eyal@cancol.oz (Eyal Lebedinski) (03/21/90)
Reading the talk about lharc/pkzip I though I'll mention a problem I have with pkzip (1.02). If a file which is mainly uuencoded is pkziped it will be stored as is (0% compression). lharc (or pkarc for that matter) will recover most of the 25% overhead of the uuencoding process. This is why I do not use pkzip on most of my stuff (specialy when one remembers how fast pkzip is in relation to lharc [I use a 286/10]). Regards Eyal
kdq@demott.COM (Kevin D. Quitt) (03/24/90)
In article <305@cancol.oz> eyal@cancol.oz (Eyal Lebedinski) writes: >Reading the talk about lharc/pkzip I though I'll mention a problem I have >with pkzip (1.02). If a file which is mainly uuencoded is pkziped it will be >stored as is (0% compression). lharc (or pkarc for that matter) will recover >most of the 25% overhead of the uuencoding process. I just tried pkzip102 on 6 different uu and xx encoded files, and got 35% compression (-ea4 -eb4). The only time I've seen pkzip produce larger archives is when it is set to compress lots of small files. The compression on the file is often still better, but the overhead in the file is greater. kdq -- Kevin D. Quitt Manager, Software Development DeMott Electronics Co. VOICE (818) 988-4975 14707 Keswick St. FAX (818) 997-1190 Van Nuys, CA 91405-1266 MODEM (818) 997-4496 Telebit PEP last 34 12 N 118 27 W srhqla!demott!kdq kdq@demott.com "Next time, Jack, write a God-damned memo!" - Jack Ryan - Hunt for Red October
cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Stephen M. Dunn) (03/27/90)
In article <305@cancol.oz> eyal@cancol.oz (Eyal Lebedinski) writes:
$Reading the talk about lharc/pkzip I though I'll mention a problem I have
$with pkzip (1.02). If a file which is mainly uuencoded is pkziped it will be
$stored as is (0% compression). lharc (or pkarc for that matter) will recover
$most of the 25% overhead of the uuencoding process. This is why I do not use
$pkzip on most of my stuff (specialy when one remembers how fast pkzip is in
$relation to lharc [I use a 286/10]).
I'd noticed PKZIP's inability to compress UUENCODEd files, having been
using V1.01 for a while. So I was incredibly surprised when PKZIP V1.02
managed to compress a few by 10%, since the two programs are supposedly
identical. It must have just been a fluke.
However, I find myself wondering why you are compressing UUENCODEd
files. If your point is to save space, you might as well run them
through UUDECODE and then archive the resulting file. The only situation
I have encountered in which this is not practical is if you only have
some parts of a large UUENCODEd file and wish to store them temporarily
until the rest arrives.
--
Stephen M. Dunn cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca
<std_disclaimer.h> = "\nI'm only an undergraduate!!!\n";
****************************************************************************
"So sorry, I never meant to break your heart ... but you broke mine."cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Stephen M. Dunn) (03/27/90)
In article <95@demott.COM> kdq@demott.COM (Kevin D. Quitt) writes:
$ I just tried pkzip102 on 6 different uu and xx encoded files, and got
$35% compression (-ea4 -eb4). The only time I've seen pkzip produce larger
I'd just like to point out that specifying -ea4 -eb4 only does anything
on PKZIP version 0.9x ... the default method on 1.0x is optimal compression
(i.e. usually imploding). -ea and -eb are not listed on the help screen for
1.0x and in fact have no effect. So save yourself (and your keyboard) some
keystrokes.
BTW, when is V1.10 likely to show up either on wsmr-simtel20 or on
comp.binaries.ibm.pc?
--
More half-baked ideas from the oven of:
****************************************************************************
Stephen M. Dunn cs4g6ag@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca
<std_disclaimer.h> = "\nI'm only an undergraduate ... for now!\n";