portuesi@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) (10/11/89)
I just wanted to ask one simple question: what features does this new Zip archiver offer over existing archivers such as Zoo that justfy its existence? I recently found an un-Zip utility on a local bbs, which is sufficient for my needs. I only need one program to undo every packing utility in existence. I use Zoo for anything I package to distribute. It seems the Amiga world is inundated with the various archiving and compression schemes from both the Unix and MS-DOS worlds (shar, uuencode, tar, arc, zoo, and zip) plus Amiga-specific archivers such as warp and pak. Do we really need this many archive formats? --M -- __ \/ Michael Portuesi Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Inc. portuesi@SGI.COM
mdinn@ac.dal.ca (10/12/89)
In article <PORTUESI.89Oct11142007@tweezers.esd.sgi.com>, portuesi@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) writes: > > It seems the Amiga world is inundated with the various archiving and > compression schemes from both the Unix and MS-DOS worlds (shar, > uuencode, tar, arc, zoo, and zip) plus Amiga-specific archivers such > as warp and pak. Do we really need this many archive formats? > \/ Michael Portuesi Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Inc. > portuesi@SGI.COM Personally, I find that the best compression/speed ratio I get is from LHARC. It compresses binaries on average about 40% and text anywhere from 50% up. It's slower than ZOO, but I don't mind the wait too much, I just go do something else while I'm waiting. Has anyone else out there got LHARC? I have V0.50... Michael Dinn MDINN@DALAC CBM... Now you're playing with power... supplies.
sneakers@heimat.UUCP (Dan "Sneakers" Schein) (10/14/89)
In Message <PORTUESI.89Oct11142007@tweezers.esd.sgi.com>, portuesi@tweezers.esd.sgi.com writes: >It seems the Amiga world is inundated with the various archiving and >compression schemes from both the Unix and MS-DOS worlds (shar, >uuencode, tar, arc, zoo, and zip) plus Amiga-specific archivers such >as warp and pak. Do we really need this many archive formats? The SYSOP's on Berks Amiga BBS were just having this discussion a few weeks back. It seems no real answer (IE: yes or no) was reached and it was decided to support all. Reason for supporting all was that it seems each has their strong point (IE: warp does entire disks, on some files a ZOO archive is smaller than ARC, ect, ect). So until one (or two) archives appear as the winner (via public choice) we have decided to just allow em all.... But I have to say my personal feelings are that we have more than we need. I use "ZOO" simply because I have it for AmigaDOS, MS-DOS, and Unix - and since thats the places I spend my time ZOO works for me. (Besides I like its ability to handle long filenames and multiple periods - unlike ARC) All the files upload by the SYSOP's on Berks Amiga are in Zoo format. Sneakers -- ___ Dan "Sneakers" Schein //// BERKS AMIGA BBS Sneakers Computing //// 80+ Megs of software & messages 2455 McKinley Ave. ___ //// 12/2400 Baud - 24 Hrs West Lawn, PA 19609 \\\\ //// 215/678-7691 \\\\//// {pyramid|rutgers|uunet}!cbmvax!heimat!sneakers
swan@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US (Joel Swan) (10/14/89)
In article <PORTUESI.89Oct11142007@tweezers.esd.sgi.com> portuesi@sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) writes:
:
:I just wanted to ask one simple question:
:
: what features does this new Zip archiver offer over existing
: archivers such as Zoo that justfy its existence?
[a few items deleted]
:
:It seems the Amiga world is inundated with the various archiving and
:compression schemes from both the Unix and MS-DOS worlds (shar,
:uuencode, tar, arc, zoo, and zip) plus Amiga-specific archivers such
:as warp and pak. Do we really need this many archive formats?
:
: --M
:--
:__
:\/ Michael Portuesi Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Inc.
: portuesi@SGI.COM
The world is also inundated with various computer formats, like Unix, MS-DOS,
Archimedes, CPM, etc. etc. Why start a new format like the Amiga?
The reason for ZIP and LHARC and such is because they can compress/decompress
better, and/or faster. While LHARC beats ARC hands down on compressing
HAM files, ZOO actually ADDS size to HAM files. There is also the flexibility
issue as well. It's amazing what ZOO can do with pipes and the like.
I suppose its like computers, there's always a "standard" that suits each
individual's needs.
