Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!unisoft!hoptoad!pozar
From: pozar@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Pozar)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Arc vs compress
Message-ID: <3335@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: Mon, 16-Nov-87 20:11:51 EST
Article-I.D.: hoptoad.3335
Posted: Mon Nov 16 20:11:51 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Nov-87 00:34:49 EST
References: <696@rlgvax.UUCP> <7406@eddie.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: pozar@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Pozar)
Organization: Syncstream/Widget Systems (San Francisco)
Lines: 27
Keywords: Why arc?

In article <7406@eddie.MIT.EDU> jbs@eddie.MIT.EDU (Jeff Siegal) writes:
>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

   It also is the defacto standard (although pkarc is taking
   hold) for file compression and archiving for the ms-dos
   world.   Where I use it the most is in the process of
   shipping files back and forth from unixland to msdosland.  It
   speeds things up quite a bit.

-- 
=======================================================================
| ...sun!hoptoad!\                                     Tim Pozar      |
|                 >fidogate!pozar               Fido:  1:125/406      |
|  ...lll-winken!/                            PaBell:  (415) 788-3904 |
|         USNail:  KKSF  77 Maiden Lane  San Francisco CA 94108       |
=======================================================================