Well, it arrived at 8:30 this morning. Don't suppose 9 hours is *that* bad. :)
1. Molebox handles all type of file, from WAV to DLL - even subfolders. Yours just seems to do images.
2. Molebox compresses, yours doesn't.
3. Molebox has an easy to use GUI. Yours doesn't.
4. Molebox unpacking/decompression is very fast. Your is slow and will be even slower the bigger the files are.
5. Molebox encrypts. Yours doesn't.
6. Molebox allows external data files. Yours doesn't.
7. Molebox requires no additional coding/re-compiles. Yours does.
No offence, but slapping a GUI on the front of that won't make it worth $9. Perhaps you should explore what exactly Molebox does before you dismiss it as inferior to your Blitz efforts? Because Molebox really is far superior to your code, and to Terabit's Pak utility.
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL 99$
here is my free source:
www.blitzbase.de/quellcode/exepacker.bb
The obvious differences being:here is my free source:
www.blitzbase.de/quellcode/exepacker.bb
1. Molebox handles all type of file, from WAV to DLL - even subfolders. Yours just seems to do images.
2. Molebox compresses, yours doesn't.
3. Molebox has an easy to use GUI. Yours doesn't.
4. Molebox unpacking/decompression is very fast. Your is slow and will be even slower the bigger the files are.
5. Molebox encrypts. Yours doesn't.
6. Molebox allows external data files. Yours doesn't.
7. Molebox requires no additional coding/re-compiles. Yours does.
No offence, but slapping a GUI on the front of that won't make it worth $9. Perhaps you should explore what exactly Molebox does before you dismiss it as inferior to your Blitz efforts? Because Molebox really is far superior to your code, and to Terabit's Pak utility.