Joelkuan@iris.ucdavis.edu (Francisco Kuan) (10/15/89)
Zip sucks eggs. It crunches pretty slow, and it unpacks pretty slow. Boy, run IBM programs on your Amiga. What's next? MS-DOS for the Amiga? Maybe Workbench 1.4 will have a keymap that sticks the control where it SHOULD be, on the left of the space bar. Ok, sorry for being so cynical, but I see no reason for using zip, unless you run an Amiga BBS on an IBM or something... I'm basically sick and tired of seeing IBM ports, especially bad games. Anyone who has ever seen an SSI game on the Amiga probably wonders the same thing I do. Did they port it from an IBM, Apple II, or a toaster? Why can't they port something useful, like Microsoft C Compiler? We have enough archivers on the Amiga. I prefer Zoo, or the same reason most poeple do. Another cruncher I like to use is Power Packer. It takes a real long time to crunch, but it decrunches incredibly fast. For example, I have some animation demos that are around 300K, and it takes power packer about 15 seconds to uncrunch, whereas unzip takes a couple of minutes.
ALBRECHT@caliph (Steve Albrecht) (10/16/89)
I recently benchmarked LHARC vrs ZIP, ZOO, and ARC. Although I did this
on an IBM PC/AT, the results shoud apply equally to Amiga provided that
the algorithms are bug-free, or similarly buggy :-) .
I used PC versions: LHARC 1.13C, PKZIP 1.01, PKARC 3.61, PKARC 3.5, ARC 6.02,
ARC 5.32, and ZOO 2.01.
There was no significant difference between the 4 versions of ARC, compression-
wise.
LHARC was the best(53% compression power on my sample of real, randomly selectedshareware/freeware submission).
PKZIP was a close second with a cp of 50% (resulting files were 5% larger than
those produced by LHARC).
All ARC version and ZOO were clustered at cp=38-40, with files 20% larger than
those produced by LHARC.
I also comapred features and speed of pack and unpack. Since those may differ
significantly from PC to Amiga, I won't bother to report them here.
Note: compression power(cp) is (unpacked size) - (packed size)
---------------------------------
(unpacked size)
a worthless compression algorithm would acheive a cp of 0 (0%),
while an (impossibly) ideal one would acheive a cp of 1 (100%).
Translating reults to Amiga: Since LHARC1.13C is the ONLY version (I know of)
that was circulated for IBM PC, Amiga LHARC .50 is the same, or (doubtfully)
even later(better). ZOO should be the same, since no new versions have appearedin some time. ARC is ARC, though PK's implementation always seems just a
tiny bit better (compression-wise) than S.E.A's. I don't know what version
(of who the author is) of the Amiga version of ZIP. Since PKWARE does not
circulate its sources...
(::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::)
) Steve Albrecht - IntelliCorp, Inc. - Knowledge Systems Product Development )
( "Opinions expressed here are my own, if anyone's, and not my employer's." (
) DDS albrecht@intellicorp.com : COMPUSERVE 73657,1342 (
( UUCP ...!sun!intellicorp.com!albrecht : public bbs (415)969-5643 )
) or ...!sun!icmv!albrecht : "c"omment to sysop (
(::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::)
-------allen@saxon.HAC.COM (Allen Farrington) (10/16/89)
Ya know, the primary Mac archiver, Stuffit (now a commercial product), is a really slick program. You just dclick on the archive's icon and you're presented with a listing of the available files. Select the ones you want and it'll undo them in a jiffy. I don't see why some industrious person couldn't take the zoo source (it's PD isn't it?) and add a slick user interface to it. Any takers? --Allen |======================================================================| | Allen H. Farrington smart: allen@tcville.hac.com | | (213) 436-0483 CompuServe: 74010,1775 | |======================================================================|
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (10/17/89)
In article <284@tcville.HAC.COM> allen@tcville.hac.com (Allen Farrington) writes: >Ya know, the primary Mac archiver, Stuffit (now a commercial >product), is a really slick program. You just dclick on the >archive's icon and you're presented with a listing of the >available files. Select the ones you want and it'll undo >them in a jiffy. > >I don't see why some industrious person couldn't take the zoo >source (it's PD isn't it?) and add a slick user interface >to it. Any takers? That's a good idea. As long as it remains compatible with standard zoo files. What I like about zoo is that I can take a zoo file and move it to any other machine I have handy and manipulate the file. MSDOS, Unix and my Amiga. I have seen a similar product for MSDOS called NARC (for uN-ARC) that will give you a listing of ARC files in a certain directory, let you pick one using a highlight bar and the arrow keys, and then list all the files in that .ARC You then use the arrow keys and can select any or all of the files in the .ARC and unpack them. It asks what directory you want to place them in and away it goes. pretty nice. Since you came up with the idea,.... let us know when it's finished ;-) -- John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps ||||||||||||||| sparks@corpane.UUCP | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 Don't worry if you're a kleptomaniac, you can always take something for it.
