Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!ginosko!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!attctc!jolnet!swan From: swan@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US (Joel Swan) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: zip vs. other archivers Message-ID: <1740@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US> Date: 14 Oct 89 06:43:38 GMT References: Reply-To: swan@jolnet.UUCP (Joel Swan) Organization: Media Specialties LTD Lines: 31 In article portuesi@sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) writes: : :I just wanted to ask one simple question: : : what features does this new Zip archiver offer over existing : archivers such as Zoo that justfy its existence? [a few items deleted] : :It seems the Amiga world is inundated with the various archiving and :compression schemes from both the Unix and MS-DOS worlds (shar, :uuencode, tar, arc, zoo, and zip) plus Amiga-specific archivers such :as warp and pak. Do we really need this many archive formats? : : --M :-- :__ :\/ Michael Portuesi Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Inc. : portuesi@SGI.COM The world is also inundated with various computer formats, like Unix, MS-DOS, Archimedes, CPM, etc. etc. Why start a new format like the Amiga? The reason for ZIP and LHARC and such is because they can compress/decompress better, and/or faster. While LHARC beats ARC hands down on compressing HAM files, ZOO actually ADDS size to HAM files. There is also the flexibility issue as well. It's amazing what ZOO can do with pipes and the like. I suppose its like computers, there's always a "standard" that suits each individual's needs. Joel