I found out way to make self-extracting/self-installing package.

[watts289]

The following will show you how to use the Iexpress2.0 tool.

The tool allows you to make a self extracting file and much more : To play with this hidden feature of XP :

Navigate to : Windows\system32\

look for a file called iexpress.exe.

Double left click on it and follow the wizzard.

I copied it from www.tweakxp.com
so i am giving credit to them.

 

[Deleted member 3]

If only we had a software section for these things... Ah wait, we do.

 

[lemonadesoda]

EDITTED due to misunderstanding.

 

[Alec§taar]

The following will show you how to use the Iexpress2.0 tool.

The tool allows you to make a self extracting file and much more : To play with this hidden feature of XP :

Navigate to : Windows\system32\

look for a file called iexpress.exe.

Double left click on it and follow the wizzard.

I copied it from www.tweakxp.com
so i am giving credit to them.

Yes! It's a good "SFX" maker... & it works! I've messed around w/ it since the early turn of the century, & it does a decent enough job... plus, iirc, it works on the .cab file format, which again iirc? Is the MOST efficient compressor format, & gives you the SMALLEST files...

Is there a more efficient compression format than .cab? Possibly. It's just that I am not aware of it is all.

Fact is, A guy I know from the NTCompatible.com forums (DOSFreak) actually did a test a few years back (around 2001-2002) & it came out that his .cab format compressed files beat the major types like .zip, .rar, etc., iirc.

If you're interested, tell him "APK" sent you, & write him there, he WILL be there, he is/was a moderator @ those forums & probably still is, & will gladly respond to email inquiries (good person).

APK

 

[Deleted member 3]

@dan... postwhore

This topic was in the wrong forum, I had to move it. Plus, you post twice as much a day as I do, so if somebody is a postwhore it must be... you!

Considering I posted it to tell him it was in the wrong forum and you're just insulting me I would say I'm right on this issue.

There you have it, I'm witness, victim and victor. Some strange coincidence also makes me judge. I sentence you to shhhh and not to speak of this matter again.




@alec/watts
I'm not at liberty to try it myself right now. How efficient is the compression compared to lets say Winrar sfx?

 

[Alec§taar]

@alec/watts
I'm not at liberty to try it myself right now. How efficient is the compression compared to lets say Winrar sfx?

It was a pretty good boost over the "main types" out there like .rar, &/or .zip for example, specifics on HOW MUCH SO, elude me, but I was definitely left w/ the impression it WAS/IS superior for file compression.

Again - if you were to head over to NTCompatible.com & inquire w/ DosFreak? He'll probably be able to point you RIGHT to the posting where he did his testings... fair too, not just .txt files for example, but mixed data types iirc.

APK

 

[Deleted member 3]

It was a pretty good boost over the "main types" out there like .rar, &/or .zip for example, specifics on HOW MUCH SO, elude me, but I was definitely left w/ the impression it WAS/IS superior for file compression.

Again - if you were to head over to NTCompatible.com & inquire w/ DosFreak? He'll probably be able to point you RIGHT to the posting where he did his testings... fair too, not just .txt files for example, but mixed data types iirc.

APK

I'm skeptic, if it's really that much better files would be offered in that format everywhere. Though I'll give it a try one of these days and see how it handles big files.

 

[Alec§taar]

I'm skeptic, if it's really that much better files would be offered in that format everywhere. Though I'll give it a try one of these days and see how it handles big files.

It would be a GOOD experiment to try perform, for these forums, & yes, for yourself as well...

I would like to see your results if you do so, because if they are contrary to DosFreak's? I'll be the person to let him know!

... various things matter here/come into play:

Stuff like filetype used in compression tests for example (some stuff compresses great, like text form'd files for example, much space between words & repeat character strings etc.), but others like .exe files, tend not to compress as well!

(However, there are .exe compressors out there that make an executable load faster, & yet be smaller on disk (where they load faster, less to pickup from disk), but have to decompress in RAM (faster because CPU's today are SO fast @ this stage, just like for NTFS compression), but you can STILL run them like normal .exe files, no problem (well, sometimes, new XP SP 2 & Server 2003 SP 2 force you to put them on the "Advanced Data Protection" exceptions list))...

APK

 

[Deleted member 3]

Well it's a very simple test. Just compress all kinds of files. And note the results. Add a bit of magic and you have a conclusion.

Performance isn't really that relevant, unless the difference is huge. The claim is compression.

 

[Alec§taar]

Well it's a very simple test. Just compress all kinds of files. And note the results. Add a bit of magic and you have a conclusion.

Performance isn't really that relevant, unless the difference is huge. The claim is compression.

I agree, 110%, on ALL counts noted...



* It would be a GOOD test, & results are appreciated I am sure, by all viewers... just for the sake of knowing what is what here!

APK