>It looks like we need to choose between:
>

>1. Include class libraries in compiled .EXE
>
>   Advantages:    - we can pack .VCXs any time
>                  - safer, changes made in a class will not break existing
>                    applications (I believe this is what Jim suggested)
>
>   Disadvantages: - changes made in a class are not visible to users until
>                    we recompile the .EXEs - about 100 in the system. And,
>                    to  pick up the new version users will need to go out
>                    and then back in the system
>                  - bigger size for .EXE
>
>2. Exclude class libraries from compiled .EXE
>
>   Advantages:    - changes made in a class are "live" - no need to
>                    recompile  the .EXEs
>                  - smaller size for .EXE
>
>   Disadvantages: - we can NOT pack .VCXs unless ask all users out - there can
>                    be 50 users in at any given time.
>
>

>
>Tough choice!

I don't think there should be a choice here, others have made excellent suggestions for better runtime techniques. After implementing those changes, EXE size is the only remaining issue. So, I would only add this the following:

Why do you need to reduce your EXE? In today's environment, EXEs can be quite large without adverse effects. And if you do for some reason need reduction, the VCXs should be among the last things to be excluded, not the first. There are a number of threads here on reducing EXEs, but a couple things: Pack VCXs. Exclude all reports, they are much easier to update on the side. Exclude data (DBCs, tables). Exclude images...