home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!overload!dillon
- From: dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.misc
- Subject: Re: lha vs compress (use zip instead)
- Distribution: world
- Message-ID: <dillon.0t23@overload.Berkeley.CA.US>
- References: <dillon.0t0e@overload.Berkeley.CA.US> <1gt7p3INNa8s@gap.caltech.edu>
- Date: 19 Dec 92 11:40:20 PST
- Organization: Not an Organization
- Lines: 34
-
- In article <1gt7p3INNa8s@gap.caltech.edu> madler@cco.caltech.edu (Mark Adler) writes:
- >
- >>> to anyone who is having disk-space problems that unix 'lha' (of lharc
- >>> fame) does a hellofabetter job compressing stuff the compress.
- >
- >And zip does better than lha, and is faster. And is far more portable.
- >And works as a filter. And lots more. It is on the usual NeXT archive
- >sites in both source and compiled forms. It is also on the NeXT
- >Educational Sampler CD.
- >
- >If you want the very best compression, you can pay a quite reasonable
- >price and get Squash, which in its high compression mode compresses
- >better than zip, but at the cost of being rather a lot slower.
-
- pkzip is better then lharc, but generally not better then lha. (make
- sure you are using lha, which is the -lh5- compression algorithm). I
- could be wrong, the only zip I have is on an IBM and I've no idea what
- version it is. zip *is* faster.
-
- I tend to use lha/lharc because I can run it on my Amiga, PC's, AND my
- NeXT box.
-
- -Matt
-
- >Mark Adler
- >madler@cco.caltech.edu
-
- --
-
- Matthew Dillon dillon@Overload.Berkeley.CA.US
- 1005 Apollo Way uunet.uu.net!overload!dillon
- Incline Village, NV. 89451 ham: KC6LVW (no mail drop)
- USA Sandel-Avery Engineering (702)831-8000
-
-