2212msr@whuts.UUCP (ROBIN) (11/03/88)
SEA's ARC Rel 5.3 was released on 10/24. In my limited
testing it runs as fast or faster than PKARC. Large files,
especially .COM or .EXE, seem to pack slightly smaller w/PKARC though.
Difference of <10% on 120K file.)
I'ld be glad to upload this package if anyone would like it. It's also
available on SEA's BBS (201-473-1991).
Max S. Robin
AT&T Bell Laboratories
Room 7C-004
10 Whippany Road
Whippany, NJ 07981
email: whuts!2212msr
voice: 201-386-6865 (days)
201-627-5460 (eve.)
or 201-627-5895 (eve.)ward@cfa.harvard.EDU (Steve Ward) (11/04/88)
In article <4979@whuts.UUCP>, 2212msr@whuts.UUCP (ROBIN) writes: > SEA's ARC Rel 5.3 was released on 10/24. In my limited > testing it runs as fast or faster than PKARC. Is this speedup because now SEA has the right to use PKARC sources? :-) :-) :-) "If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em." ward@cfa.harvard.edu
twb@hoqax.UUCP (T.W. Beattie) (11/05/88)
In article <4979@whuts.UUCP> 2212msr@whuts.UUCP (ROBIN) writes: >SEA's ARC Rel 5.3 was released on 10/24. In my limited >testing it runs as fast or faster than PKARC. Large files, >especially .COM or .EXE, seem to pack slightly smaller w/PKARC though. >Difference of <10% on 120K file.) We don't need no stinkin' SEA stuff. Tom.
jhom@f20.n135.z1.uucp (Joaquim Homrighausen) (11/05/88)
> SEA's ARC Rel 5.3 was released on 10/24. In my limited > testing it runs as fast or faster than PKARC. This is strange.. this is not the result I experienced. I used ARC (SEA) on a 600K file of binary information and it took ARC 60% ('bout) longer to crunch the file than it took PKarc to squash it. I did however notice that ARC 5.3 was much faster than previous versions. -- Joaquim Homrighausen - via FidoNet node 1:135/3 Medical Software Exchange BBS (305) 325-8709 UUCP: ...uunet!gould!umbio!medsoft!20!jhom
raf@cup.portal.com (Robert A Freed) (11/06/88)
In article <4979@whuts.UUCP> 2212msr@whuts.UUCP (ROBIN) writes: >SEA's ARC Rel 5.3 was released on 10/24. In my limited >testing it runs as fast or faster than PKARC. Large files, >especially .COM or .EXE, seem to pack slightly smaller w/PKARC though. >Difference of <10% on 120K file.) It's not too hard to understand this sudden performance improvement in SEA's product. Without additional comment, I present the following (from the Exec-PC BBS, 414/964-5160). [Captured message follows...] Conf: PC APPLICATIONS Topic: FILE COMPRESS'N Ref: 1F4J2331 Date: 11/04/88 From: PHIL KATZ (Leader) Time: 03:38 pm To: GRANT ELLSWORTH (Rcvd) Subj: R: ARC CLONE / UPDATED Grant, I said this to you in private, but I thought I would repeat it here for all to read. SEA's latest program QARC is derived from PKARC. I loaded QARC into DEBUG and found the same assembly/machine code for Crunching, Huffman Squeezing, 'garbling', and even CRC-16 calculation as in PKARC 3.6. This is what I noted from making a cursory look at QARC. I also noted that it creates identical archives to PKARC or PKPAK if Squashing is disabled. >Phil> [End of captured message] -- Bob Freed Internet: raf@cup.portal.com UUCP: ...!sun!portal!cup!raf
bill@iccdev.UUCP (Bill Gaines) (11/07/88)
In article <111.23720D30@medsoft.uucp> jhom@f20.n135.z1.uucp (Joaquim Homrighausen) writes: > >This is strange.. this is not the result I experienced. I used >ARC (SEA) on a 600K file of binary information and it took ARC >60% ('bout) longer to crunch the file than it took PKarc to >squash it. I did however notice that ARC 5.3 was much faster >than previous versions. > > I have to agree with this. My tests show that the ARC program is slower than the PK software. The QARC program that comes with 5.30 is very close to the PK software in performance. It does generate larger archives than ARC does though. On a different note, I have been having some problems with the new ARC. The manual says that you can convert ARC files that show up with files that are deviants (I took this to mean PK files) by using the "ARC C" construct. When I tried this, it wiped out the archive. It convert a 100K file to 89 bytes. I tried it on one built by the SEA ARC. It did the same thing. The first time I tried it, I did not do it on a copy. It caused me to lose one archive file. Has anyone else tried this feature? -- Bill Gaines Industrial Computer Corporation (...!gatech!iccdev!bill)
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (11/07/88)
In article <4979@whuts.UUCP> 2212msr@whuts.UUCP (ROBIN) writes:
SEA's ARC Rel 5.3 was released on 10/24. In my limited
testing it runs as fast or faster than PKARC. Large files,
especially .COM or .EXE, seem to pack slightly smaller w/PKARC though.
Difference of <10% on 120K file.)
Yeah, but it still barfs on "arc v *", so I'll stick with pkarc.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])
To surrender is to remain in the hands of barbarians for the rest of my life.
To fight is to leave my bones exposed in the desert waste.Dan.Husk@p9.f1.n360.z1.uucp (Dan Husk) (11/10/88)
> From: bill@iccdev.UUCP (Bill Gaines) Date: 7 Nov 88 00:30:47 GMT > Organization: Industrial Computer Corp., Atlanta Message-ID: > <424@iccdev.UUCP> Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc > > > In article <111.23720D30@medsoft.uucp> jhom@f20.n135.z1.uucp (Joaquim > Homrighausen) writes: > >This is strange.. this is not the result I > experienced. I used >ARC (SEA) on a 600K file of binary information and > it took ARC >60% ('bout) longer to crunch the file than it took PKarc to > >squash it. I did however notice that ARC 5.3 was much faster >than > previous versions. > > Bill..If you like using Archives. Try a file manager called "ARCMASTER" It is much easier then typing "PKXARC -x filename,etc". It is a shareware product. Regards, Dan Husk -- Dan Husk - via FidoNet node 1:135/3 Medical Software Exchange BBS (305) 325-8709 UUCP: ...uunet!gould!umbio!medsoft!360!1.9!Dan.Husk