though reading f0dder's "Packing, data handling, stuff - revision 2" posted above (thanks f0dder!) I wonder if I'll ever have use for upx.exe for the sorts of things I'm likely to do.
Keep in mind that I'm not flat-all-out-against exepacking - it makes sense, for instance, if you distribute small tools as .exe downloads rather than .zip (which isn't necessarily a good idea, but for some stuff it's convenient). Or if your application is designed to occupy very little space (fSekrit comes to mind, since it saves it's executable with every encrypted note you make).
But for most stuff, you really should let the user decide, for the reasons mentioned in my article. Oh, and I see that the article doesn't even mention Windows Terminal Servers
- even if your app is single-instance (and you thus don't expect much gain from code/data page sharing), on WTS it could be multiple-instance (across multiple user accounts, of course).
There's also the issue of virus scanners not just being anal about compression, but also scanning the files quite a bit slower than non-packed executables... I recall Jibz (iirc) being annoyed with FileZilla by default being compressed. And I've worked with machines slow enough that you could definitely
tell loading speed difference, at least when the machine had antivirus software running.
This is drifting slightly off-topic - I'm pretty good at that