Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.apps:4738 comp.sys.mac.misc:9799 comp.sys.mac.programmer:22813
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!uflorida!cs.fau.edu!jeffb
From: jeffb.bbs@shark.cs.fau.edu (Jeffrey Boser)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL - Archive Standard
Message-ID: <oHi4y2w163w@shark.cs.fau.edu>
Date: 20 Mar 91 06:56:59 GMT
References: <LFK.91Mar19215338@eastman1.mit.edu>
Sender: bbs@cs.fau.edu (Waffle BBS)
Organization: Florida Atlantic University
Lines: 28


     These posts are for the most part forgetting one important
aspect of macintosh implementation:  FREEDOM!

1) Putting multiple files in a folder to be compressed inhibits *my*
   freedom to extract them where I want them to go.

2) Using Text files for docs does not let the creator to use graphics
   and picts (as complicated programs sometimes require) as he wishes.
   Besides, MacWrite, Word, and WriteNow have fairly standard formats
   and can be handled by most word processors.

3) Some Compression techniques work better than others, and although
   5% might seem like very little, on a 1M file, it means 50K of down
   time.  (and if you are paying for down time, every little bit helps)

4) Compatability with other machines is NOT the responsability of the
   format creator.  ie: is it IBM's fault that macs and other machines
   cannot read their disks?  if you have unix, why dont *you* write
   a program to let you peek into compressed files?

but basicly, macs have the extreme advantage of having VERY standard
tools and file formats.  I have seen over twenty IBM word processors,
each not giving a damn about the other's formats.  By owning StuffIt
and Compactor, a person has direct and unihibited access to 99.99% of
all mac software.  a common word processor would be nice for docs too.

.....Jeff