Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!ists!yunexus!maccs!cs4g6ag
From: cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Stephen M. Dunn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: BYTE's compressor/decompressor tests?  PKZIP vs. LHarc
Message-ID: <26096FA5.20049@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca>
Date: 23 Mar 90 00:36:52 GMT
References: <1897@crash.cts.com>
Reply-To: cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Stephen M. Dunn)
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario
Lines: 25

In article <1897@crash.cts.com> elund@pro-graphics.cts.com (Eric Lund) writes:
[...]
$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.

   No, V1.01 and V1.02 both default to optimal compression.  Only pre-V1.01
PKZIPs default to fast compression.

$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.

   BYTE does indeed use both compression methods, and reports the following:

slow:  Compressed to 40% in 29 sec, extraction time 10 sec
fast:  Compressed to 50% in 10 sec, extraction time 13 sec

The files they used were a combination of text and binary.
-- 
Stephen M. Dunn                               cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca
          <std_disclaimer.h> = "\nI'm only an undergraduate!!!\n";
****************************************************************************
    "So sorry, I never meant to break your heart ... but you broke mine."