johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (02/09/91)
About six weeks ago I started a mini-flamewar with a posting
about how the StuffIt Deluxe 1.0 installer ate my hard disk.
In the course of the "Installer from Hell" thread I took pains
to point out that Aladdin customer service was quite helpful;
several others mentioned some of Deluxe features such as scripting,
virus checking, and "hooks" for applications like Microphone,
White Knight, HyperCard, QuickKeys, and the Finder.
Someone also posted a performance comparison pitting Compactor 1.2.1
vs. StuffIt Deluxe 1.0.1. Both applications have recently been
upgraded; the performance of Compact Pro and StuffIt Deluxe 2.0.1
are compared below.
Experimental:
Test Documents: HyperCard 1.2.5 application, 384 K
Microsoft Word 4.0 file (normal save), 127 K
Microsoft Excel 2.2a file, 117 K
These documents were placed in a new folder named "Test Folder"
of an internal SCSI HD. All archives were created on an internal
SCSI drive. All files were extracted to an empty high density floppy.
Hardware: SE/30, 5 meg ram, 40 meg internal SCSI drive
(4 meg free on recently defragmented HD), FDHD floppy drive
System: System 6.0.5, Finder 6.1.5, Multifinder 6.1b9
Both programs offer options that affect archiving performance.
StuffIt Deluxe was run in its "Background Tasks Enabled" mode
as Compact Pro is a fully Multifinder-friendly application.
Extraction of net.standard StuffIt 1.5.1 archives was done
for each of StuffIt's performance-affecting options.
Results:
StuffIt Deluxe 2.0.1 -- background tasks enabled, check known viri
Create Extract HC1.2.5 MSWDdoc XL22doc overall
time, (seconds) efficiency, (percent saved)
------ ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
Faster 16 67 15 37 29 22
Fast (1.5.1) 40 439 29 67 58 42
Optimal 100 451 31 73 63 46
Best Guess 197 458 44 76 65 54
Better 280 458 44 76 65 54
Compact Pro 1.30
standard 69 55 45 78 68 56
new option 93 55 45 78 68 56
standard == (archive not validated after saving -- as in 1.21)
new option == (validate archive after saving -- optional in 1.30)
Time (seconds) to extract StuffIt 1.5.1 archive -- various options
------------------------------------------------------------------
439 -- background tasks enabled, check known viri and anomalies
439 -- background tasks enabled, check for known viri
428 -- background tasks enabled, no virus checking
303 -- background not enabled, check known viri and anomalies
303 -- background not enabled, check for known viri
292 -- background not enabled, no virus checking
51 -- extract StuffIt 1.5.1 archive with Compact Pro 1.30
Discussion:
Compact Pro 1.30 was found to be more efficient than
StuffIt Deluxe 2.0.1 for all files types and compression options
investigated. Compact Pro extracted it's own archives faster
than Deluxe unStuffed any of the archives it created. Compact Pro
also extracted net.standard StuffIt 1.5.1 archives dramatically
faster than did StuffIt Deluxe for any of it's extraction options.
Comparing results for the various compression and extraction options
offered by StuffIt Deluxe, it is apparent that virus checking
contributes little (less than 5%) to total de-archiving time;
the "Background Tasks Enabled" option, on the other hand,
leads to a 50% increase in de-archiving time.
