bruce@escargot.UUCP (Bruce Hoof) (12/09/87)
Recently I have been reading about the pro's and con's of Stuffit and Packit. Very recently there have been questions on compacting binary postings before posting them on the net. This got me thinking and I decided to do a couple of experiments. There was recently a seven part posting of teck note #176. The size of this Hex file is 206,336 bytes. Quite a lot, no wonder it was seven parts!!!. This was a HexBin file of a Packit file which contained one text file and three MacDraw files. After Unhexing, the packit file is 154,194 bytes in length. I took the four individual files and stuffed them with stuffit. The .sit file was 66,085 BYTES!!! This is a 57% REDUCTION in size over the .pit file! This got me thinking. I HexBined the .sit file and that size was 90,053 BYTES, a 56% REDUCTION over the HexBined .pit file. Then just for fun I Stuffed the Packet file, came to 69,923 bytes, then HexBined that, came to 95,290 Bytes. A little bigger than the Hexed .sit file. This is all very interesting but what does this mean. Well, if all was Ideal all the binary postings would be Stuffed before HexBined, not all is Ideal. The way I understand it is Stuffit is Shareware. It is Fairly new and really good. Not all will have a copy to unStuff .sit files, But wasn't this true with Packit? To be realistic reductions of this magnitude occur with text or pic files, files with a lot of recursion. But it has been noted that Stuffit packs better than Packit. If Stuffit becomes widely avaliable, like Packit, maby we should use both? Think about it. There is a lot of News traveling. Even if news is packed by the sending system there is still the size of the file. It takes up space. It downloads and uploads slower. I have a friend who is a sysop who has his disk full about once a week because of the sheer size of the news he recieves. To take the other side I could say that Packit is in wider use at the moment. The Mac portion of the Usenet is small, as large as it is. The difference it will make might be small, but who knows. Every little bit helps. Take this file for instance. If it was 50% + smaller it would have taken half as long to download. The file might be in three or four parts, instead of seven. Who knows, It might have gotten to my friends system all at once instead of taking two days. Lets face it folks. A new generation is here. Stuffit does it better. I like the smaller size. I like the shorter downloading time. I like the convience and speed. I think Stuffit is benificial to the user as well as to the entire Usenet. Bruce --------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: I am just a simple mac user with no connections to any product or company. I just like to give opinions. Bruce Hoof hoofb@escargot. Can be reached at : ...!tektronix!teksce!bucket!escargot!bruce.
kraut@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) (12/12/87)
...I run either Switcher or MultiFinder all the time and (you may not have noticed yet) StuffIt-1.20 requires a significant larger junk of memory to run than PackIt, and I often don't have that much memory left lying around .... What am I saying? If someone could come out with a StuffIt version which only does the unpacking (and which could, therefore, run in 128k or less, hopefully), I for one would be much happier. -- werner@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (prefered address) kraut@ut-ngp.uucp (if you must)
olson@endor.harvard.edu (Eric K. Olson) (12/16/87)
In a recent article Bruce Hoof writes: > Recently I have been reading about the pro's and con's of >Stuffit and Packit. Very recently there have been questions on >compacting binary postings before posting them on the net. This got me >thinking and I decided to do a couple of experiments. [Stuff about how Stuffit is significantly better at compressing than PackIt] [Stuff about how programs are really big these days and news needs all the compression it can get] > Lets face it folks. A new generation is here. Stuffit does it >better. I like the smaller size. I like the shorter downloading time. >I like the convience and speed. I think Stuffit is benificial to the >user as well as to the entire Usenet. I agree wholehartedly. Using Stuffit as the standard would be great, since it compacts files down usually to less than 50% of their original size. Unfortunately, Stuffit is only free for unpacking, not for packing, which means that everyone that uploads stuff needs to pay the (admittedly very small) shareware fee for packing with Stuffit (the other alternative is that moderators Stuffit the things, but they have enough to do already). Packit II does not make this stipulation, if I recall correctly (Packit III DOES, which is why you don't see much packed with it). Nonetheless, Stuffit has been posted to comp.binaries.macintosh, is available on SUMEX, and, basically, should not be avoided as an alternative for packing. While we're on the topic, has anyone heard of a compressing File System for the Mac? Such a thing would automatically compress all Writes to a file, and uncompress on read. This would be slower than a normal file system, but allow transparent compression. This would be VERY convenient for me, since I regularly have to deal with files containing 4 or 8-bit pictures, ranging from 150K to 850K in size. Any pointers would be appreciated. -Eric I am not affiliated. Eric K. Olson olson@endor.harvard.edu harvard!endor!olson D0760 (Name) (ArpaNet) (UseNet) (AppleLink)
jcc@ut-emx.UUCP (Chris Cooley) (12/17/87)
...are blind!
Here at The University of Texas, it has been decided NOT to support
StuffIt on our public domain distribution directory MicroLib. Why?
Because of it's name. Sadly, we'll be using PackIt "...until it
[StuffIt] changes its name."
To paraphrase Neil Armstrong:
"That's one small step for [a] manager,
one giant leap BACKWARDS for mankind."
