Hi dragan,

>>When starting up from a 10 mb network, it sure makes a difference if you're loading a 10mb or a 1 mb executable, especially when the network is heavy used. The smaller the executable the faster it starts.

>Then you may think of using a minimal executable to start with, which would show only the main screen and whatever you want to have there, and then load smaller .app files for each of the modules. That way the end user wouldn't have to load the complete .exe - they would load only the parts they're really using. Another hint: make all the modules and the .exe itself read-only. Slow networks love that.

>Besides, why not copy the .exe to a local file, and run it from there, having only a little loader on the net, which would check the local version against the one on the server, and update as needed?

Well, In fact I already use those tricks. The point is that I don't like to have a 10 mb executable when it can be 1 mb as well. In fact I'm sending quite a few updates of executables through the internet in one day. I only have a 64/128 kbps modem, so sending large updates do take a lot of time to get through.

I also guess that using a small exe does consume less resources than a large one (the exe must be in memory). Especially on smaller systems this is important. You won't believe how many clients try to run my applications on WinnT 4.0 with only 32 MB internal memory.


I agree that it might be my obsession to create a as small as possible executable, but hey, everyone has its shortcommings.... ;-)

Walter,