peter@hari.Viewlogic.COM (Peter Colby) (12/29/90)
First, let me say that I am a registered user of StuffIt
Deluxe 1.0 and I have also done some beta-testing of SD 1.1 (or
what is actually becoming SD 2.0). Currently, however, I am using
Compactor. Why?? 90% speed, 9% archive size, 1% multifinder
friendliness. My home machine is a mac+ and I just can't afford
to wait for hours (literally) to compress or uncompress a large
archive (like the Apple TN stack).
However, Compactor has nowhere near the features I need
for archival storage of my HUGE collection of software. In
particular, the viewers, the access to multiple archives with
copying of files between such, the ability to incorporate additional
features - compressors, viewers, and so on - without waiting for a
new version of SD to be released....
If SD 2.0 is even approximately close to Compactor in
speed and compression ratio, or if I can incorporate the freely
available LZW algorithm used in UN*X compress (and MacCompress)
as another compression method in SD, then I'll run for SD 2 so
fast Compactor won't even see my dust.
One last note. I am one of the reportedly very few people
who has been seriously impacted by the StuffIt Installer problem!
I would STILL prefer to use StuffIt Deluxe.
Just my own opinion.
Peter C
--
(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O) (O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)
(O) !the doctor is out! (O) (0) peter@viewlogic.com (0)
(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O) (O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)(O)kanefsky@cs.umn.edu (Steve Kanefsky) (12/31/90)
In article <1990Dec28.110336@hari.Viewlogic.COM> peter@hari.Viewlogic.COM (Peter Colby) writes: > > > If SD 2.0 is even approximately close to Compactor in >speed and compression ratio, or if I can incorporate the freely >available LZW algorithm used in UN*X compress (and MacCompress) >as another compression method in SD, then I'll run for SD 2 so >fast Compactor won't even see my dust. The Quick Tips column in the latest (Jan '91) issue of MacWorld suggests that several factors make a tremendous difference in un-stuffing time for Stuffit 1.5.1, so possibly they will also make a difference in Stuffit Classic and Stuffit Deluxe. I haven't tried any of these myself yet, but apparently, using a screen saver when unstuffing, running Stuffit and the System off of a floppy(!), and setting the Monitors CDev in the control panel to Black&White all drastically improve un-stuffing performance. The times given for unstuffing a 98K archive went like this: 73 seconds with no screen saver active and running off of 80MB Apple hard disk 53 seconds with After Dark screen saver and hard disk 50 seconds with no screen saver, active system and Stuffit app. on floppy 43 seconds with After Dark, active system and Stuffit on floppy. All times doubled when monitors CDev set to 256 colors. That's about a 3.4-fold increase in performance between the best and worst cases. I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but I thought I'd throw it out for people to try so we could get some statistically significant results. It would also be interesting to see if Compactor benefits from any of the above methods. -- Steve Kanefsky kanefsky@cs.umn.edu
kenh@hscfsas1.harvard.edu (Ken Hancock) (12/31/90)
In article <1990Dec30.221035.16112@cs.umn.edu> kanefsky@cs.umn.edu (Steve Kanefsky) writes: >The Quick Tips column in the latest (Jan '91) issue of MacWorld suggests >that several factors make a tremendous difference in un-stuffing time >for Stuffit 1.5.1, so possibly they will also make a difference in Stuffit >Classic and Stuffit Deluxe. I haven't tried any of these myself yet, >but apparently, using a screen saver when unstuffing, running Stuffit and >the System off of a floppy(!), and setting the Monitors CDev in the control >panel to Black&White all drastically improve un-stuffing performance. The >times given for unstuffing a 98K archive went like this: I too was amazed at this and actually found it to be true. It's actually not too surprising when you sit there and watch your hard disk's access light constantly flicker. When I ran StuffIt Deluxe on an 8 meg IIfx (finder only), I was appalled by the speed. The intelligent thing to do would be to create one large input buffer and one large output buffer to lessen disk access. StuffIt Deluxe seems to ignore available memory and reads in tiny blocks at a time. It's not hard to understand how everyone else's StuffIt decompression programs are faster than StuffIt. Hopefully this'll change in StuffIt Deluxe 2.0. Otherwise, I guess I'll have to switch to Compactor -- written by someone who appears to be much more competant than the folks at Aladdin. Ken -- Ken Hancock | INTERNET: kenh@hscfsas1.harvard.edu Isle Systems | Disclaimer: My opinions are mine, Macintosh Consulting | your opinions are yours. Simple, isn't it?
