Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.programmer:19058 comp.sys.mac.misc:5785 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!vd09+ From: vd09+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent M. Del Vecchio) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer,comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: Compactor vs StuffIt(s). Message-ID: Date: 15 Nov 90 15:24:09 GMT References: <90318.005914CCC105@psuvm.psu.edu>, <1990Nov14.215510.16953@midway.uchicago.edu> Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 22 In-Reply-To: <1990Nov14.215510.16953@midway.uchicago.edu> > Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.misc: 14-Nov-90 Re: Compactor vs > StuffIt(s). Francis Stracke@daisy.uc (1070) > In article <90318.005914CCC105@psuvm.psu.edu> CCC105@psuvm.psu.edu > (James Chu) writes: >> Did anyone ever notice that Compactor doesn't compress digitized sound >> files as well as the StuffIt does?! Besides that, Compactor compress >> files moooooch better than the StuffIt, even better than the StuffIt >> Classic, which it compress smaller and faster!! Therefore, Compactor is >> the best choice for compress files for Mac!! > Sounds like a hasty conclusion. Just because a program is better at what > it does doesn't mean it's the best one to use. There are social-matrix > questions. Namely, many people have StuffIt; but where is Compactor? Well, if you had checked either sumex-aim or rascal.ics.utexas, you would have found it. And, admittedly, claiming "the best choice" is a little absolute, but I agree with James. Try it; you'll like it. And it seems a little anti-progress to me to use an older, worse program only because it is a standard. Of course, if you don't like it, fine; you don't have to use it--or pay for it, since it is shareware.