Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!mcdchg!ddsw1!corpane!disk!specter
From: specter@disk.UUCP (Byron Max Guernsey)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: LHWARP vs WARP
Keywords: Misconception
Message-ID: <4278@disk.UUCP>
Date: 13 Oct 90 21:58:07 GMT
Organization: The Alaskan Organization for Amiga Domination
Lines: 20

The docs for LHWARP say it has compress at 80% of WARP because it uses
LZHUF compression. I compress a Quasar sound data disk with LHWARP and
then compressed it with WARP and WARP won without a battle.

	Warp		LHWarp
	----------	-----------
Time:	14 minutes	24 minutes

Size:	770,000 bytes	430,000 bytes  (from a filled 880k disk)

Now the author claims that LHWarp is better. Please explain how??? He
gave some figures on WARP vs LHWARP on NewTeks HAM disk (?) and he
claimed that LHWARP had 100,000 bytes better packing. Anyone have any
knowledge on why my results are so totally different? I know it may be
because of disk contents, but it seems WARP is better for everyday
packing. Maybe if you get certain things LHWARP would do better, but
warp seems to have the speed, size, and ITS OWN SIZE (Its smaller than
LHWARP) advantages. Any input???

Byron Guernsey