Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!pdxgate!eecs!algoa
From: algoa@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Gregory Bowers)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
Subject: Re: Imploder vs. PowerPacker
Message-ID: <1477@pdxgate.UUCP>
Date: 7 Feb 91 20:22:37 GMT
References: <1991Feb7.172728.16199@ucselx.sdsu.edu>
Sender: news@pdxgate.UUCP
Lines: 30

maxc0415@ucselx.sdsu.edu (Amiga Universe II) writes:


>	Hello World!

>I like to compress executable files on my startup disk;  This allow me to put
>considerable more stuffs on it.   

>So I used PowerPacker and Imploder to acheive this.   But, which one is better?

>Both Imploder and PowerPacker now supports their own powerpacker.library and
>explode.library.   But imploder claim that they have a better consideration on
>the system's environment.   I don't know about powerpacker.

>Imploder have a nice bar graphic, and friendy interface.  and I like that better
>then the powerpacker.   

>If you used these programs.  please leave me your opinions.  Thank you.

>	p.s.	How do I use the 'music' option in the 'TurboImploder'?

I prefer Turbo Imploder, I believe v3.1 is now public domain. It seems to
produce smaller archive files than PowerPacker, it is fast, merges hunks, 
does overlays. However, the new Powerpacker v3.0 may do everything that the
Imploder does, and more, but the files are still a little bigger I think. So
anyway, I prefer to use the Turbo Imploder.


Amiga is die beste! 'n IBM is 'n rekenaar? Die Mac is net 'n vrot appel!
algoa@eecs.cs.pdx.edu    Portland TrailBlazers now 39-9 and KICKING ASS!