Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!wugate!uunet!pantor!richard
From: richard@pantor.UUCP (Richard Sargent)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: pak210.exe posting
Message-ID: <29.UUL1.3#5109@pantor.UUCP>
Date: 13 Nov 89 15:19:53 GMT
References: <9715@saturn.ucsc.edu>
Organization: Pansophic Systems Inc, Graphics Product Company
Lines: 34

> From: ted@helios (Ted Cantrall)
> Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
> Subject: pak210.exe posting
> Message-ID: <9715@saturn.ucsc.edu>
> Date: 10 Nov 89 21:34:47 GMT
...
> Some kind soul posted a 2 part, uuencoded version of PAK210.EXE archiver.
> I saved both parts, stripped off the unneeded parts, cat'ed them together
> and ported them to a PC where they failed to extract.
> The error messages were "Warning! Encountered bad archive header!" and 
> CRC mismatch. file damaged." Did I miss a step? Perhaps I stripped off
> too much? 
> 
> I would like to hear from the poster, if possible.
> 			-ted-
> ted@helios.ucsc.edu
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ted@helios.ucsc.edu         | "The opinions are mine...
> (408)459-2110               |    ...the facts are public domain."
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not the poster, but pak210.exe worked just fine for me. 
Try again, I guess.

BTW, PAK runs about 5% better compression than DWC, which we use internally,
but it takes significantly longer to get that 5%. A quick test on a large
text file (Forsberg's ZModem document), had PAK take about 4 times longer
than DWC. It did get 63% compression versus DWC's 58%.

Email if there is interest in getting DWC. If enough, I will send it
to Rahul.

Richard Sargent                   Internet: richard@pantor.UUCP
Systems Analyst                   UUCP:     uunet!pantor!richard