specter@disk.UUCP (Byron Max Guernsey) (10/14/90)
The docs for LHWARP say it has compress at 80% of WARP because it uses LZHUF compression. I compress a Quasar sound data disk with LHWARP and then compressed it with WARP and WARP won without a battle. Warp LHWarp ---------- ----------- Time: 14 minutes 24 minutes Size: 770,000 bytes 430,000 bytes (from a filled 880k disk) Now the author claims that LHWarp is better. Please explain how??? He gave some figures on WARP vs LHWARP on NewTeks HAM disk (?) and he claimed that LHWARP had 100,000 bytes better packing. Anyone have any knowledge on why my results are so totally different? I know it may be because of disk contents, but it seems WARP is better for everyday packing. Maybe if you get certain things LHWARP would do better, but warp seems to have the speed, size, and ITS OWN SIZE (Its smaller than LHWARP) advantages. Any input??? Byron Guernsey
jjfeiler@nntp-server.caltech.edu (John Jay Feiler) (10/19/90)
specter@disk.UUCP (Byron Max Guernsey) writes: >The docs for LHWARP say it has compress at 80% of WARP because it uses >LZHUF compression. I compress a Quasar sound data disk with LHWARP and >then compressed it with WARP and WARP won without a battle. > Warp LHWarp > ---------- ----------- >Time: 14 minutes 24 minutes >Size: 770,000 bytes 430,000 bytes (from a filled 880k disk) >Now the author claims that LHWarp is better. Please explain how??? He >Byron Guernsey Look at your own data, and consider what you are going to do with the (lh)warp-ed disk. Are you going to upload it at 2400 baud to a BBS that is a toll call? How much money will you save by using lhwarp? The amiga is multi-tasking. Who cares if it takes an extra 10 minutes to compress the disk. Get some work done while it is working, or play your favorite kill-the-aliens-with-lasers game that is multitasking friendly. John Feiler
fhwri%CONNCOLL.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (10/19/90)
The fact about LHWARP is that many BBS sysops refuse to accept an LHWARPed
file, fue to perceived or real bugs in LHWARP.
--Rick Wrigley
fhwri@conncoll.bitnetdanb20@pro-graphics.cts.com (Dan Bachmann) (10/21/90)
In-Reply-To: message from specter@disk.UUCP
LHwarp usually compresses tighter than Warp by about 100k per disk,
however it is much slower to .lhwarp and unlhwarp files.
The reason Warp probably compressed tight for you was that you were
dealling with some binary patterns the the lzhuf algorythim does not do well
on. There are 2 other options in LHWarp that would have compressed that disk
probably tighter and faster.
I'm really not sure, but I think the logic behind this is simular to
lzhuf compared to Fibinocci delta compression when dealling with different
binary data types (digitized sound for example compresses better with
fib.delta as AudioMaster III uses)
ProLine: danb20@pro-graphics ***************************
UUCP: ...crash!pro-graphics!danb20 * Dan Bachmann *
ARPA/DDN: pro-graphics!danb20@nosc.mil * Raritan Valley College *
Internet: danb20@pro-graphics.cts.com ***************************
U.S.Mail: 509 StonyBrook Drive, Bridgewater, NJ 08807