Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!caen!spool.mu.edu!agate!ucbvax!GAUSS.TECHNION.AC.IL!nyh
From: nyh@GAUSS.TECHNION.AC.IL (Nadav Har'El)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Compressors
Message-ID: <10002@discus.technion.ac.il>
Date: 19 Jun 91 10:42:57 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: Technion, Israel Inst. of Technology
Lines: 48

I have tested 10 of the most availiable compressors (all of which can be
downloaded from garbo.uwasa.fi). For the archived files I arbitarily chose
pak's distribution file, which contains docs,exes, and other files, all
together 203497 bytes. I've classified the compressors by the number of
bytes after the compression.
Extention	Compressor	Size after compression	Rank
------------------------------------------------------------------
.arj		arj -jm		85907			Great
------------------------------------------------------------------
.lzh		lha		89594			Very good
------------------------------------------------------------------
.hyp		hyper		94250			Good
.zip		pkzip		94635			Good
.pak		pak		95554			Good
.lzh		lharc		95981			Good
------------------------------------------------------------------
.arc		pkpak		124013			Bad
.dwc		dwc		124013			Bad
.zoo		zoo		126182			Bad
.arc		arc		128299			Bad
------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice the great difference between the compressors I've classified as Bad,
and the others. Zoo, which ranks one of the lowest, is the compressor most
widely used in the c.b.i.p group. Also, pkzip, the form most widely used in
ftp sites, is only the fourth out of ten, which a very big difference between
it and arj.
Therefore, I suggest ftp sites should use the arj format, instead any of the
others. I know it is hard work converting all the files to arj, so the sites
can make all new archives in the arj format.
I know that someone might say that arj doesn't work on a UNIX computer. well,
this is true, at least until Robert Jung will make a UNIX version. Until then,
there is zip, for which there is UNIX source, and is a lot better then zoo,
which is used in c.b.i.p. Also, someone might say that although arj is better
than zip, it uncompresses somewhat slower than zip. Well, this is irellevent to
me. When I get a program from an ftp site, I don't care if it takes 30 or 60
seconds to unpack. also, I don't really need to unpack it on a UNIX machine
because it wouldn't run on it anyway!
The best solution is for Robert Jung to make a UNIX arj. But still, even
if he doesn't, I think arj should be the prefered archiver for ftp sites.
Also, arj is the most complete archiver I have ever seen - It has many
options, and very complex. If anyone thinks that arj should not be the
preferred archiver, he can post a reply. Maybe some site admistrators could
post a reply, why they prefer using other archivers.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nadav Har'El                                         nyh@gauss.technion.ac.il
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------