BinHex 4.0

Thanks for the clarification. Thanks to that and other reasons, I have completely abandoned the idea of using ".hqx" and other BinHex formats for good now. I discovered what best fits my criteria, out of all archiving tools, is StuffIt 1.5.1. Although, whenever possible, I discovered it's also best to create them with StuffIt Deluxe 2.0.1 or StuffIt Classic 1.6 and check the "1.5.1" box instead of actually using StuffIt 1.5.1, else StuffIt Deluxe/Expander 5.5.1 may unpack files incorrectly, as I found out.

This way, the resulting archive can be safely used throughout all (or however much StuffIt 1.5.1 is compatible with) Macintosh System Software versions. Even for dealing with MFS with its lack of folder hierarchy for System versions earlier than 2.1, there's an option to put all files from within the folders into the "root" of the archive (when creating the archive). Ideally, it's just perfect. (For up to a 1000 files per archive file. And also if preserving window position and file icon placement is not important, which makes it prohibitive for historical archival.)

I have heard from somewhere here in the Garden that .hqx (BinHex 4.0) files may be less ideal than other "packing" options for transfering files over a network (i.e. the internet), because of something along the lines of that the file may get corrupted upon being downloaded/transfered in ways that wouldn't happen with other formats, such as .sit. And that, in browsers, it's ideal to "Save File As..." to download .hqx files.

Is there any researched/verified truth to this? Any explanation? I have never had downloaded/transfered .hqx files get corrupted upon being downloaded or transfered, be it over FTP or HTTP, with it not mattering whether I use a "Save File As" option on browsers both on Mac and Windows or not.

I'd like to know this, because I'm considering sticking to .hqx for packing Mac files to share to others (especially over here in the Garden) when SSW versions lower than 7.1 may be involved, and I want to be able to target System 1 just as much as 7.1, which is why I'm not confident StuffIt 4.0 is as good an option (and I don't know if StuffIt versions below 4.0 are reliable, let alone System-1-compatible).
So, if there's any reason I shouldn't use BinHex 4.0, I'd love to know while it's still a good time. Other than the fact it doesn't reduce file size (since it doesn't do any compression, from what I understand).

Edit: Well, I think I found 1 reason already: it doesn't archive folders, but only single files. |: That explains the billions of ".sit.hqx" and ".sit.bin" files out there.
Which means I need to look elsewhere for a System-1-compatible solution (if there's any). I'm very reluctant to use PackIt, too, since I don't know how reliable it is, either (and I don't know if StuffIt can handle that format, too).

Edit 2: Of course, PackIt turned out to be be incompatible with Mac OS 9.2.2 (on my Mac mini G4, anyway). Looks like StuffIt 4.0.1 is the least-non-ideal choice so far. Though I could always use vMac or Mini vMac on OS 9 to get PackIt running (assuming it's reliable etc.), especially considering the fact StuffIt can open its files at least since v1.6.
Or get a System-6-capable Mac.

Edit 3: Ha, I just realized it's pointless for me to want to archive multiple folders full of files for use in SSW versions earlier than 2.1, because they are stuck with MFS (which doesn't allow folders within folders). Although since the first Mac can officially go as high as System 3, I guess my original intent still counts, but I'll have to give up on System 1 support.

Thanks for posting up this little gem. It does exactly what its supposed to do, nothing more nor less. A real light fast app. Excellent.