home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!network.ucsd.edu!munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!uqcspe!cs.uq.oz.au!warwick
- From: warwick@cs.uq.oz.au (Warwick Allison)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
- Subject: Re: ZOO problems (was PERFPICH.TOS v1.1 posted to a.a)
- Message-ID: <10285@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>
- Date: 14 Sep 92 05:32:15 GMT
- References: <1992Sep9.013825.25099@terminator.cc.umich.edu> <18kqgmINNnfi@peponi.wcc.govt.nz> <BuFB69.L9M@chinet.chi.il.us> <1992Sep14.035858.2395@actrix.gen.nz>
- Sender: news@cs.uq.oz.au
- Reply-To: warwick@cs.uq.oz.au
- Lines: 39
-
- In <1992Sep14.035858.2395@actrix.gen.nz> Steven.Wells@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
-
- >.ZOO is a LOT slower than LHarc, (in 'high compression' mode) - and
- >fails to get as good compression. (The difference is so small it
- >hardly matters) but speed is a real problem!
-
- Since they use exactly the same algorithm (hence "The difference is so small"
- - the the difference in header info), it is merely particular implementations
- you are talking about. All you are saying is that the particular lharc
- program you use was written in assembler.
-
-
- On my unix box here:
-
-
- ~/bin $ time zoo ah t.zoo foobar
- Zoo: foobar - (54%) added
-
- real 0m51.06s
- user 0m43.76s
- sys 0m1.65s
- ~/bin $ time lha a t.lzh foobar
- foobar - Frozen
-
- real 0m57.63s
- user 0m51.63s
- sys 0m1.56s
-
-
- So there! (No doubt the zoo one is better merely because it has been
- around longer, and so more optimizations have been made).
-
- --
- Warwick
- --
- _-_|\ warwick@cs.uq.oz.au /Disclaimer:
- / * <-- Computer Science Department, /
- \_.-._/ University of Queensland, / C references are NULL && void*
- v Brisbane, Australia. /
-