home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!prism!gtd543a
- From: gtd543a@prism.gatech.EDU (death)
- Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.misc
- Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 LZEXPAND DLL
- Message-ID: <79575@hydra.gatech.EDU>
- Date: 9 Jan 93 01:32:03 GMT
- References: <1993Jan8.003723.10831@emr1.emr.ca>
- Organization: Purgatory
- Lines: 25
- X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
-
- John Grant (jagrant@emr1.emr.ca) wrote:
- : In article <1993Jan07.185848.23956@microsoft.com> dwightm@microsoft.com (Dwight Matheny) writes:
- : However, the bad news is that it would appear to be
- : not compatible with the version of compress on Unix
- : systems. I compressed an ASCII file with both the
- : MS compress and the Unix compress and while the compression
- : amounts were similar, the contents of the files were not
- : even close. I dumped the Unix-compressed file and most of
- : it was unreadable binary stuff. On the other hand, the
- : MS-compressed file was partially readable.
- :
- : So what gives here? Is it the same algorithm or not? Are
- : they compatible or not? Why not!!!!!!!!!! Shouldn't
- : MS's compress.exe be renamed to mscomp.exe so it
- : won't get confused with the 'real' compress utility?
-
-
- NO - it is not compatible with the unix version, nor was it intended
- to be. A most of the DOS users in the world DO NOT use unix, and are
- therefore not confused.
- --
- =========================================================================
- WANTED: Position for experienced Matrix runner. Demanding and ambitious
- positions welcome. Must have support for a FUCHI XNN1-11-22 cyberdeck.
- =========================================================================
-