bagchi@sparky.eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Bagchi) (10/19/89)
In article <284@tcville.HAC.COM> allen@tcville.hac.com (Allen Farrington) writes: >Ya know, the primary Mac archiver, Stuffit (now a commercial >product), is a really slick program. You just dclick on the >archive's icon and you're presented with a listing of the >available files. Select the ones you want and it'll undo >them in a jiffy. > >I don't see why some industrious person couldn't take the zoo >source (it's PD isn't it?) and add a slick user interface >to it. Any takers? Gack. No...a thousand screams no... Graphic-type interfaces are nice, without a doubt for an infrequently used program, that does a lot of stuff that needs complex settings. However, archiving isn't one of them. It really is the sorta thing that people do an awful lot of, if they do it at all. And, for the most part, anyone who does BBS-or even more so-UNIX/netnews stuff, should have no problem with the CLI anyway. You should know as well as I do that mixing keyboard and mouse-usage is a pain in the butt. Not to mention that I never download a program with an icon. Wastes disk space. If you want an un-archiver, it really isn't all that hard to make an executable script, and use XICON on it. . /*------------------------------+-------------+--------------------------------+ | I am not Elvis. But one |\ /|Ranjan K. Bagchi | | of you might be. If so, | \ / |bagchi@sparky.eecs.umich.edu | | or if a loved one is, or | >-------< |Ranjan_Bagchi@ub.cc.umich.edu | | even has heard of the where- | / \ +--------------------------------+ | abouts of the King, please |/ \| "I'd like four fried chickens | | call the Elvis Presley +-------------+ and a Coke. | | Lookout for the '90s line. (313)764-0628 | -The Blues Brothers | +---------------------------------------------+-------------------------------*/
allen@tcville.HAC.COM (Allen Farrington) (10/19/89)
from Article 22144 of comp.sys.amiga: >Gack. No...a thousand screams no... Graphic-type interfaces are nice, >without a doubt for an infrequently used program, that does a lot >of stuff that needs complex settings. I guess I was just commenting on the more professional nature of Stuffit vs. what zoo presently is on the Amiga. Just because a program is simple to use does not preclude it from using the Graphical User Interface (GUI). Additionally, just because a program is easy to run does not decrease its power. The appeal of the Amiga, and I assume one its strong selling points is the GUI. I wonder if the availability of a graphical-based archiver/un-archiver like zoo would increase its usage among novice (read new) computer users? Lastly, I've used IBM's professionally. I've used and am now using Macintoshes professionally. I have an Amiga at home. I really like the mix of graphical and command-line that the Amiga offers. I don't want to start any kind of "my user interface is better than your user interface" flame war. -- |======================================================================| | Allen H. Farrington smart: allen@tcville.hac.com | | (213) 436-0483 CompuServe: 74010,1775 | |======================================================================|
unhd (Layton C Cote) (10/20/89)
Zip definitely is useful enough to keep among the ever growing number of amiga archivers, although zoo can be used in most cases, and is more flexible. While on the subject of amiga archivers, does anyone know the archiver version which extracts those with .lzh extensions? I've tried stuff-it but the files apparently have to be converted to the A-Max format before it can work with them. On the amigados side, nothing from pkx to zoo can make it past the headers. Also, does anyone know if warp2.0 is the latest release since around v. 1.1z ? It seems there hasn't been a new version in some time now. ________ ___ _ ---UUCP:uunet!unhd!lcc770--------/ //--------------------------| |-------- | ____ ___ / // /\ /\ /\ | /--\ /\ | | |\ | | | |\ | | \ / \ \\ / // /--\/ V \ || __ /--\ V | | | |__| | \| |__ | \ \\/ // / \ \| \__| / \ o | | | \ / // | | |---------------------------\_//--------------------BITNET:l_cote@unhh---| | \ DISCLAIMER: Of course expressed opinions are mine and don't \| \______________necessarily_reflect_those_of_my_employer___________________| -- ___ _ ---UUCP:uunet!unhd!lcc770--------/ //--------------------------| |-------- | ____ ___ / // /\ /\ /\ | /--\ /\ | | |\ | | | |\ | | \ / \ \\ / // /--\/ V \ || __ /--\ V | |
consp11@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Optimist Prime) (10/20/89)
