Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sdsu!crash!pro-graphics.cts.com!elund From: elund@pro-graphics.cts.com (Eric Lund) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: BYTE's compressor/decompressor tests? PKZIP vs. LHarc Message-ID: <1897@crash.cts.com> Date: 21 Mar 90 08:56:13 GMT Sender: root@crash.cts.com Lines: 27 In-Reply-To: message from tt3x@vax5.cit.cornell.edu > most efficient and fastest compressor available. From my experiences, > PKZIP may be fast but it is definitely not the most efficient. It > seems as though LHarc 1.13C (despite what the article claims and shows) > produces smaller files the majority of the time. I don't know about > the credibility of such tests but I've done a lot of PKZIPS and LHarcs > and LHarcs seem more efficient despite its speed that most people > don't like (it doesn't affect me because I have a 25 mhz 386). I have never had any complaints about PKZIP. I would like to mention I am also on Phil Katz Clode Nine right now, having packed a 300,000 byte file to less than 3,000 bytes. Arf. Funny, it's listed as having a 00% compression ratio. I note it may not print three digits, although is 100% accurate? I don't know -- I'm still high and I can't think. Anyway, it may also be interesting to note PKZIP 1.01 does not default to the BEST compression scheme, whereas 1.02 does. Inotherwords, 1.01 is faster, but not as efficient space-wise. Of course, you can IMPOSE the slower mode onto 1.01. That's one of the few "enhancements" of 1.02: Best compressor default. Anyhow, do the tests use PKZIP 1.01 or 1.02? Also, do they mention the compression type? The "extra" compression can really do a good deal of extra cramming I've noticed, and only in some instances does it seem much slower. Eric W. Lund *DISCLAIMER "Disclaimers are for weak people."* Prodigy: xcbr22b UUCP: ...crash!pro-graphics!elund *COWS FOR RENT* ProLine: elund@pro-graphics Internet: elund@pro-graphics.cts.com ** ARPA/DDN: pro-graphics!elund@nosc.mil