peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (09/20/87)
Will people who compress stuff for distribution PLEASE use 12-bit. 16-bit uses a huge amount of memory and may not even be available on small machines like PDP-11s and Intels. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- 'U` Have you hugged your wolf today?
brianc@cognos.uucp (Brian Campbell) (09/24/87)
In article <780@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
! Will people who compress stuff for distribution PLEASE use 12-bit. 16-bit
! uses a huge amount of memory and may not even be available on small machines
! like PDP-11s and Intels.
Don't suck Intel machines into this -- 16-bit compress is available for
both DOS and Xenix. It also saves a considerable (meaning not negligible)
amount of space. Try as I might, I just can't feel sorry for you. Surely
you have access to some machine that can do 16-bit uncompresses?
--
Brian Campbell uucp: decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!brianc
Cognos Incorporated mail: POB 9707, 3755 Riverside Drive, Ottawa, K1G 3Z4
(613) 738-1440 fido: sysop@163/8dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (09/27/87)
>In article <780@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >! Will people who compress stuff for distribution PLEASE use 12-bit. 16-bit >! uses a huge amount of memory and may not even be available on small machines >! like PDP-11s and Intels. > > Don't suck Intel machines into this -- 16-bit compress is available for >both DOS and Xenix. It also saves a considerable (meaning not negligible) >amount of space. Try as I might, I just can't feel sorry for you. Surely >you have access to some machine that can do 16-bit uncompresses? The problem is that the 16 bit compress needs 300-400K of working space and people with 512K Amiga's can't use it. I used 12 bit compress on my amiga until I expanded to 2 Meg, then switched to 16 bit compress. Even with 2 Meg the system can sometimes get fragmented in such a way that compress can't allocate enough contiguous storage. However, 16 bit compress is a defacto standard for the ArpaNet anyway and usually all that's available on major nodes unless you want to go off and recompile it. Anybody intending a personal computer distribution, though, should use the 12 bit compress. (But hell, forget compress... if doing a personal computer distribution use ARC or something). -Matt
satan@geac.UUCP (The Big One Himself) (09/27/87)
In article <1493@cognos.UUCP> brianc@cognos.UUCP (Brian Campbell) writes: >In article <780@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >! Will people who compress stuff for distribution PLEASE use 12-bit. 16-bit >! uses a huge amount of memory and may not even be available on small machines >! like PDP-11s and Intels. > > Don't suck Intel machines into this -- 16-bit compress is available for >both DOS and Xenix. It also saves a considerable (meaning not negligible) >amount of space. Try as I might, I just can't feel sorry for you. Surely >you have access to some machine that can do 16-bit uncompresses? >-- >Brian Campbell uucp: decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!brianc >Cognos Incorporated mail: POB 9707, 3755 Riverside Drive, Ottawa, K1G 3Z4 >(613) 738-1440 fido: sysop@163/8 Sorry Brian, not all of us are on the fed's gravy train with access to ATs and RTs and other expensive new hardware, we must cope with DOS or Venix on PCs or XTs, or else old PDP-11s. None of which support 16-bit compress By the way, locating a friendly site with a set of tools can sometime be a big problem when the overall gain of transferring a 12-bit compressed image versus a 16-bit image is very small (not negigilbe but small). Since you indicate that the request is an imposition, please post your sources for your wonderful compress, otherwise, you should, perhaps, switch feet before venting any frustration you might be experiencing. -- (__|__) | | What's a soul anyway --- you hardly know its there! |
cc1@ucla-cs.UUCP (09/28/87)
12 bit compress is availible on all machines with compress. compress -b 12 files will work just fine. Incidently, I compared 14 bit compress (needed 256K stack:-) with 12 bit. No significant change in space, major change in CPU time. Maybe I just got unlucky. Michael The opinions represented here are a result of being educated at a school that discriminates againts roosters. Only the birds are responsible.
johnm@auscso.UUCP (John B. Meaders) (09/28/87)
Some of us unfortunate souls are stuck running Xenix on 8086 based machines
(mine is Compaq Deskpro). When I get out of school I will be able to afford
a real computer. Until then, or until I can find a buyer for this machine,
I am stuck with maximum user processes of 399k. So, yes, please stick to
12-bit compresses.
