XiTech KonXise

Is Xitech still around? I've sent them several Emails re: Konxise for VFP 9
with no response. Is Ver 1.1 compatible and if not what is not compatible.
On the Xitech website it says you need 1.2 for VFP 9. Any ideas and also
why are they not responding to Emails?

Perhaps there is another product that does what Konxise does. Anyone know?

Thanks,
Mike

Josh
Fri Jun 29 07:31:55 CDT 2007

They are not around;but they'll still take your money.
refox will compress & encrypt your exe's.
there's also defoxii that works well at protecting it from decryption

do not buy anything from xitech -- they've been "MIA" for years now.

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:42:39 GMT, "MikeA" <appell@appellsoftware.com> wrote:

>Is Xitech still around? I've sent them several Emails re: Konxise for VFP 9
>with no response. Is Ver 1.1 compatible and if not what is not compatible.
>On the Xitech website it says you need 1.2 for VFP 9. Any ideas and also
>why are they not responding to Emails?
>
>Perhaps there is another product that does what Konxise does. Anyone know?
>
>Thanks,
>Mike
>

MikeA
Fri Jun 29 11:30:09 CDT 2007

Darn - it's Konxise 1.2 that I'm looking for because it compresses and
encrypts the exe. It's mainly the compression I like. Any idea where I can
get the latest version of Konxise? It's my understanding that 1.1 is not
compatible with VFP 9.

Mike

"Josh Assing" <XjoshX@jAssing.com> wrote in message
news:aru983t5b7rqkersdk53mkg5e7bt2pcv96@4ax.com...
> They are not around;but they'll still take your money.
> refox will compress & encrypt your exe's.
> there's also defoxii that works well at protecting it from decryption
>
> do not buy anything from xitech -- they've been "MIA" for years now.
>
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:42:39 GMT, "MikeA" <appell@appellsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Is Xitech still around? I've sent them several Emails re: Konxise for VFP
>>9
>>with no response. Is Ver 1.1 compatible and if not what is not
>>compatible.
>>On the Xitech website it says you need 1.2 for VFP 9. Any ideas and also
>>why are they not responding to Emails?
>>
>>Perhaps there is another product that does what Konxise does. Anyone know?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Mike
>>
>

Tom
Fri Jun 29 11:57:51 CDT 2007

A simple Google search would do it

http://www.hallogram.com/konxise/?source=google&gclid=CPjX6tXlgY0CFSQYZAodz10YVg

"MikeA" <appell@appellsoftware.com> wrote in message
news:lsahi.19$q12.12@trnddc08...
> Darn - it's Konxise 1.2 that I'm looking for because it compresses and
> encrypts the exe. It's mainly the compression I like. Any idea where I
> can get the latest version of Konxise? It's my understanding that 1.1 is
> not compatible with VFP 9.
>
> Mike
>
> "Josh Assing" <XjoshX@jAssing.com> wrote in message
> news:aru983t5b7rqkersdk53mkg5e7bt2pcv96@4ax.com...
>> They are not around;but they'll still take your money.
>> refox will compress & encrypt your exe's.
>> there's also defoxii that works well at protecting it from decryption
>>
>> do not buy anything from xitech -- they've been "MIA" for years now.
>>
>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:42:39 GMT, "MikeA" <appell@appellsoftware.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Is Xitech still around? I've sent them several Emails re: Konxise for
>>>VFP 9
>>>with no response. Is Ver 1.1 compatible and if not what is not
>>>compatible.
>>>On the Xitech website it says you need 1.2 for VFP 9. Any ideas and also
>>>why are they not responding to Emails?
>>>
>>>Perhaps there is another product that does what Konxise does. Anyone
>>>know?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Mike
>>>
>>
>
>

MikeA
Fri Jun 29 12:17:51 CDT 2007

Sounds great but I may have to call them since it does not say the version
of Konxise.

