Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bbn!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
From: Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: zoo'ed IBM-PC binaries?
Message-ID: <240e8803@ralf>
Date: 3 Mar 89 12:41:39 GMT
Sender: ralf@b.gp.cs.cmu.edu
Lines: 22
In-Reply-To: <943@cernvax.UUCP>

In article <943@cernvax.UUCP>, emanuel@cernvax.UUCP (emanuel) writes:
}        I'd propose that some benchmarks would be presented on ALL compression
}programs, so that we can have a clearer idea of the implications (moneywise
}too...) of our votes. I'm using ARC, but I'll gladly vote otherwise if I'm
}convinced that the OTHERWISE is better.

Check out COMPRES5.ARC in PD1:<MSDOS.ARC-LBR> on SIMTEL20.  It compares a bunch
of archivers (PKZIP, PKARC, SEA ARC 5.3, PAK, ZOO, DWC, SCRNCH, etc) on
compression speed, decompression speed, and compressed size, using quite a few
file sets, including ASCII-only, binary-only, and mixed.  From memory, PKZIP
consistently comes out on top or near the top on all three measures.  The only
program that consistently beats PKZIP for compressed size is SCRNCH, which is
two orders of magnitude slower (we're talking 3 to 8 HOURS versus one to four
MINUTES with PKZIP -e?4), but compresses only a few percent more.  The only two
programs that consistently come near and occasionally beat PKZIP's speed for
default compression are PKARC and DWC.

--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school)
ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31
			Disclaimer? I claimed something?
	You cannot achieve the impossible without attempting the absurd.