In article <1989Oct19.232008.8625@uunet!unhd> lcc770@unhd.UUCP (Layton C Cote) writes: >[...] >While on the subject of amiga archivers, does anyone know the archiver >version which extracts those with .lzh extensions? [...] LHArc 0.50 works on the .LZH files. >Also, does anyone know if warp2.0 is the latest release since around >v. 1.1z ? It seems there hasn't been a new version in some time >now. Warp 2.0 is the latest version. +-------///---------------------------------------------------------\\\-------+ | /// Brett Kessler \\\ | | /// ============= \\\ | | \\\/// E-Mail to: consp11@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu \\\/// | | \XX/ and to: consp11@bingvaxa.BITNET \XX/ | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
d37723k@taltta.hut.fi (Kai Vorma) (10/22/89)
In article <1989Oct19.232008.8625@uunet!unhd> lcc770@unhd.UUCP (Layton C Cote) writes: >While on the subject of amiga archivers, does anyone know the archiver >version which extracts those with .lzh extensions? There is a program called Lharc 0.50, which is compatible with version 1.13 of Lharc for MS-DOS systems. The author is Paolo Zibetti. If you can use ftp, you can get it from sauna.hut.fi (128.214.3.119) Directory is: /pub/amiga
unhd (Layton C Cote) (10/23/89)
In article <2539@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> consp11@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu.cc.binghamton.edu (Optimist Prime) writes: >In article <1989Oct19.232008.8625@uunet!unhd> lcc770@unhd.UUCP (Layton C Cote) writes: >>[...] >>While on the subject of amiga archivers, does anyone know the archiver >>version which extracts those with .lzh extensions? [...] > >LHArc 0.50 works on the .LZH files. Ok... Thanks. I didn't know LHArc handled .lzh extensions and it was right under my nose(on my system) all the time. > >>Also, does anyone know if warp2.0 is the latest release since around >>v. 1.1z ? It seems there hasn't been a new version in some time >>now. > >Warp 2.0 is the latest version. By the way: The other day, I saw a NEW? version of a warp-like utility, called unwarp? which flew when warp writing, compared to warp2.0. It took roughly 30 seconds to unwarp *ANY* warp file, no matter how compressed. I heard that A LOT of this increase in speed was due to the blazing performance of his system, since he was a developer with GVP's 030 board fully populated with 32 bit ram, GVP's removable hard drive cartridge system, the full ECS and lots of other options, but he said it usually gets at least twice the performance of warp2.0 when warp writing on a "normal" 68000 amiga. Has anyone compared the performances of this unwarp with warp2.0 in warp writing( i don't think unwarp could warp read) ??? ___ _ ---UUCP:uunet!unhd!lcc770--------/ //--------------------------| |-------- | ____ ___ / // /\ /\ /\ | /--\ /\ | | |\ | | | |\ | | \ / \ \\ / // /--\/ V \ || __ /--\ V | | | |__| | \| |__ | \ \\/ // / \ \| \__| / \ o | | | \ / // | | |---------------------------\_//--------------------BITNET:l_cote@unhh---| | \ DISCLAIMER: Of course expressed opinions are mine and don't \| \______________necessarily_reflect_those_of_my_employer___________________| -- ___ _ ---UUCP:uunet!unhd!lcc770--------/ //--------------------------| |-------- | ____ ___ / // /\ /\ /\ | /--\ /\ | | |\ | | | |\ | | \ / \ \\ / // /--\/ V \ || __ /--\ V | |
bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com (Bob Lindabury) (10/25/89)
Network Comment: to #4612 by bagchi@sparky.eecs.umich.edu >> I don't see why some industrious person couldn't take the zoo >> source (it's PD isn't it?) and add a slick user interface >> to it. Any takers? > > Gack. No...a thousand screams no... Graphic-type interfaces are nice, > without a doubt for an infrequently used program, that does a lot > of stuff that needs complex settings. > > However, archiving isn't one of them. It really is the sorta thing that > people do an awful lot of, if they do it at all. And, for the most part, > anyone who does BBS-or even more so-UNIX/netnews stuff, should have no > problem with the CLI anyway. You should know as well as I do that > mixing keyboard and mouse-usage is a pain in the butt. > > Not to mention that I never download a program with an icon. Wastes > disk space. > > If you want an un-archiver, it really isn't all that hard to make > an executable script, and use XICON on it. Obviously you are a very biased person. I hope you realize that there are thousands of people out there who would *rather* use a completly mouse drive interface to unarchive their ZOO archives. It constantly amazes me how many people there are out there that think if a person doesn't want to use the CLI or doesn't know how to write an XICON script, they should give up computing. You should realize that there is also a big push on for the A500 machine to be sold to students. In alot of cases this may be a person's