Mike

"Tom Libby" <tlibby@bigblue-usaNOSPAMNOVIRUS.com> wrote in message
news:uKPCk6muHHA.4572@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>A simple Google search would do it
>
> http://www.hallogram.com/konxise/?source=google&gclid=CPjX6tXlgY0CFSQYZAodz10YVg
>
> "MikeA" <appell@appellsoftware.com> wrote in message
> news:lsahi.19$q12.12@trnddc08...
>> Darn - it's Konxise 1.2 that I'm looking for because it compresses and
>> encrypts the exe. It's mainly the compression I like. Any idea where I
>> can get the latest version of Konxise? It's my understanding that 1.1 is
>> not compatible with VFP 9.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> "Josh Assing" <XjoshX@jAssing.com> wrote in message
>> news:aru983t5b7rqkersdk53mkg5e7bt2pcv96@4ax.com...
>>> They are not around;but they'll still take your money.
>>> refox will compress & encrypt your exe's.
>>> there's also defoxii that works well at protecting it from decryption
>>>
>>> do not buy anything from xitech -- they've been "MIA" for years now.
>>>
>>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:42:39 GMT, "MikeA" <appell@appellsoftware.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Is Xitech still around? I've sent them several Emails re: Konxise for
>>>>VFP 9
>>>>with no response. Is Ver 1.1 compatible and if not what is not
>>>>compatible.
>>>>On the Xitech website it says you need 1.2 for VFP 9. Any ideas and
>>>>also
>>>>why are they not responding to Emails?
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps there is another product that does what Konxise does. Anyone
>>>>know?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>Mike
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Christof
Fri Jun 29 12:52:12 CDT 2007

Hi Mike,

> Darn - it's Konxise 1.2 that I'm looking for because it compresses and
> encrypts the exe

Refox does the same in the current versions with level III.
http://www.refox.net/

--
Christof

MikeA
Fri Jun 29 16:28:54 CDT 2007

I just got Refox and the compression is great. It appears that it brands
and compresses with Level 3. I have a few questions:

1. It appears that upon purchasing there are Emails sent so as to properly
license it. My concern is if I ever upgrade my computer to a new computer,
how can I reinstall it on another computer (assuming I at some point get rid
of my current computer or upgrade the OS). I don't want another Xitech
situation where Refox disappears in the future. I'm not sure just how easy
installation is without the company.

2. Seems that have two main modes of compression ZLIB and JCAL. They say
in the help file that JCAL has better compression but is slower. It's
definitely a lot slower to build the exe but the compression is much better.
I'm wondering if the final exe runs equally fast or is also slower with JCAL
than ZLIB? I would think that if the final exe runs about the same speed,
then one would always want to use JCAL for the final distribution exe.
Also, do both settings brand with equal security and how secure is the
branding?

Thanks,
Mike



"Christof Wollenhaupt" <msnews.microsoft.com.20050422@prolib.de> wrote in
message news:utLd5YnuHHA.3404@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi Mike,
>
>> Darn - it's Konxise 1.2 that I'm looking for because it compresses and
>> encrypts the exe
>
> Refox does the same in the current versions with level III.
> http://www.refox.net/
>
> --
> Christof
>
>

Josh
Fri Jun 29 18:40:21 CDT 2007

>1. It appears that upon purchasing there are Emails sent so as to properly
>license it. My concern is if I ever upgrade my computer to a new computer,
>how can I reinstall it on another computer (assuming I at some point get rid
>of my current computer or upgrade the OS). I don't want another Xitech
>situation where Refox disappears in the future. I'm not sure just how easy
>installation is without the company.

Jan is reasonable -- he'll grant you another license; but if your id starts
popping up for requests; he'll figure you've handed it out.

Jan is the author of refox; xitech licensed it from him - he's been around and
continues to develop it and is very responsive & helpful.

if you're really worried about; create a small win2k VirtualPC image and install
refox on it -- then archive that vhd to a dvd and save it... no problems then.

>2. Seems that have two main modes of compression ZLIB and JCAL. They say
>in the help file that JCAL has better compression but is slower. It's
>definitely a lot slower to build the exe but the compression is much better.
>I'm wondering if the final exe runs equally fast or is also slower with JCAL
>than ZLIB? I would think that if the final exe runs about the same speed,
>then one would always want to use JCAL for the final distribution exe.

