Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!samsung!umich!umeecs!msi-s0.msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!thelake!steve From: steve@thelake.mn.org (Steve Yelvington) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: WANTED: News compression information... Message-ID: Date: 31 May 90 23:55:26 GMT References: <1990May30.200519.12409@hawkmoon.MN.ORG> Organization: Otter Lake Leisure Society Lines: 24 X-Member-Of: STdNET [In article <1990May30.200519.12409@hawkmoon.MN.ORG>, det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG (Derek E. Terveer) writes ... ] > In article <1990May29.202056.26271@ox.com> time@ox.com (Tim Endres) writes: (...) >> Most people have indicated that "compress", the PD version, is what >> is normally used for news compression. This would *seem* fine, but >> the darn thing requires 500K RAM just to uncompress. This not only >> seems extraordinary, but I can not see how implementations on a PC >> limited to 640K could even work. > > We ran into the same problem with PCnews -- compress is just too big to run > effectively in the (limited) pc environment. So, we found a pd program called > "u16" (i can send it to you if you like), which does nothing but uncompress, I have not been motivated to add compression to our home-grown news software for the Atari ST. It seems to me that anybody who's shoveling a large quantity of news is soon going to have a modem that does compression on the fly. Is compression by the modem an adequate substitute for compression by the CPU? I'd like to hear from somebody who has tried it both ways. -- Steve Yelvington at the lake in Minnesota (Ah, summer... leech season...)