Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!cs.dal.ca!iisat!brains!george_seto
From: george_seto@brains.UUCP (George Seto)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: PACK vs DC SQUISH
Message-ID: <4756@brains.UUCP>
Date: 4 Sep 89 08:14:48 GMT
Reply-To: george_seto%brains@iisat.UUCP
Organization: Cerebral Cortex BBS
Lines: 29

Re: PACK vs DC SQUISH:

   Mark O'Bryan

  I have tried both the PACK and the DC Squish(borrowed) on my STadel
software and PACK would not work on those files at all. Squish worked and on
4 files, saved me about 45K worth of space, giving me around 110K free space
on my boot disk, which previously had about 60K free. So there is a place for
both. Double-Click will probably find some money heading its' way from me
shortly. I also did discover that you are right in that PACK seems to save
more space on the disk than DC Squish. I tried it on Dcopy316.prg

  DC Squish took that 25K (just under) executable and brought it down to just
under 23K. Then I tried the PACK on the ORIGINAL 25K executable and brought
it down to just under 21K. Both worked fine. Oh yes, the LHARC files have a
Shell available and that utility saves a WHOLE lot of space.
  I wonder if there is any chance the Dcopy people will be able to get the
Dcopy utility to handle the new LHARC files as well? That would give us the
best of the worlds. Right now, Dcopy still doesn't handle some of the newer
ARC compression routines. I still see "unknown" in some of the ARC files I
get, which must have been compressed with ARC521b.....
  
--
   -===------===-    From George Seto at Cerebral Cortex BBS System
  -==-==----==-==-   (902)462-7245 3/12/2400 8N1 24h/7d
 -==-------==------  george_seto%brains@iisat.UUCP
  -==-==----==-==-   {uunet, utai, watmath}!dalcs!iisat!brains!george_seto
   -===------===-