leonardr@svc.portal.com (Leonard Rosenthol) (01/01/91)
In article <5185@husc6.harvard.edu>, kenh@hscfsas1.harvard.edu (Ken Hancock) writes: > I too was amazed at this and actually found it to be true. It's actually > not too surprising when you sit there and watch your hard disk's access > light constantly flicker. When I ran StuffIt Deluxe on an 8 meg > IIfx (finder only), I was appalled by the speed. The intelligent > thing to do would be to create one large input buffer and one large > output buffer to lessen disk access. Stuffit Deluxe 2.0 improves on this (and other stuff), but if you want to see REAL disk access, look at Compactor. I once did some testing on a PLI External RAMDisk and you should have seen the disk activity of Compactor, and because the disk was fast(!) it got better times than on a regular HD. > Otherwise, I guess I'll have to switch to Compactor -- written by > someone who appears to be much more competant than the folks at > Aladdin. > That's not entirely fair, Ken. Version 1.0 of Stuffit Deluxe had other priorities than speed at the time it was being written - they were concentrating on offering features which made compression & archiving easier and more convient - the viewers, optimizers and scripting for example. Users have found these to be quite useful, but the biggest request for 2.0 was Speed - and so it has been addressed! Remember that there is more to compression utilities, or any program for that matter, than just speed. A program may take a bit longer to compress a file, but it may also take me less time to start the compression process as it is easier to work with! If speed were the only issue, we would all be using CRAYs and COS (blech!) -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- + Leonard Rosenthol | Internet: leonardr@sv.portal.com + + Software Ventures | GEnie: MACgician + + MicroPhone II Development Team | AOL: MACgician1 + ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas_Brooker@kcbbs.gen.nz (Nicholas Brooker) (01/01/91)
At last someone who shares my view of stuffit! I use two machines. A IIci and an plus, stuffit works ok on the ci but still isn't too multifinbder friendly, but on the plus nothing can run in the background. Whereas compactor runs beautifully on both, when it is pushed to the background, it does just that sits unobtrusively in the background. And even in the background it is faster than stuffit. I have never used stuffit deluxe, but some of the features sound like they could make it worth while, but till then I'm backing the shareware product and hoping others will support this worthwhile software prosuct. (Now all we need is a direct port of PKZIP :-))
kenh@hscfsas1.harvard.edu (Ken Hancock) (01/01/91)
In article <1990Dec31.201634.27364@svc.portal.com> leonardr@svc.portal.com (Leonard Rosenthol) writes: >In article <5185@husc6.harvard.edu>, kenh@hscfsas1.harvard.edu (Ken Hancock) >writes: >> Otherwise, I guess I'll have to switch to Compactor -- written by >> someone who appears to be much more competant than the folks at >> Aladdin. >> > That's not entirely fair, Ken. Version 1.0 of Stuffit Deluxe had >other priorities than speed at the time it was being written - they were >concentrating on offering features which made compression & archiving easier >and more convient - the viewers, optimizers and scripting for example. Users >have found these to be quite useful, but the biggest request for 2.0 was >Speed - and so it has been addressed! No, it's not entirely fair, I must admit. (Which is why I'm posting this...) But there are a few reasons why I've been so sorely disappointed with StuffIt Deluxe: 1) At MacWorld I -did- ask about speed. I was told it'd be faster. (Note: I use "Better" compression, which is slow, but Compactor gives comparable results in less time, so I feel StuffIt should be able to do at least close.) 2) It has to say something negative when everyone else can do it (read as: unstuffing) faster than you do it, -with your own format-. 3) I, too, had a different installer bug. If there's anything that should be thoroughly tested, it's an installer. If the first thing you try fails, it can't help but leave a bad taste in your mouth. (Good thing I didn't run into the recursive folders...) 4) I once tried the Sound optimizer. It took longer to unstuff a 1 meg sound file than to stuff it. (Over 30 minutes...) 5) I hate the personalization feature. The fact that it won't let me NOT enter a signature bothers me even more. Who on earth can draw their signature with MacPaint tools and have it even remotely resemble their actual signature? I can't. If I had to vote for the worst feature of any program for 1990, this would honestly be it. Now, to be fair, I have to defend some of the features I do like: 1) Magic Menu -- it's the second reason I haven't already switched to Compactor. I like it too much to do without it. 2) Quick Unstuff. I do loads of downloading from unix boxes. I run mcvert (.hqx -> .bin) and then batch download with zmodem. I used to have to unstuff and move into separate folders which would have been absolutely impossible instead of difficult without the various new folder INITs. Quick Unstuff does exactly what I've been doing for years, painlessly. (DDExpand does it as well...) 3) Folder recursion. Not unique, but still a big improvement. And of course, the first reason I haven't switched: loyalty. I sent in my StuffIt registration fee shortly after StuffIt came out. Why? Not because I wanted to use the compression options (even though I later did), but because I knew it was going to save me a LOT of time and money that was getting used up by downloading the larger PackIt files. Over the last few years, I've saved lots of time and money and I very much appreciate the effort that Raymond Lau put into StuffIt. For may years people looked at PKZIP and said how much better IBM compression programs were, but no one did anything until StuffIt. Oh well, more than 'nuff said. Ken -- Ken Hancock | INTERNET: kenh@hscfsas1.harvard.edu Isle Systems | Disclaimer: My opinions are mine, Macintosh Consulting | your opinions are yours. Simple, isn't it?