--
/---------------------------------v------------------------------\
( J. Chris Cooley | [mailpaths under development] )
(( Univ. of Texas Comp. Center | jcc@ut-emx.UUCP ))
(( Austin, TX 78712 | jcc@emx.cc.utexas.edu ))
( 512/471-3241 x417 | )
\---------------------------------^------------------------------/
\Disclaimer: You think THEY agree with THESE opinions? Hah!/
\--------------------------------------------------------/wade@sdacs.ucsd.EDU (Wade Blomgren) (12/18/87)
In <3569@husc6.harvard.edu>, olson@endor.harvard.edu (Eric K. Olson) writes: > Unfortunately, Stuffit is only free for unpacking, not for packing, which > means that everyone that uploads stuff needs to pay the (admittedly very > small) shareware fee.... > Packit II does not make this stipulation, if I recall correctly... > -Eric From the Packit II (_not_ III) welcome screen: "Packit II is shareware; it isn't free. If you like it and want to continue to use it, sent $10 to the following address. If you want a copy of the latest version mailed to you, send $20." Stuffit and Packit are both shareware. (Except Stuffit is free for unpacking, and Packit is not - the whole point of people rarely using the compression feature of PackitII was that recipients of postings would be "forced" to pay for PackitII to unpack the postings, and such de facto endorsement of a particular product was thought to violate the spirit of the usenet, if not the letter of some arpanet rule.) There now exist ways to unpack compressed Packit files (Unix Unpit by Allen Weber, Mac version of same by Thomas Newton, etc) but due to that initial stigma, compressed Packit got off to a slow start. And now we have Stuffit. Anyway, PackitII is not freeware. I suppose there could be hacked copies floating around that don't have the welcome screen that tells you this, and that could cause some confusion...? Wade Blomgren wade@sdacs.ucsd.edu
lih@cunixc.columbia.edu (Andrew Lih) (12/18/87)
In article <361@ut-emx.UUCP> jcc@ut-emx.UUCP (Chris Cooley) writes: >...are blind! > >Here at The University of Texas, it has been decided NOT to support >StuffIt on our public domain distribution directory MicroLib. Why? >Because of it's name. Sadly, we'll be using PackIt "...until it >[StuffIt] changes its name." I am tempted to flame someone for this :-) but I will try to give the poster a chance to explain this one... Why is the name Stuffit inappropriate for the MicroLab? ^^^^^^^ Is this conservative Texas mentality? Is it offensive to some racial group? Does it bring back thoughts of lost loves? Why?
kraut@ut-emx.UUCP (kraut) (12/20/87)
In article <3260@bnrmtv.UUCP>, takahash@bnrmtv.UUCP (Alan Takahashi) writes: > In article <361@ut-emx.UUCP>, jcc@ut-emx.UUCP (Chris Cooley) writes: > > Here ... it has been decided NOT to support StuffIt on our PD-library ... > > Because of it's name. > Out of curiosity, what is the 'official' reason why [StuffIt] is offensive? "TURKEY-POWER" ..... I can't help but suspect that we have a bunch of turkeys running the show, who are allergic against the term "stuffing" ... so the official reason is: "Stuffing is bad for your (our) health !! just kidding, guys, but I could not keep this crack to myself. actually, I don't know what the reason is and would hope and expect that there is a good one - even though, for the life of me, I can't imagine what it might be .... Soooooo.... inquiring minds want to know.... WHAT IS IT? hello? HELLO??!! anyone there? no, I guess not, they are probably all still out at the party .... (gee, that was a nice Xmas party tonight! lots of wine and champagne always make me rambunctious and unrespectful .... ... food included "turkey", very STUFFED -- werner@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (prefered address) kraut@emx.cc.utexas.edu kraut@ut-emx.UUCP (or ...!ut-sally!ut-emx!kraut)
akk2@ur-tut.UUCP (Atul Kacker) (12/20/87)
>In article <3260@bnrmtv.UUCP>, takahash@bnrmtv.UUCP (Alan Takahashi) writes: >> In article <361@ut-emx.UUCP>, jcc@ut-emx.UUCP (Chris Cooley) writes: >> > Here ... it has been decided NOT to support StuffIt on our PD-library ... >> > Because of it's name. > >> Out of curiosity, what is the 'official' reason why [StuffIt] is offensive? Reminds me of a similar incident here. We had a listing of mac error codes on our PD disks, called 'deep shit error codes', and there were people who objected to us listing the file as such. Hey, that was the official name of those error codes and we were not going to change them ;-). -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Atul Kacker | Internet: akk2@tut.cc.rochester.edu | UUCP: {ames,cmcl2,decvax,rutgers}!rochester!ur-tut!akk2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) (12/22/87)
(Chris Cooley) writes: > Here at The University of Texas, it has been decided NOT to support > StuffIt on our public domain distribution directory MicroLib. > ..... Because of it's name. Say what? Have I missed something? What is wrong with StuffIt's name? (Is this some bizzare new-wave obscenity that I've missed?) -- These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer. John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma R&D, 9805 Scranton Rd., San Diego, CA 92121 ...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp jnp@calmasd.GE.COM GEnie: J.PANTONE