Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!unido!fauern!tumuc!lan!rommel
From: rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Kai-Uwe Rommel)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2
Subject: Re: LZH
Message-ID: <1151@tuminfo1.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de>
Date: 7 Feb 90 17:23:53 GMT
References: <190.25C19211@weyr.FIDONET.ORG>
Sender: news@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de
Reply-To: rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Kai-Uwe Rommel)
Organization: Inst. fuer Informatik, TU Muenchen, W. Germany
Lines: 14

In article <190.25C19211@weyr.FIDONET.ORG> Chris.Moran@p0.f708.n712.z3.FIDONET.ORG (Chris Moran) writes:
>I have an LHARC extractor/repair program for OS/2 on 3:712/708 as LHX2.LZH

I have a C version of LHarc and compiled it for OS/2 and enhanced it at
many points. It runs well but slow (C <--> ASM !). I think I will post
it to comp.binaries.os2 as soon as it is created. But I prefer using
PKZIP because it is about twice as fast as the original (ASM) LHarc (if
you compare it to PKZIP running under DOS). On extraction, PKZIP is
at least 3 times faster than LHarc.


Kai Uwe Rommel
Munich
rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de