Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!spool.mu.edu!uunet!mcsun!unido!horga!nathan!ue
From: ue@nathan.ruhr.de (Udo Erdelhoff)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: What archiving format?
Message-ID: <A0b7mrze@nathan.ruhr.de>
Date: 26 Jun 91 19:15:09 GMT
References: <3564@laura.UUCP> <1991Jun21.152722.17873@newcastle.ac.uk>
Reply-To: ue@nathan.ruhr.de
Distribution: comp
Organization: Cyberspace
Lines: 13
X-Version: HERMES MMAIL 0.96 Rev. Apr 15 1991
X-Software: HERMES GUS 0.96 Rev. Apr 15 1991

In <3564@laura.UUCP>, Rainer Klute writes:
>LHARC:
>Slow and unreliable. It has become popular because it has the best
>compression factor. However, archiving and extracting is really slow. There
>are several not always compatible LHarc versions by different authors
>floating around. So if you don't have the right LHarc you might not be able
>to extract an archive at all. Just say NO.
You haven't ever used LHArc 1.1321, have you? Give it a try and start 
thinkig about using LHArc again...
/s/
-- 
Udo Erdelhoff        ue@nathan.ruhr.de        Fido: Udo Erdelhoff on 2:245/52.1