--
John B. Meaders, Jr. 1114 Camino La Costa #3083, Austin, TX 78752
ATT: Voice: +1 (512) 451-5038 Data: +1 (512) 371-0550
UUCP: ...!ut-sally!ut-ngp!auscso!jclyde!john
\johnmgrr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) (09/28/87)
In article <8709271656.AA01246@cory.Berkeley.EDU> dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes: > >In article <780@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > >! Will people who compress stuff for distribution PLEASE use 12-bit. 16-bit > >! uses a huge amount of memory and may not even be available on small machines > >! like PDP-11s and Intels. > > However, 16 bit compress is a defacto standard for the ArpaNet > anyway and usually all that's available on major nodes unless you want to > go off and recompile it. Anybody intending a personal computer distribution, > though, should use the 12 bit compress. (But hell, forget compress... if > doing a personal computer distribution use ARC or something). Compress has a -b switch that allows you to specify 12 or some other random number of bits. I've had this pain before, having to uucp files back and forth between machines just to uncompress them... -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {ihnp4|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: out to lunch... Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (10/02/87)
As quoted from <1488@geac.UUCP> by satan@geac.UUCP (The Big One Himself): +--------------- | In article <1493@cognos.UUCP> brianc@cognos.UUCP (Brian Campbell) writes: | >In article <780@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: | >! Will people who compress stuff for distribution PLEASE use 12-bit. 16-bit | >! uses a huge amount of memory and may not even be available on small machines | >! like PDP-11s and Intels. | > | > Don't suck Intel machines into this -- 16-bit compress is available for | >both DOS and Xenix. It also saves a considerable (meaning not negligible) | >amount of space. Try as I might, I just can't feel sorry for you. Surely | >you have access to some machine that can do 16-bit uncompresses? | | Sorry Brian, not all of us are on the fed's gravy train with access to ATs | and RTs and other expensive new hardware, we must cope with DOS or Venix on | PCs or XTs, or else old PDP-11s. None of which support 16-bit compress +--------------- Nor are small machines alone. Ncoast has fried its cache chips a few times as a result of 16-bit compresses... 68000, NOT an Intel or PDP-11! -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc {{harvard,mit-eddie}!necntc,well!hoptoad,sun!mandrill!hal}!ncoast!allbery ARPA: necntc!ncoast!allbery@harvard.harvard.edu Fido: 157/502 MCI: BALLBERY <<ncoast Public Access UNIX: +1 216 781 6201 24hrs. 300/1200/2400 baud>> "`You left off the thunderclap and the lightning flash.', I told him. `Should I try again?' `Never mind.'" --Steven Brust, JHEREG
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (10/04/87)
In article <1493@cognos.UUCP>, brianc@cognos.uucp (Brian Campbell) writes: > In article <780@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > ! Will people who compress stuff for distribution PLEASE use 12-bit. 16-bit > ! uses a huge amount of memory and may not even be available on small machines > ! like PDP-11s and Intels. > Don't suck Intel machines into this -- 16-bit compress is available for > both DOS and Xenix. Xenix 286, yes. Not on the 8088, though. And it still takes up something in the vicinity of half a meg to hold the tables for 16 bit compression. > It also saves a considerable (meaning not negligible) > amount of space. Try as I might, I just can't feel sorry for you. Surely > you have access to some machine that can do 16-bit uncompresses? I do now... a Xenix 286 machine. I can also run it on my Amiga if I throw away ALL other programs and libraries, a rather distasteful action. Since the posting I'm talking about was a bunch of compressed Amiga images it's a bit strange. At the very least people should refrain from 16bit compressing data intended for machines with under half a meg of free RAM easily available. A couple of jobs back I was restricted to machines with 128K maximum code+data. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.