Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!husc6!mailrus!uflorida!haven!uvaarpa!babbage!mac3n
From: mac3n@babbage.acc.virginia.edu (Alex Colvin)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: compatibility was: GSARC - non-compatible more efficient archiver
Summary: backward comnpatibility
Message-ID: <384@babbage.acc.virginia.edu>
Date: 24 Oct 88 18:28:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: babbage.384
References: <KPETERSEN.12439280069.BABYL@SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL> <1334@micomvax.UUCP>
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 10

In article <1334@micomvax.UUCP>, ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) writes:
> >    [GSARC]             ....are we to resist this just because it's
> >incompatible - even though it is a significant step forward in
> >compression efficiency?

> To answer the question - yes, unless you want to perpetuate the state of
> non-standardisation.

If we weren't so tied up in backward compatibility, we wouldn't be reading
news about these @#!& i4004 clones.