first computer. Allowing them to call a local bbs, download a file and *easily* unarchive it is desirable in my opinion. Not everyone out there has your experience with a computer. I also doubt you have ever even seen the StuffIt program and how it works. It is *completely* mouse driven and requires absolutely no keystrokes. Your assurtion that combining mouse and keyboard is valid, however, not in the case of StuffIt for the Mac. As a matter of fact, an associate of mine is currently working on such an interface for ZOO and maybe he will include some other Archivers as well. As a note, even though I have no problems with the shell, I find that using a program such as DiskMaster 1.3 for filekeeping chores is much easier, faster and more productive than banging away at the CLI. -- Bob _________________________ Pro-Graphics 201/469-0049 __________________________ UUCP: {..crash!}pro-graphics!bobl | ProLine: bobl@pro-graphics InterNet: bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com | CServe: 70347,2344 ARPA/DDN: {..crash!}pro-graphics!bobl@nosc.mil | AppleLink: Graphics3D ___________ ____________ Raven Enterprises - 25 Raven Ave. Piscataway, NJ 08854
maniac@arrakis.nevada.edu (ERIC SCHWERTFEGER) (10/25/89)
> I also doubt you have ever even seen the StuffIt program and how it works. It > is *completely* mouse driven and requires absolutely no keystrokes. Your > assurtion that combining mouse and keyboard is valid, however, not in the case > of StuffIt for the Mac. My two cents on this issue is this: I've used stuffit, and while it is usable, I don't like the interface. Archiving and dearchiving is one of those things that I find easier from the CLI ("zoo x snap" rather than "open archive, select all the files, then select extract"). I'm of the opinion that the archiver should be usable either way, or have two different versions. Sure, you prefer the intuition interface in this case, but you forcing your opinion on others that may not like it is just as bad as them forcing their opinion on you. (I don't think you are advocating intuition-only, but you also haven't said otherwise). Eric Schwertfeger, UNLV, maniac@arrakis.nevada.edu
lgreen@pnet01.cts.com (Lawrence Greenwald) (10/25/89)
lcc770@uunet!unhd (Layton C Cote) writes: > [other stuff pertaining to ZIP deleted] >Also, does anyone know if warp2.0 is the latest release since around >v. 1.1z ? It seems there hasn't been a new version in some time >now. > >---UUCP:uunet!unhd!lcc770--------/ //--------------------------| |-------- Warp 2.0 is just someone who decided to modify the executable and put other header stuff in, there is no actual improvements (it's still 1.1z in a "cuter" package). If you don't create .wrp files, get a copy of 'unwarp' from your friendly BBS (I got mine from Plink, it might be on Genie and on some local BBS's). Larry Greenwald UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd sdcsvax nosc}!crash!pnet01!lgreen ARPA: crash!pnet01!lgreen@nosc.mil INET: lgreen@pnet01.cts.com SNAIL:4545 Collwood Blvd, #52 San Diego, CA 92115 "I'm looking over a three-leaf clover that I overlooked be-three!" -Bugs Bunny
bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com (Bob Lindabury) (10/28/89)
Network Comment: to #4927 by maniac@arrakis.nevada.edu > My two cents on this issue is this: I've used stuffit, and while it is usable, > I don't like the interface. Archiving and dearchiving is one of those things > that I find easier from the CLI ("zoo x snap" rather than "open archive, > select all the files, then select extract"). > > I'm of the opinion that the archiver should be usable either way, or have > two different versions. Sure, you prefer the intuition interface in this > case, but you forcing your opinion on others that may not like it is just as > bad as them forcing their opinion on you. (I don't think you are advocating > intuition-only, but you also haven't said otherwise). > > Eric Schwertfeger, UNLV, maniac@arrakis.nevada.edu I'm not forcing my opinion on anyone. If and when our interface is completed, it will just be a front end to the archiving programs. Users will have the choice of either using the frontend to do their archiving chores or they can bang away at the keyboard in the CLI and NOT use the front end. It's all up to each person individually. After all, isn't freedom of choice what this country is all about? B^) -- Bob _________________________ Pro-Graphics 201/469-0049 __________________________ UUCP: {..crash!}pro-graphics!bobl | ProLine: bobl@pro-graphics InterNet: bobl@pro-graphics.cts.com | CServe: 70347,2344 ARPA/DDN: {..crash!}pro-graphics!bobl@nosc.mil | AppleLink: Graphics3D ___________ ____________ Raven Enterprises - 25 Raven Ave. Piscataway, NJ 08854