Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!corton!laas!ralph From: ralph@laas.fr (Ralph P. Sobek) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: What archiving format? Message-ID: Date: 28 Jun 91 09:45:21 GMT References: <1991Jun21.152722.17873@newcastle.ac.uk> <3564@laura.UUCP> Sender: news@laas.laas.fr Organization: LAAS-CNRS France Lines: 23 In-reply-to: klute@tommy.informatik.uni-dortmund.de's message of 25 Jun 91 08:48:33 GMT Just a slight correction and addendum to the following. In article <3564@laura.UUCP> klute@tommy.informatik.uni-dortmund.de (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. LHARC is *extremely* slow to make an archive, but it is usually considered as a fast extractor, in addition to its compression factor. I would just like to point out that sometimes ZOO creates a better compressed archive than does LHARC. -- Ralph P. Sobek Disclaimer: The above ruminations are my own. ralph@laas.fr Addresses are ordered by importance. ralph@laas.uucp, or ...!uunet!laas!ralph If all else fails, try: sobek@eclair.Berkeley.EDU =============================================================================== Got a Mega 4 ST. Wishing it was a Mega STe! :-| Do I *really* want a TT? ;~#