briand@tekig4.UUCP (Brian Diehm) (04/29/86)
---
I've just been made very aware of something that should've been pretty
obvious to me, and to us all. I feel we're all being had. It's probably too
late. The trigger was the following interchange from INFO-MAC DIGEST (ARPA):
>> PackIt II files, when you attempt to unpack them with PackIt I, will give
>> you a "Not valid PackIt file" if they have been compressed during packing.
>> As this is a major time saver, it is one of the big advantages of PackIt II.
>> Also, as PackIt II can read PackIt I files fine, there really isn't much of
>> a reason not to use PackIt II.
> From the moderator: Previous discussion on this net has pointed out that
> PackIt I is public domain, while PackIt II is shaeware. For that reason
> files posted to public domain bboards and networks should use PackIt I (the
> author of PackIt has pointed this out himself).
Well, there you have it. Someone wrote a neat program, everybody started
using it, and the author says "Damn! I could'a had a profit!" So he does what
anyone who wishes to belatedly cash in does; he tries to change the standard.
How? Add a feature!
I remember thinking to myself when I first heard of the compression on
PackIt II that I didn't give a damn about the compression unless it was truly
impressive. I also remember having to rearrange my disk files because the new
PackIt was much larger. I was peeved, but I grabbed it in self-defense.
The trouble is that this highway robbery is already working! Remember
back when the PackIt-ed postings were few and far between? When it was just as
often that people would simply paste together several BinHex-es into one file
and post it? Now, I've seen SINGLE FILE POSTINGS PackIt-ed just for the
presumed compression.
And presumed compression it is, folks. Try this: PackIt a few "typical"
things with and without compression. See which version is smaller. And by how
much. In fact, I suggest people post their results; such benchmarking is done
with disk performance, why not with this? I have found the compression results
less than exhilarating, like in some cases LESS THAN 1%! Are my experiences
typical?
Before we as a group submit to such flinty-eyed commercialism, let us be
sure we all want to pay the $10 for the results! And meanwhile, if at all
possible, use PackIt I as the standard multi-file combination method of prefer-
ence, and then only when actually needed.
-Brian Diehm
Tektronix, Inc. (SDA - Standard Disclaimers Apply. Tektronix doesn't have any
official opinion about PackIt I, PackIt II, the Macintosh, the
cesium atom, or the Giant Rat of Sumatra. Tektronix probably
doesn't know I'm posting this, nor would they probably care,
even though it's probably being done on their machine.)dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (05/02/86)
> I've just been made very aware of something that should've been pretty > obvious to me, and to us all. I feel we're all being had. It's > probably too late. The trigger was the following interchange from > INFO-MAC DIGEST (ARPA): > ... > The trouble is that this highway robbery is already working! Remember > back when the PackIt-ed postings were few and far between? When it was > just as often that people would simply paste together several BinHex-es > into one file and post it? Now, I've seen SINGLE FILE POSTINGS > PackIt-ed just for the presumed compression. > ... > And presumed compression it is, folks. Try this: PackIt a few > "typical" things with and without compression. See which version is > smaller. And by how much. In fact, I suggest people post their > results; such benchmarking is done with disk performance, why not with > this? I have found the compression results less than exhilarating, like > in some cases LESS THAN 1%! Are my experiences typical? > ... > -Brian Diehm I don't have any stats to report, but I agree with Brian in his general assessment of PackItII: I dislike it. I dislike the introductory message that it puts up. I dislike the frequent crashes. I dislike its behavior [sic] with DA's. I dislike having to be wary every time I use a program. None of these things were true of the original. I vote that either (i) we use regular PackIt more frequently, or (ii) that we get together and write a protocol for mashing files together, post it and *explicitly* make it public domain. Yes, I know, we don't need another "standard". But PackItII should be put out of business. Understand, I'm not out for Chesley's hide. I applaud his MacDeveloper efforts, and also PackIt. Not PackItII. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | Doth the hawk fly by thy wisdom, and stretch her wings | toward the south? Job 39:26
joel@gould9.UUCP (05/04/86)
I agree with everything said.
I would note that BinHex 4.0 tries to do compression, therefore
running a PackIt II file through BinHex 4.0 probably doesn't
gain much. Any redundancy taken out of the original file
("compression") done by P II will reduce the compression of 4.0.
And, of course, Mr. Chelsey did everyone a favor with PackIt, but
later decided to see how to cash in with shareware.
TANSAAFL*
--
Joel West (619) 457-9681
CACI, Inc. Federal, 3344 N. Torrey Pines Ct., La Jolla, CA 92037
{cbosgd, ihnp4, sdcsvax, ucla-cs} !gould9!joel
joel%gould9.uucp@NOSC.ARPA
*There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch -- acronym by R. Heinlein.moriarty@fluke.UUCP (Jeff Meyer) (05/05/86)
Hear, hear! Let me also add my voice to the requests to not use the Packit
II compression method. Don't make the free passing of PD software a source
of funds for someone trying to take advantage of a standard. The Packit
format would never have caught on in the first place if PackIt was originally
shareware.