Slower to compress, slower to decompress. you're not talking leaps and bounds
better; just mildly better... remember, you still have the vfp framework files
to distribute; so 1 meg vs. 1.5 megs in your exe is nothing.



>Also, do both settings brand with equal security and how secure is the
>branding?

at level 3 you cannnot get it back period.

Josh
Fri Jun 29 18:40:18 CDT 2007

PLEASE stop giving money to xitech -- they've pissed off all the people they
licensed their software from to the point they only have a fixed bit of sellable
items - they were a re-seller, not an actual development house.

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:57:51 -0400, "Tom Libby"
<tlibby@bigblue-usaNOSPAMNOVIRUS.com> wrote:

>A simple Google search would do it
>
>http://www.hallogram.com/konxise/?source=google&gclid=CPjX6tXlgY0CFSQYZAodz10YVg
>
>"MikeA" <appell@appellsoftware.com> wrote in message
>news:lsahi.19$q12.12@trnddc08...
>> Darn - it's Konxise 1.2 that I'm looking for because it compresses and
>> encrypts the exe. It's mainly the compression I like. Any idea where I
>> can get the latest version of Konxise? It's my understanding that 1.1 is
>> not compatible with VFP 9.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> "Josh Assing" <XjoshX@jAssing.com> wrote in message
>> news:aru983t5b7rqkersdk53mkg5e7bt2pcv96@4ax.com...
>>> They are not around;but they'll still take your money.
>>> refox will compress & encrypt your exe's.
>>> there's also defoxii that works well at protecting it from decryption
>>>
>>> do not buy anything from xitech -- they've been "MIA" for years now.
>>>
>>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:42:39 GMT, "MikeA" <appell@appellsoftware.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Is Xitech still around? I've sent them several Emails re: Konxise for
>>>>VFP 9
>>>>with no response. Is Ver 1.1 compatible and if not what is not
>>>>compatible.
>>>>On the Xitech website it says you need 1.2 for VFP 9. Any ideas and also
>>>>why are they not responding to Emails?
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps there is another product that does what Konxise does. Anyone
>>>>know?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>Mike
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Josh
Fri Jun 29 18:40:18 CDT 2007

I would be refox -- it compresses better than konxise did and it works on apps &
dll's too.

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:30:09 GMT, "MikeA" <appell@appellsoftware.com> wrote:

>Darn - it's Konxise 1.2 that I'm looking for because it compresses and
>encrypts the exe. It's mainly the compression I like. Any idea where I can
>get the latest version of Konxise? It's my understanding that 1.1 is not
>compatible with VFP 9.
>
>Mike
>
>"Josh Assing" <XjoshX@jAssing.com> wrote in message
>news:aru983t5b7rqkersdk53mkg5e7bt2pcv96@4ax.com...
>> They are not around;but they'll still take your money.
>> refox will compress & encrypt your exe's.
>> there's also defoxii that works well at protecting it from decryption
>>
>> do not buy anything from xitech -- they've been "MIA" for years now.
>>
>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:42:39 GMT, "MikeA" <appell@appellsoftware.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Is Xitech still around? I've sent them several Emails re: Konxise for VFP
>>>9
>>>with no response. Is Ver 1.1 compatible and if not what is not
>>>compatible.
>>>On the Xitech website it says you need 1.2 for VFP 9. Any ideas and also
>>>why are they not responding to Emails?
>>>
>>>Perhaps there is another product that does what Konxise does. Anyone know?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Mike
>>>
>>
>

MikeA
Fri Jun 29 18:47:50 CDT 2007

Josh - Thanks for the info. I think (or would hope) that most would not
simply give Refox away and would be honest as I am. In other words, I would
assume that most users of Refox are developers themselves and would
therefore have integrity just as they would not anyone pirating their
products either.

