roland@dna.lth.se (Roland Mansson) (07/04/89)
I've tried a new archiever. It's called Diamond (version 2.1,
demo). It packs considerably better than StuffIt (se below for
figures). Diamond is somewhat slower than StuffIt to pack,
but it unpacks extremely fast.
I've done some 20 tests with Diamond, and the unpacked packed
archive has always been identical to the source (incl positions
and colors of icons).
It has three levels (fast, medium and compact). While the size
of the archive is about the same in my tests, the time spent
differs quite a lot. "Fast" is probably the best alternative.
It works with MultiFinder, but not in the background. It gives
some time (very little, but better than nothing) to background
applications.
It can pack a file, a folder, or a volume. If the destination
doesn't have enough free space, it just asks for another disk(s).
If you have an extra hard disk, it's convenient to backup one
disk to a single file on the other. This is generally not
possible in backup programs.
Times are measured on a Mac II, 5MB, System 6.0.3, MultiFinder
and a dozen inits. StuffIt configured to try LZW and Huffman
and to not allow background tasks.
Method Size Saved Time to Time to
pack unpack
Unpacked Application 590278
StuffIt 402079 31.88% 0.45 0.56
Diamond, fast 308579 47.72% 1.28 0.19
Diamond, medium 304446 48.42% 2.07 0.18
Diamond, compact 303931 48.51% 2.43 0.17
Unpacked Stack 349562
StuffIt 191841 45.12% 0.27 0.28
Diamond, fast 162627 53.48% 1.04 0.10
Diamond, medium 156681 55.18% 1.27 0.10
Diamond, compact 154820 55.71% 1.44 0.10
Unpacked Docs Folder 330816
StuffIt 182545 44.82% 0.45 0.36
Diamond, fast 142490 56.93% 1.09 0.12
Diamond, medium 142430 56.95% 1.35 0.12
Diamond, compact 142426 56.95% 1.48 0.12
(Application: MacWrite II, Stack: Apple's Q&A 3.1,
Docs folder: ten documents (MacWrite, Word, MacPaint,
MacDraw etc)).
I'll try to get permission to post the demo to infomac@sumex
and comp.binaries.mac. Diamond is developed by SOFT Technologies.
Their address is
SOFT Technologies
Denis SERSA
9, rue des lilas
67640 FEGERSHEIM, France
Tl. (33) 88.64.31.74
Fax. (33) 88.67.13.73
Applelink: SOFT.TECH
Standard disclaimers apply.
--
Roland Mansson, Lund University Computing Center, Box 783, S220 07 Lund, Sweden
Phone: +46-46107436 Fax: +46-46138225 Bitnet: roland_m@seldc52
Internet: roland_m@ldc.lu.se or roland_m%ldc.lu.se@uunet.uu.net
UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!sunic!ldc.lu.se!roland_m AppleLink: SW0022granteri@pnet51.cts.com (Grant Erickson) (07/06/89)
Great...just what we need is another archival program. It would seem to me that StuffIt is the best alternative being its installed file base is HUGE. The newer version of it due out this fall should be much faster and archive much smaller size stuffits. Anyone else have information from Ray Lau or Alladin on this? .______________________________________________________________________________. | UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uuner!rosevax, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!granteri | | ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!granteri@nosc.mil | | INET: granteri@pnet51.cts.com | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | This Mac Plus isn't mine, I'm just borrowing it, the IIX is in the shop. | !______________________________________________________________________________!
thecloud@dhw68k.cts.com (Ken McLeod) (07/08/89)
In article <740@orbit.UUCP> granteri@pnet51.cts.com (Grant Erickson) writes: >Great...just what we need is another archival program. It would seem to me >that StuffIt is the best alternative being its installed file base is HUGE. Hmmm... I can recall making the same argument when StuffIt first appeared. "Why use StuffIt, when everything in the Mac world is already archived with PackIt III?" Boy, was I wrong. In roughly a year, StuffIt completely replaced PackIt III as the standard (and with good reason-- its compression and feature list were far superior.) >The newer version of it due out this fall should be much faster and archive >much smaller size stuffits. Anyone else have information from Ray Lau or >Alladin on this? I'm looking forward to it. But if Diamond proves to be better, who knows? -- ========== ....... ============================================= Ken McLeod :. .: UUCP: ...{spsd,zardoz,felix}!dhw68k!thecloud ========== :::.. ..::: INTERNET: thecloud@dhw68k.cts.com //// =============================================
david.dmytryshyn@f428.n250.z1.fidonet.org (david dmytryshyn) (07/10/89)
> Hmmm... I can recall making the same argument when StuffIt first > appeared. "Why use StuffIt, when everything in the Mac world is already > archived with PackIt III?" Boy, was I wrong. In roughly a year, StuffIt > completely replaced PackIt III as the standard (and with good reason-- > its compression and feature list were far superior.) Go take a look at the MSDOS world. Right now, I can think of about 5 different compressor/decompressors. PAK, ZOO, LHARC, ARC & PKZIP. All of which are residing on the hard disk immediately below the screen I'm looking at. Not too long ago PKPAK or ARC were the standards. Once PKZIP came out, quite a few people switched to it, because Phil Katz wrote it and, it did compress better than PKPAK (PKARC), or ARC. (I know a system in town which has 6+gigs of online space, all of which was converted to .ZIP not too long ago) Then LHARC came out, boasting increased compression, many switched to it. Now there are "front ends" which determine which archiver was used, and use it to unarchive... There's not really much of a choice for us Macintosh users, we'll have to wait until there is to see what happens. But, if the program is commercial, the chance of it gaining wide BBS acceptance is nil, unless a freeware/shareware unarchiving utility is released. Say Stuffit Deluxe adds some new compression algorithms, what happens to those who don't have Stuffit deluxe, as I recall, the unstuffit program was free (please correct me if I'm wrong here). David.. --- FD 2.00 * Origin: Synaptic Communications (1:250/428)
dantz@cdp.UUCP (07/18/89)
On July 4, 1989 roland_m@ldc.lu.se (Roland Mansson) writes: >I've tried a new archiever. It's called Diamond (version 2.1, >demo). It packs considerably better than StuffIt (se below for >figures). Diamond is somewhat slower than StuffIt to pack, >but it unpacks extremely fast. The times for decompression, in particular, that you mention were quite impressive. It appears, though, from what you say that Diamond is more of a compression utility than a true archiver. A true archiver provides extensive support for interacting with an archive and would include such features as file storage on a wide variety of media including tape, quick access to data in the archive via a catalog stored on the hard disk, sophisticated file selection, calendared operation, and an extensive interface for retrieving files. We have been working on these issues for quite some time now in Retrospect, our recently released archiving and backup program. Having not seen Diamond, I don't know how it fares in these areas. Walt Hays / Connect: dantz Dantz Development Corporation / AppleLink: D0011 415/849-0293 / CIS: 73367,2416