Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!ames!haven!mimsy!mojo!nulspace
From: nulspace@eng.umd.edu (Michael Chang)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: PKZIP 1.10 vs. LHARC
Keywords: PKZIP
Message-ID: <1990Jul10.015325.3138@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 10 Jul 90 01:53:25 GMT
References: <8762@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <1990Jun20.032819.23081@uwasa.fi> <4929@uwm.edu>
Sender: news@eng.umd.edu (The News System)
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
Lines: 16

>|In article <8762@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> (bill davidsen) writes:
>|>  Since there is no PKZIP for UNIX, LHARC is a lot faster there. So are
>|>ARC and ZOO. Phil has chosen not to compete in those systems.
Believe it or not, lharc is not faster at all on unix systems, at least 
between unix systems and PCs with sufficient hard drive space and RAM.  I
checked the source code, and it is the same for both DOS and Unix.  I'm
sure that lharc could be optimized to work faster on unix, I only wish someone
would go do it.

(I timed lharc on unix and lharc on an IBM PS/2 model 50, and the copy on
the unix box (Vax3100) was able to finish compressing only about a second
faster than the PS/2... out of a total compression time of about 55 secs.)

nulspace@eng.umd.edu [ at work ]  | "I've often been asked, and my replies are
nulspace@wam.umd.edu [ at play ]  |  always in the same fashion; I hate tennis,
                                  |  I hate it with a passion!" -Michael Chang