Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!en.ecn.purdue.edu!doctorj From: doctorj@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Jeffrey W Davis) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc Subject: Re: Imploder vs. PowerPacker Message-ID: <1991Feb8.010026.16358@en.ecn.purdue.edu> Date: 8 Feb 91 01:00:26 GMT References: <1477@pdxgate.UUCP> <1991Feb7.172728.16199@ucselx.sdsu.edu> <1991Feb7.152324@monet.ucdavis.edu> Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network Lines: 35 In article <1991Feb7.152324@monet.ucdavis.edu> ez002266@monet.ucdavis.edu () writes: >Definitely use Imploder instead of PowerPacker. >Imploder compresses faster >Imploder decompresses TWICE AS FAST >Imploder consistently makes smaller compressed files >Imploder is way cool! > >There is supposed to be an even more cool Version 4.0 of Imploder coming out >soon. > >-bruce Which version of PowerPacker are you referring to? PowerPacker Professional compresses files 40-50 times faster than PowerPacker 2.3b. It also compresses the files more. I recrunched my commands directory with PowerPacker Professional and recovered an additional 1.2Meg of space on the HD. Powerpacker also has several neat utilities for viewing compressed animations, reading crunched text, and code that you may incorporate into your own programs to utilize the crunched files. I don't notice any real difference in speed between the PowerPacker and Turbo Imploder v3.0. I trust the files produced by PowerPacker. Does anyone have any technical information about Imploder? Does it achieve its speed illegally? If someone can give a more technical report on Imploder, I may start using it occasionally also. These are my opinions and experiences. No Flames! *********************************************************** * Jeff Davis * Relax! And get into /// * * doctorj@en.ecn.purdue.edu * the STRESS!!! /// * * * \\\///030 * * * -Gigahertz!- Amiga\XX/ 882 * *********************************************************** -=[ In Stereo Where Available ]=-