Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!dptg!ulysses!andante!mit-eddie!mintaka!think.com!samsung!dali.cs.montana.edu!ogicse!unmvax!pprg.unm.edu!topgun!mustang!nntp-server.caltech.edu!jjfeiler
From: jjfeiler@nntp-server.caltech.edu (John Jay Feiler)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: LHWARP vs WARP
Keywords: Misconception
Message-ID: <1990Oct18.193840.7855@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
Date: 18 Oct 90 19:38:40 GMT
References: <4278@disk.UUCP>
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 21

specter@disk.UUCP (Byron Max Guernsey) writes:
>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
>Byron Guernsey

Look at your own data, and consider what you are going to do with the
(lh)warp-ed disk.  Are you going to upload it at 2400 baud to a BBS that
is a toll call?  How much money will you save by using lhwarp?

The amiga is multi-tasking.  Who cares if it takes an extra 10 minutes
to compress the disk.  Get some work done while it is working, or play
your favorite kill-the-aliens-with-lasers game that is multitasking
friendly.
	John Feiler