-- Bill (johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu)
-- 38 Chambers St.; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949
Disclaimer -- I have no connection with Aladdin or Bill Goodman
other than as a registered StuffIt Deluxe user. < grrr ... >hairston@henry.ECE.CMU.EDU (David Hairston) (02/10/91)
[johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu writes:] [] ... [] upgraded; the performance of Compact Pro and StuffIt Deluxe 2.0.1 [] are compared below. [] ... [] Discussion: [] [] Compact Pro 1.30 was found to be more efficient than [] StuffIt Deluxe 2.0.1 for all files types and compression options [] investigated. Compact Pro extracted it's own archives faster [] than Deluxe unStuffed any of the archives it created. Compact Pro [] also extracted net.standard StuffIt 1.5.1 archives dramatically [] faster than did StuffIt Deluxe for any of it's extraction options. I read your article with much interest. There are areas you didn't mention i.e. application size, installation and so on. Also, I was curious, you didn't reach a "Conclusion". Are the facts, in this case, supposed to speak for themselves? Certainly this is no simple matter so there can be no real simple conclusion but still I was left wondering what yours might be. -dave- hairston@henry.ece.cmu.edu
johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (02/10/91)
In article <11867@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, hairston@henry.ECE.CMU.EDU (David Hairston) writes... >>[johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu writes:] >>[... Compact Pro is faster and more efficient than StuffIt Deluxe ...] >I read your article with much interest. There are areas you didn't >mention i.e. application size, installation and so on. Also, I was >curious, you didn't reach a "Conclusion". Are the facts, in this case, >supposed to speak for themselves? Certainly this is no simple matter >so there can be no real simple conclusion ... Agreed. Speed is just one (very important) factor that contributes to the "usefulness" of a program. I certainly have no plans to switch to Compact Pro at present. StuffIt Deluxe is highly integrated into my work-style -- I make extensive use of scripted batch operations and hooks to HyperCard and White Knight. I particularly like the translator modules for UU**code, tar, MacBinary, BinHex, unZip, deArc, DDexpand, etc. It's important to make a distinction between programs that waste computer time and ones that waste MY time. Most Mac programs are slower than their "nuts-and-bolts-equivalent" DOS or unix counterparts. StuffIt's scripts, automation, and accessibility "everywhere" save MY time. The actual archive/dearchive speed is less important (particularly for background jobs) than all the pointing and clicking I am forced to do in order to do archiving tasks by hand. Furthermore, I think it's important to look a bit beyond what is appropriate for the computer-literate user that generally frequents usenet mac groups. StuffIt lets the moderately sophisticated user create scripts or "front-ends" that could enable an entire office to incorporate file compression into the daily computing routine. This used to be an "MIS-only" task. The hooks for QuickMail and QuickKeys are great as well. By the way, it would be wrong to conclude that StuffIt Deluxe is slow BECAUSE it offers extra features like scripting and virus checking (one of the things I showed is that virus checking _doesn't_ slow things significantly). StuffIt Deluxe 2.0.1 _is_ noticeably faster than 1.0, and Compact Pro has a new (albeit somewhat flawed) BinHex option. One reason for posting comparisons is to push developers to make improvements. I imagine both Ray Lau and Bill Goodman have been busy lately! I'll try posting a more balanced article covering "features" some time in the next few weeks. -- Bill (johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu) -- 38 Chambers St.; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949
hammen@vpnet.chi.il.us (Robert Hammen) (02/11/91)
Here's another StuffIt Deluxe gripe... I just needed to compress a 2.2 MB PostScript file to fit on an 800K floppy. I didn't have Compact Pro on my machine, so I used DiskDoubler 3.1 (from the DD menu in the Finder). It took about 30 seconds to compress the file down to 467K. Curious to see what SD 2.0.1 would do, I ran it and compressed the file in "Best" mode. It took 34 minutes (!) and compressed the file down to 511K! I think Aladdin has some serious work to do here... Robert (btw all times are on a IIfx)
craparotta@craparotta.enet.dec.com (Joe Craparotta) (02/11/91)
I would think that as most people can see, Compactor Pro, does indeed blow away Stuffit Deluxe (any version).. THe one thing that Bill SHOULD work on is the interface for Compactor. I'm sure that most people stick with Stuffit, for this reason. It has be one of the BEST interfaces I've ever seen... Joe Craparotta Craparotta@level.dec.com --or-- ...!decwrl!level.dec.com!craparotta --or-- craparotta%level.dec@decwrl.dec.com discalimer: The above are my Personal views and do NOT represent those of my EMPLOYER.. They don't listen to me anyway.. :-))
drc@claris.com (Dennis Cohen) (02/11/91)
Based solely upon raw speed, Compact Pro does certainly look like a superior choice; however, some of us look at the whole package. With StuffIt Deluxe I can do my stuffing and unstuffing from MPW scripts (MPW tools are included in the package), I can stuff and unstuff from the Finder (Magic Menu), I can use other drop-in translators (arc, zip, tar, uuencode/decode, AppleLink Package format, et al), I can view TEXT and PICT files without chewing up disk space, I can work with multiple archives simultaneously, and I can script. This is in addition to the fact that some Compact Pro self-extracting archives seem to be unfriendly with various networking and telecomm programs (long thread on CompuServe on that subject). Bill Goodman has a good product, but for some of us, it isn't yet competitive. Each time he comes out with a new release I give it a try, but I keep going back to Deluxe because I can do more of the things I want to do with Deluxe. All of the above falls into the category of personal opinion. I do know some of the people at Aladdin (okay, I know most of them), but my only connection is as a very satisfied customer that occasionally beta-tests some of their products. -- | Dennis Cohen drc@claris.com COHEN2 AFC DCohen 71076,1377 | Internet AppleLink AmerOnline CompuServe | Disclaimer: Any unattributed opinions expressed above are _MINE_!
