Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!yale!cmcl2!arizona!gudeman
From: gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Comparison of compaction routines
Message-ID: <5115@megaron.arizona.edu>
Date: 24 Apr 88 23:16:48 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson
Lines: 43

In article  <483@csccat.UUCP> loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow) writes:
>
>	The tester of the various routines for compaction titled as ...
>
>>                  TEST OF MS-DOS COMPRESSION PROGRAMS ...
>>
>>                Tests performed 4-21-88 by Erik Talvola
>
>       ... 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.

You may not mind waiting 3 minutes for a file to unpack, but a lot of
us feel otherwise.

>	The 16-bit compress clearly blew everything else away in
>	overall terms.

Only in terms of compaction.  I would hardly call that "overall".

>	Further, because the routines of compress are widely
>	available, and Unix compatible...

So are zoo and arc formats.

>	... and need not burden the user with an archiver...

I thought the archiving ability was a bonus.  It seems that most
programs posted to this group have consisted of several files
(executable, docs, sometimes special libraries and sources), and the
ability to archive makes posting several related files much easier.

>	The authors clear bias toward bells and whistles blinds him
>	to the real point. 

The author obviously has different priorities than you do, that hardly
makes him blind to the REAL POINT as defined by you.  Archiving and
speed are hardly "bells and whistles", and your intolerant attitude
doesn't add anything constructive to the conversation.

I prefer zoo because it handles directory structure.  That isn't a
bell or a whistle either.