Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!comcon!roy From: roy@comcon.UUCP (Roy M. Silvernail) Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Subject: Re: xx vs. uu Summary: Hear, hear! Message-ID: <314@comcon.UUCP> Date: 14 Feb 90 10:00:04 GMT References: <1513@krafla.rhi.hi.is> Organization: Computer Connection, Anchorage Alaska Lines: 26 In article , austin@bucsf.bu.edu (Austin H. Ziegler, III) writes: > I am > strongly in favor of LHArc 1.13c for several reasons. 1) It takes up about > 1/4 the space that PKZip 1.02 does. 2) It is freeware (I just checked the ^^^^^^^^ Even better, it's really Public Domain. (Thanks, Yoshi!) > manual). 3) The compression is comparable with PKZip (I did some testing > between LHArc 1.00 and PKZip 1.02 and found that PKZip got an average 52% > total compression whereas LHArc 1.00 got a 51% compression.) 4) It is easy > to use and contained in one program. I have to agree, Austin. The only drawback LHarc has is speed. It *is* slow, but very tight, and the overhead for a self-extractor is a mere 1322 bytes. Because the compression is so similar, I usually use ZIP for general archiving on my systems, and LHarc for making SFXs. Another vote, then, for LHarc! -- _R_o_y _M_. _S_i_l_v_e_r_n_a_i_l | UUCP: uunet!comcon!roy | "Every race must arrive at this #include ;#define opinions MINE | point in its history" SnailMail: P.O. Box 210856, Anchorage, | ........Mr. Slippery Alaska, 99521-0856, U.S.A., Earth, etc. |