piper@s5000.RSVL.UNISYS.COM (Piper Keairnes) (02/12/91)
johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu writes: >StuffIt Deluxe 2.0.1 _is_ noticeably faster than 1.0, and Compact Pro >has a new (albeit somewhat flawed) BinHex option. One reason >for posting comparisons is to push developers to make improvements. >I imagine both Ray Lau and Bill Goodman have been busy lately! What would be nice, would be a combination of Compactor's speed with Stuffit Deluxe's well thought out design. I only hope that the two aren't incompatible (design and speed, I mean). -- Piper Keairnes * piper@s5000.rsvl.unisys.com * Purdue Univ. Unisys Corporation * uunet!s5000.rsvl.unisys.com!piper * Computing Center Open Software Products * 1410 Carling Dr, St Paul, MN 55108 * Consultant
hairston@henry.ECE.CMU.EDU (David Hairston) (02/13/91)
[craparotta@craparotta.enet.dec.com (Joe Craparotta) writes:] [] I would think that as most people can see, Compactor Pro, does indeed blow [] away Stuffit Deluxe (any version).. THe one thing that Bill SHOULD work on [] is the interface for Compactor. I'm sure that most people stick with [] Stuffit, for this reason. It has be one of the BEST interfaces I've ever [] seen... no, it can't be Stuffit's user interface! it's only slightly better than Compact Pro's. it must be the diversity of features in Stuffit. personally, i think Goodman's strategy should be to make a small/fast de/compressor (i.e. Compact Pro) and a fancy full-featured, do everything compatible model (umm, Compact Deluxe ;). would it be giving away too much if the algorithm were made public? Stuffit 1.5.1 has shown us that knowing the algorithm and doing it efficiently are two different things. a friend tells me that this debate (stuffit vs. compact pro) says a lot about the state of mac users but she won't tell me what it is. i hate pysch majors ... -dave- hairston@henry.ece.cmu.edu
jln@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Norstad) (02/13/91)
In article <798@sousa.enet.dec.com> craparotta@craparotta.enet.dec.com (Joe Craparotta) writes: > I would think that as most people can see, Compactor Pro, does indeed blow > away Stuffit Deluxe (any version).. THe one thing that Bill SHOULD work on > is the interface for Compactor. I'm sure that most people stick with > Stuffit, for this reason. It has be one of the BEST interfaces I've ever > seen... I for one prefer the Compact Pro interface. It's not perfect, but I find it elegant, simple, and uncluttered. John Norstad Academic Computing and Network Services Northwestern University jln@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
kostas@ux1.lbl.gov (Konstantinos Papamichael) (02/13/91)
In article <798@sousa.enet.dec.com> craparotta@craparotta.enet.dec.com (Joe Craparotta) writes: >I would think that as most people can see, Compactor Pro, does indeed blow >away Stuffit Deluxe (any version).. THe one thing that Bill SHOULD work on >is the interface for Compactor. I'm sure that most people stick with >Stuffit, for this reason. It has be one of the BEST interfaces I've ever >seen... Well, I think I like the Compactor's interface better... I find it simpler and cleaner. Your posting somehow scared me about future versions of Compactor. Improve the interface? Yes. But, I recommend Bill follows HIS style. Not the style of Suffit. |--------------------------------------|-------|-------------------------------| | Konstantinos Papamichael | | | | | Phone: (415) 486-6854 | | 90-3111 Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory | |-| | | FAX: (415) 486-4089 | | Berkeley, CA 94720 | | | | | E-Mail: k_papamichael@lbl.gov | |--------------------------------------|-------|-------------------------------|
owen@raven.phys.washington.edu (Russell Owen) (02/13/91)
In article <798@sousa.enet.dec.com> craparotta@craparotta.enet.dec.com (Joe Craparotta) writes: >I would think that as most people can see, Compactor Pro, does indeed blow >away Stuffit Deluxe (any version).. THe one thing that Bill SHOULD work on >is the interface for Compactor. I'm sure that most people stick with >Stuffit, for this reason. It has be one of the BEST interfaces I've ever >seen... Clearly a case of different strokes...I think Compactor has one of the best user interfaces I have seen. It is incredibly clean, well thought out and surprisingly simple for a program that does so much. I find StuffIt's interface cluttered and ugly. Granted StuffIt now does more than Compactor. But think back to StuffIt 1.5. It did LESS than Compactor does now (no self-unstuffing archives, no navigation through archives), yet it's interface was much more complex than Compactor's. Anyway, I personally WANT a clean simple program. Many of StuffIt's options I don't need, and some are intrinsically useless (all the different options for how to stuff, when most of them are markedly inferior to Compactor's, both in speed and % compression). I like Compactor, and have gratefully dumped StuffIt (although I paid for it, sigh). -- Russell owen@raven.phys.washington.edu
