Jan Murphy wrote in a message to all:
JM> Okay, folks -- 
JM> Here's the relevant stats on our copy of 1.73a.  
JM> OPUS     EXE    251824 10-06-91   1:38p
     Here's mine, in the manner you presented:
    OPUS     EXE    251824 10-06-91   1:38p
    or in the manner I generally use when checking file stats:
Name                Size      Checksum    CRC-32    CRC-16
=============    =======    ==========   ========  =======
OPUS.EXE         251,824    27,586,613   4540A967    7831
     I use the 4 measure system for the simple reason that it is possible to 
materially change a file without changing the byte count. As an illustration 
of this, following are 2 config.sys files that I use with some regularity.  
You will note that the only difference in the 2 files is in the sixth line.  
In one instance, the system is set 2880 bytes of expanded memory, and in the 
other, it is set for only 2040 bytes of EMM.
DOS-C.SYS
BREAK ON
FILES=60
BUFFERS=40
STACKS=0,0
DEVICEHIGH=C:\DOS\HIMEM.SYS
DEVICE=C:\DOS\EMM386.EXE 2880 RAM
DEVICEHIGH=C:\DOS\ANSI.SYS
DOS=HIGH,UMB
DOS-E.SYS
BREAK ON
FILES=60
BUFFERS=40
STACKS=0,0
DEVICEHIGH=C:\DOS\HIMEM.SYS
DEVICE=C:\DOS\EMM386.EXE 2048 RAM
DEVICEHIGH=C:\DOS\ANSI.SYS
DOS=HIGH,UMB
     Multi-parameterwise, the stats look like the following:
Name                Size      Checksum    CRC-32    CRC-16
=============    =======    ==========   ========  =======
DOS-C.SYS            151          9580   3C32B56C    C9B0
DOS-E.SYS            151          9576   4742C29B    F32F
     You will note that the file sizes are identical even though the above 
config.sys files will produce quite different operating conditions.
     Unfortunately, I cannot give you the source of my OPUS files.  My 
original OPUS archive did come from Stu Turk, but I also DL'd it from several 
different sources at a later point in time.
JM> Does anybody have a version which is 
JM> 1) a different size
JM> 2) a different date/time stamp
or which has
    3) a different Checksum
    4) a different CRC-32
    5) a different CRC-16
JM> Look, guys and gals, 1.73a was a drop-in replacement
JM> upgrade, not a 'slime patch' like the 1.03x situation.  If
JM> there had been some sort of patch-job, then yeah, I could
JM> see how you could get weird variations, but if you are
JM> replacing the whole damn exectuable, where are the
JM> variations supposed to come from?   
JM> 1) your unpacker screws up
JM> 2) somebody else unpacked the archive and repacked it, and
JM> their packer screwed up
JM> 3) damage
JM> 4) sabotage
JM> How likely are any of these possibilites?  No. 3 I would
JM> expect a lot, the others seem not very likely.
     How about a good hack made with the intent of curing some of the 
problems in the tosser?
                   Bill
--- timEd 1.01
---------------