. You are trying to tell him that if he only did things your way, he wouldn't have a problem. That's not really very helpful. I mean, you're telling him that keeping the installer around on a floppy "should" be no problem. But maybe the guy has a tape backup onto which he regularly dumps his hard disc, and he keeps on his hard disc only that which he needs. In that case, having to keep the stuffit installer around means either wasting space on the hard disc, or changing his backup startegy to keep this ONE thing on a floppy. The point is not that there exists a solution to his problem, the point is that he is the one who gets to decide if something is inconvenient or not FOR HIM. --James Preston