Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!killer!csccat!loci
From: loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Comparison of compaction routines
Message-ID: <483@csccat.UUCP>
Date: 24 Apr 88 05:13:35 GMT
Followup-To: TEST OF MS-DOS COMPRESSION PROGRAMS
Organization: Computer Support Corporation. Dallas,Texas
Lines: 22
Keywords: good data, bad (biased) conclusion


	The tester of the various routines for compaction titled as ...

>                  TEST OF MS-DOS COMPRESSION PROGRAMS 
>
>                              Release 1.0
>
>                Tests performed 4-21-88 by Erik Talvola
>
>                 Article Copyright 1988 by Erik Talvola

	provided a cursory look at programs by name. It would be well
	to specify what the method of compaction used in each case was.
	Setting that aside, the author misses the principle point of
	compaction: to make it small. Speed is not a good measure of
	this function except as it relates to transmission speed, ie.
	how small is it. The 16-bit compress clearly blew everything
	else away in overall terms. Further, because the routines of
	compress are widely available, and Unix compatible, that method
	can be integrated into a program specially suited to the task
	at hand, and need not burden the user with a archiver (unpacking
	yet another layer is BS). The authors clear bias toward bells
	and whistles blinds him to the real point.