Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ogicse!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!cornell!vax8530!tt3x
From: tt3x@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: BYTE's compressor/decompressor tests?  PKZIP vs. LHarc
Message-ID: <3690.2609f7a4@vax5.cit.cornell.edu>
Date: 23 Mar 90 14:17:07 GMT
References: <1897@crash.cts.com>
Distribution: comp
Lines: 34


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

	They do mention the usage of PKZip 1.02 and used it on the benchmarks.
I suppose the possibility here is that PKZip compresses big text files better
than LHarc whereas LHarc is superior in executables.  I find myself compressing
executables more than text and thus I use LHarc most of the time...

Bobby Li
INTERNET:  TT3X@VAX5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU	INTERNET:  BLI@BRUTUS.CIT.CORNELL.EDU
INTERNET:  LI#BOBBY%MFE.MFENET@ANLVM.CTD.ANL.GOV