Francois Labreque wrote in message <3A6119BF.6F0D307F@videotron.ca>...

>I haven't used pk(un)zip 2.50 in ages, but I seem to remember it did
>handle long file names properly.


Except under Windows NT.

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann wrote:

> > Tnx, but I've already dl'ed pkzip dos 2.50 and made the batch file and set it to
> > default action. Too fast for ya. ;)
> >
>
> Well, it is probably slower and cannot handle long filenames...

But it can. As for speed, right now the biggest time-consumer is having to close the
DOS window.

--
David Fontaine  <dav### [at] faricynet>  ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery:  http://davidf.faricy.net/

Post a reply to this message

On 13 Jan 2001 13:42:51 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>Peter Popov <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote:
>: RAR is available for DOS, Windows, Mac and *x. What more is there? :)

>  I have zip, rar, lha, gzip and bzip2 (and other less known)
>compression/decompression and arj decompression software in this machine
>(I think they are all generic unix programs).

>  I think that's mostly enough.

I meant, what more was there, OS-wise :)
I also have uc3, yac, ain, 

>  (Btw, bzip2 compresses better in almost every case and faster in most
>cases than any of the other compression softwares; I wonder why it isn't
>more popular in Windows systems...)

The best compressor I've seen, compression-wise, is yac (Yet Another
Compressor). It was incredibly slow to compress, though (decompression
speed was normal). It was designed for BBS mail (anyone remember Blue
Wave? :) ) as it could do successive archiving. It was great as it
could only send you the part of the archive that you didn't have and
would join it seamlessly with your archive, regardless if the data
inside was a single file which has changed or many little files. It
was great at tracking changes.

ZIP ruled the DOS world until ARJ came out. After that RAR and UC2
offered better compression and AIN was basically a fast ARJ (with a
bit lower compression). ZIP came back with the invasion of the
Internet and long file names and Winzip seems to rule the Windows
world now. RAR is still used for downloads but you will mostly find it
in crackz/warez sites (I don't know why). As of bzip2... well... bzip2
is best at text files (as is lha, I've never seen anything better that
lha for compressing large volumes of ASCII) so that might have
something to do with it. I am not sure if it needs a 32-it envoronment
or large amounts of memory (like 1MB for a hash table / dictionary)
but that would explain why it was mostly *x-only for a long time.


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

Peter Popov <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote:
: bzip2 is best at text files

  bzip2 is best at everything I have tried. I have tried text files,
executable binary files, etc, and bzip2 always compresses considerably
better than the others, and pretty fast.

-- 
char*i="b[7FK@`3NB6>B:b3O6>:B:b3O6><`3:;8:6f733:>::b?7B>:>^B>C73;S1";
main(_,c,m){for(m=32;c=*i++-49;c&m?puts(""):m)for(_=(
c/4)&7;putchar(m),_--?m:(_=(1<<(c&3))-1,(m^=3)&3););}    /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

Rune <run### [at] inamecom> wrote:
: I'd be very interested in more information about this format.
: More specifically the new format definition.

  I'll write a detailed description (as always) when I have coded it... :)

-- 
char*i="b[7FK@`3NB6>B:b3O6>:B:b3O6><`3:;8:6f733:>::b?7B>:>^B>C73;S1";
main(_,c,m){for(m=32;c=*i++-49;c&m?puts(""):m)for(_=(
c/4)&7;putchar(m),_--?m:(_=(1<<(c&3))-1,(m^=3)&3););}    /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 09:36:51 +0200, Peter Popov wrote:
>On 13 Jan 2001 13:42:51 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
>>  (Btw, bzip2 compresses better in almost every case and faster in
>>most cases than any of the other compression softwares; I wonder why
>>it isn't more popular in Windows systems...)

What kind of data are you compressing? bzip2 is usually slower than zip
at compressing and about the same speed at uncompressing.

>ZIP ruled the DOS world until ARJ came out. After that RAR and UC2
>offered better compression and AIN was basically a fast ARJ (with a bit
>lower compression). ZIP came back with the invasion of the Internet

Zip is well-documented, patent-free, and there is an implementation with
a very lenient licence. This is probably the reason why it is used for
compression in almost all internet protocols and file formats of the
last few years. The fact that many Web servers are Unix machines and zip
is available on these machines, while other formats often are not, may
also have had some influence.

>As of bzip2... well... bzip2 is best at text files (as is lha, I've
>never seen anything better that lha for compressing large volumes of
>ASCII) so that might have something to do with it. I am not sure if
>it needs a 32-it envoronment or large amounts of memory (like 1MB for
>a hash table / dictionary) but that would explain why it was mostly
>*x-only for a long time.

bzip2 doesn't even exist for "a long time", AFAIK. It is certainly
younger than Windows95, so a 32-bit environment should not have been a
problem in in the Windows world.

	hp


-- 
   _  | Peter J. Holzer    | All Linux applications run on Solaris,
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR       | which is our implementation of Linux.
| |   | hjp### [at] wsracat      | 
__/   | http://www.hjp.at/ |	-- Scott McNealy, Dec. 2000

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" wrote:
> Rune wrote:
> : I'd be very interested in more information about this format.
> : More specifically the new format definition.
>
> I'll write a detailed description (as always) when I have coded it... :)

But I *reeaally* want to know it now so I can come with comments and
suggestions in the development stage! :)

Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated January 6)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 22:37:54 -0600, David Fontaine wrote:
>Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
>> > Tnx, but I've already dl'ed pkzip dos 2.50 and made the batch file and set it to
>> > default action. Too fast for ya. ;)
>> >
>>
>> Well, it is probably slower and cannot handle long filenames...
>
>But it can. As for speed, right now the biggest time-consumer is having to close the
>DOS window.

Create a .pif file for it and associate your action with the pif file instead
of the bat file.

-- 
Ron Parker   http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions.  Mine.  Not anyone else's.

Post a reply to this message

Ron Parker wrote:

> Create a .pif file for it and associate your action with the pif file instead
> of the bat file.

Yep. Way ahead of ya ;)

--
David Fontaine  <dav### [at] faricynet>  ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery:  http://davidf.faricy.net/

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> writes:
>   bzip2 is best at everything I have tried. I have tried text files,
> executable binary files, etc, and bzip2 always compresses considerably
> better than the others, and pretty fast.

For the ultimate in comparisons... http://web.act.by.net/~act/

Post a reply to this message