Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!nosc!crash!pro-graphics.cts.com!danb20
From: danb20@pro-graphics.cts.com (Dan Bachmann)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: LHWARP vs WARP
Message-ID: <5172@crash.cts.com>
Date: 20 Oct 90 20:56:18 GMT
Sender: root@crash.cts.com
Lines: 19

In-Reply-To: message from specter@disk.UUCP

        LHwarp usually compresses tighter than Warp by about 100k per disk,
however it is much slower to .lhwarp and unlhwarp files.
        
        The reason Warp probably compressed tight for you was that you were
dealling with some binary patterns the the lzhuf algorythim does not do well
on. There are 2 other options in LHWarp that would have compressed that disk
probably tighter and faster.
        
        I'm really not sure, but I think the logic behind this is simular to
lzhuf compared to Fibinocci delta compression when dealling with different
binary data types (digitized sound for example compresses better with
fib.delta as AudioMaster III uses)
 ProLine: danb20@pro-graphics           ***************************
    UUCP: ...crash!pro-graphics!danb20  *       Dan Bachmann      *
ARPA/DDN: pro-graphics!danb20@nosc.mil  *  Raritan Valley College *
Internet: danb20@pro-graphics.cts.com   ***************************
U.S.Mail: 509 StonyBrook Drive, Bridgewater, NJ 08807