home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!ub!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!netnews.cc.lehigh.edu!ns1.cc.lehigh.edu!etl0
- From: etl0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (ERIC TODD LANDRIEU)
- Newsgroups: comp.compression
- Subject: Re: PKZIP 2.04c vs. ARJ/LHA/ZOO Compression/Speed Results
- Message-ID: <1993Jan9.004345.92633@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>
- Date: 9 Jan 93 00:43:45 GMT
- Organization: Lehigh University
- Lines: 30
-
- In article <C0IzF8.EFr@unix.amherst.edu>, djweisbe@unix.amherst.edu (David Weisb
- erger) writes:
- >
- >: Total Size: 720937 bytes
- >: Archivers: PKZIP204c PKZIP110 PKZIP193a ARJ230 LHA213 ZOO210
- >: Machine: 386/33, 10M RAM \w 128k BIOS Shadow RAM
- >: Drive: Seagate ST296N (84M) SCSI controller (no s/w cache)
- >: Timing: Norton Utilities' TM.EXE v4.50
- >: Execution: MSDOS BATch file
- >:
- >: Congratulations PKWARE, PKZip's speed and now compression is #1!
- >:
- >Funny, I get better compression with Zip 1.9 in some cases.
- >
- True,,, I was running file size comparisons between the new PKZIP, the latest
- ZOO, and the newest ZIP. Both PKZIP and ZIP consistently left ZOO looking
- bad. There was never a significant difference between ZIP and UNZIP, though.
- Each program did better in some programs(and I never saw a pattern, such as
- executables better on one, etc.), but the difference would only be around 1-2K
- for files several hundred K in size when compressed.
-
- Eric Landrieu
-
-
- --
-
- ===============================================
- = Eric Landrieu = ETL0@ns1.CC.lehigh.EDU =
- ===============================================
- "I'd be apathetic, but I don't really care about it.
-