Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!labrea!aurora!amelia!ames!hao!gatech!purdue!i.cc.purdue.edu!j.cc.purdue.edu!pur-ee!iuvax!silver!creps
From: creps@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: PKARC
Message-ID: <999@silver.bacs.indiana.edu>
Date: 26 Feb 88 00:17:44 GMT
References: <4671@ozdaltx.UUCP> <20180@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Reply-To: creps@silver.UUCP (Steve Creps)
Organization: Indiana University Computer Science Department
Lines: 26

In article <20180@bu-cs.BU.EDU> madd@bu-it.bu.edu (Jim Frost) writes:
>In article <4671@ozdaltx.UUCP> root@ozdaltx.UUCP (Scotty) writes:
>>If you are using PKARC, you might give some serious
>>consideration to going back to the Standard ARC.  I talked

[ stuff deleted ]

>As for backwards compatibility, it is simple enough to repack a pkarc
>file to eliminate squashed files (which I believe are what's different
>between the two programs).  For my personal archives, I like the idea

[ more deleted ]

   Yes, the squashing can be easily overridden with the -oct option.
Another thing I like better is that PKARC is much faster when it comes
to compressing files. I've started compressing large files with ARC
before, and after a few minutes, gotten tired of waiting. Then I tried
it again (^Break out of ARC) with PKARC, and PKARC seemed to do it so
fast that there was no comparison.
   Of course, I think ARC is the original version of the thing. I still
keep a copy lying around just in case.

-      -       -       -       -       -       -       -       -	-
Steve Creps on the VAX 8650 running Ultrix 2.0-1 at Indiana University.
creps@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (192.12.206.2), ...iuvax!silver!creps,
creps@iubacs.bitnet "Hey fellas, it's a four-legged V-8!"