Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:26821 comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d:2503
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!cbema!las
From: cbema!las@cbnews.ATT.COM (cbema!las)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Archiver performance
Message-ID: <5255@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 30 Mar 89 18:00:43 GMT
References: <13488@steinmetz.ge.com>
Reply-To: cbema!las@cbnews.ATT.COM (Larry A. Shurr)
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, OH (actually an AGS consultant)
Lines: 17

In article <13488@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
>Here is an article I wrote for the _CAMS News_ describing some
>measurements I made of the various archivers around...

>  None of the archivers got more than 1% compression on the collection
>of GIF files, so I won't report the results in this table...

Thanks for your updated report, Bill.  I have no flame, no complaint -
just a comment about GIF files: it's not surprising that they don't
compress well, I understand that they are (or rather, the raster data is)
already compressed (using Lempel-Ziv, I think).

regards, Larry
-- 
Signed: Larry A. Shurr (att!cbnews!cbema!las or osu-cis!apr!las)
Clever signature, Wonderful wit, Outdo the others, Be a big hit! - Burma Shave
(With apologies to the real thing.  The above represents my views only.)