Regarding the 1 vs. 1.5 megs example and still having the VFP framework
files to distribute, that's not quite true. I'm looking at it from the idea
that the original app is on CD or downloaded separately and then for updates
one would only need the final exe and no longer need the VFP files since
they are already on everyone's computer.

I have to say, Jan has done a great job with compression given that I
thought Konxise was great slicing at least 60%. It appears Refox 11 can
compress it to more than half of Konxise or around 80-90% of the original
exe (at least from my app).

Thanks,
Mike



"Josh Assing" <XjoshX@jAssing.com> wrote in message
news:kt5b83p5800p0hlqjd8cp5d8mv215n5944@4ax.com...
> >1. It appears that upon purchasing there are Emails sent so as to
> >properly
>>license it. My concern is if I ever upgrade my computer to a new
>>computer,
>>how can I reinstall it on another computer (assuming I at some point get
>>rid
>>of my current computer or upgrade the OS). I don't want another Xitech
>>situation where Refox disappears in the future. I'm not sure just how
>>easy
>>installation is without the company.
>
> Jan is reasonable -- he'll grant you another license; but if your id
> starts
> popping up for requests; he'll figure you've handed it out.
>
> Jan is the author of refox; xitech licensed it from him - he's been around
> and
> continues to develop it and is very responsive & helpful.
>
> if you're really worried about; create a small win2k VirtualPC image and
> install
> refox on it -- then archive that vhd to a dvd and save it... no problems
> then.
>
>>2. Seems that have two main modes of compression ZLIB and JCAL. They say
>>in the help file that JCAL has better compression but is slower. It's
>>definitely a lot slower to build the exe but the compression is much
>>better.
>>I'm wondering if the final exe runs equally fast or is also slower with
>>JCAL
>>than ZLIB? I would think that if the final exe runs about the same speed,
>>then one would always want to use JCAL for the final distribution exe.
>
> Slower to compress, slower to decompress. you're not talking leaps and
> bounds
> better; just mildly better... remember, you still have the vfp framework
> files
> to distribute; so 1 meg vs. 1.5 megs in your exe is nothing.
>
>
>
>>Also, do both settings brand with equal security and how secure is the
>>branding?
>
> at level 3 you cannnot get it back period.

MikeA
Sat Jun 30 01:44:06 CDT 2007

Josh - as it turned out, Jan said via Email to me that the runtime speed is
the same regardless of the compression. I think it's due to the fact that
it gets decompressed in memory every time the app is run. The initial
startup may take more time in microseconds to decompress but from there the
runtime speed should be the same.

Mike


"Josh Assing" <XjoshX@jAssing.com> wrote in message
news:kt5b83p5800p0hlqjd8cp5d8mv215n5944@4ax.com...

> Slower to compress, slower to decompress. you're not talking leaps and
> bounds
> better; just mildly better... remember, you still have the vfp framework
> files
> to distribute; so 1 meg vs. 1.5 megs in your exe is nothing.
>
>
>
>>Also, do both settings brand with equal security and how secure is the
>>branding?
>
> at level 3 you cannnot get it back period.

Josh
Sat Jun 30 09:27:15 CDT 2007


On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:44:06 GMT, "MikeA" <appell@appellsoftware.com> wrote:

>Josh - as it turned out, Jan said via Email to me that the runtime speed is
>the same regardless of the compression. I think it's due to the fact that
>it gets decompressed in memory every time the app is run. The initial
>startup may take more time in microseconds to decompress but from there the
>runtime speed should be the same.


runtime will be the same; the decompression (or load) will be slightly slower.
once it's decompressed, there will be no difference...

>
>Mike
>
>
>"Josh Assing" <XjoshX@jAssing.com> wrote in message
>news:kt5b83p5800p0hlqjd8cp5d8mv215n5944@4ax.com...
>
>> Slower to compress, slower to decompress. you're not talking leaps and
>> bounds
>> better; just mildly better... remember, you still have the vfp framework
>> files
>> to distribute; so 1 meg vs. 1.5 megs in your exe is nothing.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Also, do both settings brand with equal security and how secure is the
>>>branding?
>>
>> at level 3 you cannnot get it back period.
>