blm@6sceng.UUCP (Brian Matthews) (02/13/91)
In article <798@sousa.enet.dec.com> craparotta@craparotta.enet.dec.com (Joe Craparotta) writes: |THe one thing that Bill SHOULD work on |is the interface for Compactor. I'm sure that most people stick with |Stuffit, for this reason. It has be one of the BEST interfaces I've ever |seen... A good interface is in the eye of the beholder. I hate StuffIt's interface, and while Compactor's isn't perfect, it's much better than StuffIt's jumbled, cluttered interface. Just one humanoid's opinion... -- Brian L. Matthews blm@6sceng.UUCP
news@massey.ac.nz (USENET News System) (02/14/91)
In article <616@6sceng.UUCP> blm@6sceng.UUCP (Brian Matthews) writes: >In article <798@sousa.enet.dec.com> craparotta@craparotta.enet.dec.com (Joe Craparotta) writes: >|THe one thing that Bill SHOULD work on >|is the interface for Compactor. I'm sure that most people stick with >|Stuffit, for this reason. It has be one of the BEST interfaces I've ever >|seen... > >A good interface is in the eye of the beholder. I hate StuffIt's >interface, and while Compactor's isn't perfect, it's much better than >StuffIt's jumbled, cluttered interface. I would love a "Magic Menu" type addition at the finder for doing quick compression using compactor. Cheers Al -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Allan Burton Phone +64 63 69099 x8564, Fax +64 63 505607 Macintosh Consultant, TimeZone GMT +12, Internet A.K.Burton@massey.ac.nz Computer Centre, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand --------------------------------------------------------------------------
rsholmes@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Rich Holmes) (02/14/91)
In article <1991Feb13.210323.19156@massey.ac.nz> A.K.Burton@massey.ac.nz (A.K. Burton) writes: >I would love a "Magic Menu" type addition at the finder for doing quick >compression using compactor. I'd hate it. Given that the Mac interface standard uses only one menu bar, I hate having it cluttered up with "extra" menus, especially ones with names as dumb and unhelpful as "Magic". (I'd hate Magic Menu (TM) only half as much if it were "Stuff" instead of "Magic". Yeah, I know I could probably fix that with ResEdit or something. I'd still hate it). What I do like in the current version of Stuffit (TM), and which seems more useful and less silly than Magic Menu (TM), are the Stuff (TM) and UnStuff (TM) DAs. (Remember DAs?). Mind you, I'm not using the mail interface features of StuffIt (TM). On the user interface, I haven't used Compactor enough to comment, but I second the sentiment that Stuffit (TM) is cluttered, confusing, and ugly. -- - Rich Holmes rich@suhep.bitnet or rich@suhep.phy.syr.edu Syracuse U. Physics Dept. or if you must: rsholmes@rodan.acs.syr.edu "I don't lie. I'm cultivating a reputation for honesty so I can blow it when something big comes along. This ain't it." -- Steven Brust, Phoenix
johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) (02/15/91)
A nice comparison of file compression application (performance) was done by Adam Engst and Ken Hancock in the latest TidBits. TidBits is a HyperCard-based computing news stack which is regularly posted in comp.sys.mac.digest. This issue includes data for DiskDoubler as well as Compact Pro and StuffIt Deluxe. Engst and Hancock don't endorse any of the products specifically, but it was interesting to see that DiskDoubler fared very well in several categories. -- Bill (johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu) ... eight hours with a stopwatch .... ... Ken Hancock must be crazy! ;-)
piper@s5000.RSVL.UNISYS.COM (Piper Keairnes) (02/15/91)
owen@raven.phys.washington.edu (Russell Owen) writes: >Anyway, I personally WANT a clean simple program. Many of StuffIt's options I >don't need, and some are intrinsically useless (all the different options for >how to stuff, when most of them are markedly inferior to Compactor's, both in >speed and % compression). I like Compactor, and have gratefully dumped StuffIt >(although I paid for it, sigh). I'd switch in a minute if there were some Finder based extension added to Compactor, just like the INIT Magic Menu that interfaces Stuffit Deluxe. Until Compactor's ease of use reaches that level, there is no need to switch. -- Piper Keairnes * piper@s5000.rsvl.unisys.com * Purdue Univ. Unisys Corporation * uunet!s5000.rsvl.unisys.com!piper * Computing Center Open Software Products * 1410 Carling Dr, St Paul, MN 55108 * Consultant
cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox) (02/16/91)
