Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:26586 comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d:2453
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!uxc!iuvax!bobmon
From: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Archive/Compression programs
Summary: lharc, the new kid on the block
Message-ID: <18921@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Date: 26 Mar 89 02:00:56 GMT
Reply-To: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante)
Organization: malkaryotic
Lines: 27

[apologies if you get multiple copies of this.  I lost control of postnews
for a minute there.]

In the midst of the renewed arc/pk wars, has anyone else tried the lharc
program that went out over c.b.i.p. recently?  I've tried it casually on a
few sets of files, and it has *always* produced the smallest archive,
generally by a significant amount.

Example:  pccurses v1.3, 42 source files (somewhat modified by me...):
	archiver	size	reported ratio
	========	====	==============
	zoo v2.01	90341	56%
	pkpak v3.61	89763	57%
	pkzip v0.92	86434	60%
	lharc v1.0e	67681	67.7% (reported:  32.3% of original)

Example: tcc.exe & microemacs.exe v3.9e (hacked)
	archiver	size	reported ratio
	========	====	==============
	zoo v2.01	189093	31%
	pkpak v3.61	188478	32%
	pkzip v0.92	152689	45%
	lharc v1.0e	141736	48.6% (51.4% of original)

(Maximum compressions used.  Running times similar.)  Lharc's help
screen is refreshingly different, too.  If ONLY the referenced
documentation file were included!