"A man who has no business being anyone's role model..."
Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
ARPA: fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA
UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, allegra, sb6, lbl-csam}!fluke!moriarty
<*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>tdn@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Newton) (05/07/86)
I agree. A similar thing happened with BinHex 4.0 and BinHex 5.0 (the former
is free, the latter is $10 shareware), but I suspect the motivation there was
to encourage people to use terminal programs with built-in MacBinary support.
BinHex 5 is redundant if one has BinHex 4 and a MacBinary terminal program, so
one can ignore it and use the free version without missing anything. The same
does not seem to be true of Packit II -- I have not seen any free programs for
the Mac that can be used to bypass it.
-- Thomas Newtonngg@bridge2.UUCP (05/14/86)
> Hear, hear! Let me also add my voice to the requests to not use the Packit > II compression method. Don't make the free passing of PD software a source > of funds for someone trying to take advantage of a standard. The Packit > format would never have caught on in the first place if PackIt was originally shareware. I disagree, just because the author has turned out a respectable program that is well worth the $10 or so for the use of it. Is no reason not to take advantage of the obvious. When you compress a file and Pack it together, not only are you saving lines to send, time, possibly money, and a variety of other possible advantages. Seems like people get upset when they miss out on something, when the program packit II has been on the net and is available on many MAC BBS's around the country there is no real excuse for not being able to find it if you look for it....no flames please..I just think that the advantages of using Packit II out weigh the non-existant dis-advantages... Norm Goodger !bridge2!ngg
ngg@bridge2.UUCP (05/14/86)
> > I don't have any stats to report, but I agree with Brian in his general > assessment of PackItII: I dislike it. I dislike the introductory message > that it puts up. I dislike the frequent crashes. I dislike its > behavior [sic] with DA's. I dislike having to be wary every time I use > a program. > > None of these things were true of the original. I vote that either > (i) we use regular PackIt more frequently, or (ii) that we get together > and write a protocol for mashing files together, post it and *explicitly* > make it public domain. Yes, I know, we don't need another "standard". > But PackItII should be put out of business. > > Understand, I'm not out for Chesley's hide. I applaud his MacDeveloper > efforts, and also PackIt. Not PackItII. > -- > | > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- I think this whole thing with Packit II is getting carried away I feel that a programmer hass the right to any opening screen he wishes to create, it goes away with the click of the mouse so you don't even have to look at it. I have never had it even come close to crashing, so in my opinion must be something that the operator is doing wrong. WHy be wary of an application that sole purpose in life is to be a utility to pack an unpack files, seems strange to me, I just use it and I'm done, no pain, no strain PAckit II works extremely well, I have had compressions of up to 20% or more in some cases, I find that very worth while. Just because someone decides to make some money off their work everyone gets upset, sound like everyones opinion is "IF it isn't Free, its not worth it" I feel that if it works well and the author did a good job and its worth it, pay it. stop complaining, Packit II is well worth the 10 bucks or so Chelsey wants for it, and it a very solid program, works fine for me and I use it extensively on my BBS to keep a variety of files packed together for transfers. and it has saved me somewhere in the neighborhood of 800k or more in file space due to the compression feature. I find that well worth it....... Norm Goodger bridge2!ngg
borton@sdcc3.UUCP (05/22/86)
In article <189@bridge2.UUCP> ngg@bridge2.UUCP (Norman Goodger) writes: [...] > so you don't even have to look at it. I have never had it even > come close to crashing, so in my opinion must be something that > the operator is doing wrong. WHy be wary of an application that The very first time I tried PackIt II I was cured. It has a SIZE -1 resource specifying that it only needs 100K to run. Very nice. I ran it as such, under Switcher 4.6, and it *consistently* bombed on the second MouseDown. At the time I was running HFS on 64K ROMs with an HD20. It ran properly when not under Switcher. It ran partially if I gave it a larger partition (I tried 128K and 200K). Partially = works for a while and then bombs in the middle of doing something. If a program won't work, I won't use it, let alone pay for it. No PackIt II for me... --Chris -- Chris Borton, UC San Diego Undergraduate CS; Micro Consultant, UCSD borton@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU || ...!{ucbvax,decvax,noscvax,ihnp4,bang}!sdcsvax!borton "Ist alles klar, Herr Kommissar?" "Ganz! Sie sind der Dieb!"
wolfl@zaphod.UUCP (Wolf Lunscher) (06/13/86)
I've found Packit II to work flawlessly ever since it was downloaded. It has a cleaner, more mature user interface than Packit I, and its data compression feature works so well I recommend it for file archives. It also gives no problems with the MacPlus. I can't say I've ever tried it with switcher, but since it is usually only used as the last stage of a download procedure there is little need to. -Wolf-