In article <3451@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> jln@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Norstad) writes: >In article <798@sousa.enet.dec.com> craparotta@craparotta.enet.dec.com >(Joe Craparotta) writes: >> > >> THe one thing that Bill SHOULD work >> is the interface for Compactor. I'm sure that most people stick with >> Stuffit, for this reason. It has be one of the BEST interfaces I've ever >> seen... > >I for one prefer the Compact Pro interface. It's not perfect, but I find >it elegant, simple, and uncluttered. > I agree wholeheartedly. Stuffit always seemed obsessively and gratuitiously busy, particularly its overblown help facility. I'm impressed with the fact that Bill spontaneouly, under his own initiative, understood that it would be better to combine the compact/uncompact options under a single menu (a better fit with my intuition), and to support decompression by double-clicking, etc. The slickest user interface innovation, IMHO, was his design for SitExpand, which instantaneously eliminated Stuffit from my machine. Double-click on a stuffit archive and it creates a folder, expands the archive into the folder, and then asks if it should delete the archive. Perfect! Small, intuitive, fast, elegant. Wish more software were like that. -- Brad Cox; cox@stepstone.com; CI$ 71230,647; 203 426 1875 The Stepstone Corporation; 75 Glen Road; Sandy Hook CT 06482
jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) (02/18/91)
In article <107@s5000.RSVL.UNISYS.COM> piper@s5000.RSVL.UNISYS.COM (Piper Keairnes) writes: >owen@raven.phys.washington.edu (Russell Owen) writes: > >>Anyway, I personally WANT a clean simple program. Many of StuffIt's options I >>don't need, and some are intrinsically useless (all the different options for I agree completely. >>how to stuff, when most of them are markedly inferior to Compactor's, both in >>speed and % compression). I like Compactor, and have gratefully dumped StuffIt >>(although I paid for it, sigh). > >I'd switch in a minute if there were some Finder based extension added to >Compactor, just like the INIT Magic Menu that interfaces Stuffit Deluxe. >Until Compactor's ease of use reaches that level, there is no need to >switch. Maybe I'm stupid for paying twice, but I use DiskDoubler for online storage and Compact Pro for off line storage. DiskDoubler has a great Finder interface, and a good interaction with SFGetFile. Compact Pro has the most compact fast storage. Online and offline storage are two different operations for me and I feel no problem with them being implemented by two different programs. Stuffit does both OK, but neither one as well as the two different programs. I see no compelling reason to give up excellence in favor of format compatibility. The many other things Stuffit Deluxe does have no appeal for me. I have utilities for all of them, and feel no need for an omnibus program to do them all. If I want something small, I use Compact Pro. If I want something reduced but available I use DiskDoubler. I've found nothing that does these two jobs as well as these two programs. I don't need these two functions to be implemented in on program. Sorry, the only need I see for Stuffit Deluxe is done by Unstuffit Deluxe. namely unstuffing archives created by Stuffit Deluxe. jim > >-- >Piper Keairnes * piper@s5000.rsvl.unisys.com * Purdue Univ. >Unisys Corporation * uunet!s5000.rsvl.unisys.com!piper * Computing Center >Open Software Products * 1410 Carling Dr, St Paul, MN 55108 * Consultant -- __ __ / o / Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com | Proud / / /\/\ /__ Silvar-Lisco, Inc. +1.408.991.6115 | MacIIsi /__/ / / / /__/ 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086 | owner
news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU (Six o'clock News) (02/20/91)
>|THe one thing that Bill SHOULD work on >|is the interface for Compactor. I'm sure that most people stick with >|Stuffit, for this reason. It has be one of the BEST interfaces I've ever >|seen... From: gousha@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Charles Gousha) Path: cory.Berkeley.EDU!gousha >A good interface is in the eye of the beholder. I hate StuffIt's >interface, and while Compactor's isn't perfect, it's much better than >StuffIt's jumbled, cluttered interface. >Just one humanoid's opinion... >Brian L. Matthews blm@6sceng.UUCP Since we seem to be voicing opinions, I'm siding with Stuffit. While compactor's interface is wonderfully simple, on the surface, Stuffit doesn't seem to be very different from Compactor; just a lot more capabilites. Best thing for me, though, is that it can handle compressed files in just about ANY format, from Packit to DiskDoubler to Zip. It's handy to have them in one program. I do use both, though. (Stuffit won't do Compactor :-) ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Gousha | "Yes, Star Trek IS a way of life" gousha@cory.berkeley.edu | (my own philosophy) All normal disclaimers apply, as well as some abnormal ones.