Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.misc:7105 comp.sys.mac.apps:3229 Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!hsdndev!husc6!hscfsas1!kenh From: kenh@hscfsas1.harvard.edu (Ken Hancock) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.mac.apps Subject: Re: Don't post stuff using stuffit Message-ID: <5193@husc6.harvard.edu> Date: 31 Dec 90 23:00:11 GMT References: <1990Dec30.221035.16112@cs.umn.edu> <5185@husc6.harvard.edu> <1990Dec31.201634.27364@svc.portal.com> Sender: news@husc6.harvard.edu Organization: Isle Systems - Waltham, MA Lines: 67 In article <1990Dec31.201634.27364@svc.portal.com> leonardr@svc.portal.com (Leonard Rosenthol) writes: >In article <5185@husc6.harvard.edu>, kenh@hscfsas1.harvard.edu (Ken Hancock) >writes: >> Otherwise, I guess I'll have to switch to Compactor -- written by >> someone who appears to be much more competant than the folks at >> Aladdin. >> > That's not entirely fair, Ken. Version 1.0 of Stuffit Deluxe had >other priorities than speed at the time it was being written - they were >concentrating on offering features which made compression & archiving easier >and more convient - the viewers, optimizers and scripting for example. Users >have found these to be quite useful, but the biggest request for 2.0 was >Speed - and so it has been addressed! No, it's not entirely fair, I must admit. (Which is why I'm posting this...) But there are a few reasons why I've been so sorely disappointed with StuffIt Deluxe: 1) At MacWorld I -did- ask about speed. I was told it'd be faster. (Note: I use "Better" compression, which is slow, but Compactor gives comparable results in less time, so I feel StuffIt should be able to do at least close.) 2) It has to say something negative when everyone else can do it (read as: unstuffing) faster than you do it, -with your own format-. 3) I, too, had a different installer bug. If there's anything that should be thoroughly tested, it's an installer. If the first thing you try fails, it can't help but leave a bad taste in your mouth. (Good thing I didn't run into the recursive folders...) 4) I once tried the Sound optimizer. It took longer to unstuff a 1 meg sound file than to stuff it. (Over 30 minutes...) 5) I hate the personalization feature. The fact that it won't let me NOT enter a signature bothers me even more. Who on earth can draw their signature with MacPaint tools and have it even remotely resemble their actual signature? I can't. If I had to vote for the worst feature of any program for 1990, this would honestly be it. Now, to be fair, I have to defend some of the features I do like: 1) Magic Menu -- it's the second reason I haven't already switched to Compactor. I like it too much to do without it. 2) Quick Unstuff. I do loads of downloading from unix boxes. I run mcvert (.hqx -> .bin) and then batch download with zmodem. I used to have to unstuff and move into separate folders which would have been absolutely impossible instead of difficult without the various new folder INITs. Quick Unstuff does exactly what I've been doing for years, painlessly. (DDExpand does it as well...) 3) Folder recursion. Not unique, but still a big improvement. And of course, the first reason I haven't switched: loyalty. I sent in my StuffIt registration fee shortly after StuffIt came out. Why? Not because I wanted to use the compression options (even though I later did), but because I knew it was going to save me a LOT of time and money that was getting used up by downloading the larger PackIt files. Over the last few years, I've saved lots of time and money and I very much appreciate the effort that Raymond Lau put into StuffIt. For may years people looked at PKZIP and said how much better IBM compression programs were, but no one did anything until StuffIt. Oh well, more than 'nuff said. Ken -- Ken Hancock | INTERNET: kenh@hscfsas1.harvard.edu Isle Systems | Disclaimer: My opinions are mine, Macintosh Consulting | your opinions are yours. Simple, isn't it?