Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!jbs
From: jbs@eddie.MIT.EDU (Jeff Siegal)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Arc vs compress
Message-ID: <7406@eddie.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 13-Nov-87 11:41:22 EST
Article-I.D.: eddie.7406
Posted: Fri Nov 13 11:41:22 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Nov-87 08:48:40 EST
References: <696@rlgvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: jbs@eddie.MIT.EDU (Jeff Siegal)
Organization: MIT, EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 12
Keywords: Why arc?

In article <696@rlgvax.UUCP> dennis@rlgvax.UUCP (Dennis.Bednar) writes:
>
>Pardon me, but can someone please tell me why "arc.exe" was
>chosen for the "archive/compresser" program?  Why don't
>people prefer to use compress instead (for data compression,
>but not for archiving)?

ARC is actually better than a simple compression program because it
tries several compression schemes and uses the one which results in
the smallest file (sometimes this is the original file!).

Jeff Siegal