sbchanin@ai.mit.edu (Steve Chanin) (12/28/90)
In response to the past few articles which mentioned problems
with stuffit, I'd say don't use it. Use Compactor instead. Compactor
is a $25 shareware copmression program which can produce
self-extracting archives if you want it. Its performance
characteristics (better compression, comparable uncompress time) make
it a much better choice for network transferred software. The
following is an article I posted to info-mac which compares Compactor
to Stuffit and Stuffit Classic. By the way, I have no connection with
any of the individuals/companies responsible for these products.
Steve
====================================
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 90 12:10:35 EST
From: sbchanin@ai.mit.edu (Steve Chanin)
Subject: Q&D benchmarks for shareware compression utilities
I was curious about the relative performance of the shareware
compression utilities currently available, so I decided to benchmark them.
Listed below are times and % compressions for Stuffit 1.5.1, Stuffit
Deluxe, and Compactor. For Stuffit 1.5.1, I only used LZW encoding because
Huffman is almost never smaller and trying it slows stuff down. For
Stuffit Classic, I tried both Fast and Better. With Compactor I just used
the defaults. Tests were run on a Mac II with 8MB running multifinder with
NCSA 2.3.2 (w/ BYU) open in the background (its window was shrunk and I
just let it sit there quiescent). In each test, I compressed FrameMaker a
726,971 byte application and Clip Art a 13 item folder containing 627,831
bytes of data. All times are in seconds and 1:35 means (obviously -:) ) 1
minute and 35 seconds.
CONCLUSIONS:
Stuff which is going to be posted to archives should be in compactor
form since the compression rate to uncompress time ratio is so much better.
For personal use, use 1.5.1 for speed, or compactor if size is important.
Unless you need some of the more obscure features of Classic, trash it.
Program Compress Uncompress
File Time Saved Time
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Classic - Fast Mode
FrameMaker 52 46% 45
ClipArt 1:35 27% 1:01
1.5.1 - LZW Only
FrameMaker 43 44% 39
ClipArt 1:05 23% 52
Compactor 1.21
FrameMaker 1:40 59% 40
ClipArt 2:00 47% 57
Classic - Better Mode
FrameMaker 7:00 59% 1:12
ClipArt - didn't bother since compressing framemaker took so long
--
===============================================================================
DOMAIN: sbchanin@ai.mit.edu MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
USMAIL: Steven Chanin, 545 Technology Square Rm. 827, Cambridge Ma 02139
PHONE : (617) 253-8963dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter) (12/28/90)
In article <SBCHANIN.90Dec27174738@fiber-one.ai.mit.edu> sbchanin@ai.mit.edu (Steve Chanin) writes: > > In response to the past few articles which mentioned problems > with stuffit, I'd say don't use it. Use Compactor instead. Compactor > is a $25 shareware copmression program which can produce > self-extracting archives if you want it. Its performance > characteristics (better compression, comparable uncompress time) make > it a much better choice for network transferred software. The > following is an article I posted to info-mac which compares Compactor > to Stuffit and Stuffit Classic. By the way, I have no connection with > any of the individuals/companies responsible for these products. > I disagree. For some reasons I still use a fairly old system (4.1 I believe) and compactor refuses to work with systems before 6.0.2. But also do not use Stuffit DeLuxe, because not all archives compressed and stuffed by Stuffit DeLuxe can be decompressed and unstuffed by UnStuffit DeLuxe. (For an example see in the sumex-aim archives game/atc-4.0 etc.) So my advise: use Stuffit 1.5.1 for which also non-Mac utilities are available to do unstuffing. (Why would you not want to unstuff on your Mac you might ask. There are a number of reasons: 1. I do not have a hard disk, and considering the prices of hard disks in the Netherlands, it is not likely I will have one in the very near future. 2. Just now there are questions in the ibm-pc groups about programs to do unstuffing. They want to use the Mac sound files on their pc; a perfectly valid request; but they do not have access to a Mac. 3. I want to look at the stuff before I download. etc.) [Obl joke: ever tried to unstuff a 600k archive on a single drive Mac? Who was more patient? You, the Mac or Unstuffit? Yes, it means swapping disks over 1000 times.] Btw, I have seen compactor working and it looks great. What it is missing (and all packing/compacting programs are missing it) is a dual progress bar. All programs display their progress either in size of the original or in size of the compacted stuff. What I would like to see is a two bars (with the same scale), one displaying original size, one displaying compacted size. -- dik t. winter, cwi, amsterdam, nederland dik@cwi.nl
Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu (Garance Drosehn) (12/28/90)
In article <SBCHANIN.90Dec27174738@fiber-one.ai.mit.edu> sbchanin@ai.mit.edu (Steve Chanin) writes: > In response to the past few articles which mentioned problems > with stuffit, I'd say don't use it. Use Compactor instead. Compactor > is a $25 shareware copmression program which can produce > self-extracting archives if you want it. Its performance As one of the people who had problems with the Stuffit deluxe installation program, I say hogwash. Stuffit is fine. I've had guys beating me over the head about how great Compactor is, and when I saw it in action I saw no reason to bother with it. If I didn't own Stuffit (in any form) then I might (maybe) have gone for Compactor, as it did seem faster. But as a registered user of Stuffit 1.5.1 you should get Stuffit 1.6 for free, in which case I certainly don't see any reason to spend $25 on some other program. Many many people already have stuffit, and for network-transfered software I'd think that would be much more important then whether people save 30 seconds decompressing a 700 megabyte file. Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu ITS Systems Programmer Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy, NY. USA
johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (12/28/90)
In article <SBCHANIN.90Dec27174738@fiber-one.ai.mit.edu> "Steve Chanin" writes... > In response to the past few articles which mentioned problems >with stuffit, I'd say don't use it. [Q&D benchmarks for shareware compression utilities deleted.] I disagree. I wrote some of the articles that complained about the StuffIt Deluxe installer; but I have nothing but praise for the features and performance of the application. The overall structure of the new StuffIts is more robust and forward-looking than that of Compactor. I see Compactor as perhaps the last in a series of stand-alone, inextensible, file compression applications that support only proprietary file formats. StuffIt Deluxe, on the other hand, represents the first of the next generation. It provides for direct hooks to the Finder and White Knight (And indirect access for HyperCard and Microphone through XCMDs that use the StuffIt engine). This allows compression/decompression to be done from within the Finder or other applications. If archive size, speed, and price were the only important features of for a file compression tool, then MacCompress by Lloyd Chambers would be the hands down winner. It's fast, efficient,and FREE -- and handles unix compression to boot. What's makes StuffIt well worth the few extra $$ ? While Compactor users are still clamoring for elementary features such as BinHex'ing, which StuffIt has handled in a very robust fashion for years, Aladdin has been working on tools that take file compression to a new level of integration with other computing tasks. Here are some of the new features offered by StuffIt Deluxe: All of these new features are implemented as modules that users can install optionally. The whole package is large, but the user doesn't have to install features he or she doesn't need. The modular structure allows for convenient feature additions, customization, and continued evolution of the product. It allows the user to view and "clip" archived text and pict files -- you can realistically leave clip art and text files stuffed and easily make use of them. This is better than a Disk-Doubler-type feature, because the user doesn't need to uncompress an entire archive in order to open a file and do a quick copy and paste. It offers optimized compression for particular file types such as sound and image files. It integrates directly with Mac-based e-mail packages such as Quickmail and Microsoft Mail. It also allows sophisticated scripting with wildcards that lets the user automate repetitive and boring tasks. It supports modular extensions for 'other' file compression schemes such as .arc, .zip, in addition to the out-moded 'packit' format. New file compression schemes can be handled by simply dropping a new extension module into the Extensions folder. As far as speed is concerned, Deluxe 2.0 is said to be much faster than 1.0; the free upgrade to registered users is begins shipping this week. The bottom line is that users will be able to create sophisticated, integrated file management environments that can be tailored directly to the task at hand. Lots of flavors, not just Vanilla. The Compactor format, when Goodman gets around to making it available, will simply be dealt with as a format extension file. There is more to the new StuffIts than meets the eye -- I don't want to discourage anyone from paying shareware fees to Bill Goodman, but sooner or later, you'll own StuffIt. -- Bill (johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu)
vladimir@prosper.EBB.Eng.Sun.COM (Vladimir G. Ivanovic) (12/28/90)
On the contrary, *DO* post using StuffIt! Then I can use DiskDoubler to
unpack. :-) :-) :-) <many more...> :-)
DiskDoubler is fast and nearly bullet-proof. I can't ask for more.
-- Vladimir
--
==============================================================================
Vladimir G. Ivanovic Sun Microsystems, Inc
(415) 336-2315 2550 Garcia Ave., MTV12-33
vladimir@Sun.COM Mountain View, CA 94043-1100
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself. Your mileage will vary.
==============================================================================Steve.Chanin@f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Steve Chanin) (12/28/90)
Reply-To: sbchanin@ai.mit.edu
In response to the past few articles which mentioned problems
with stuffit, I'd say don't use it. Use Compactor instead. Compactor
is a $25 shareware copmression program which can produce
self-extracting archives if you want it. Its performance
characteristics (better compression, comparable uncompress time) make
it a much better choice for network transferred software. The
following is an article I posted to info-mac which compares Compactor
to Stuffit and Stuffit Classic. By the way, I have no connection with
any of the individuals/companies responsible for these products.
Steve
====================================
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 90 12:10:35 EST
From: sbchanin@ai.mit.edu (Steve Chanin)
Subject: Q&D benchmarks for shareware compression utilities
I was curious about the relative performance of the shareware
compression utilities currently available, so I decided to benchmark them.
Listed below are times and % compressions for Stuffit 1.5.1, Stuffit
Deluxe, and Compactor. For Stuffit 1.5.1, I only used LZW encoding because
Huffman is almost never smaller and trying it slows stuff down. For
Stuffit Classic, I tried both Fast and Better. With Compactor I just used
the defaults. Tests were run on a Mac II with 8MB running multifinder with
NCSA 2.3.2 (w/ BYU) open in the background (its window was shrunk and I
just let it sit there quiescent). In each test, I compressed FrameMaker a
726,971 byte application and Clip Art a 13 item folder containing 627,831
bytes of data. All times are in seconds and 1:35 means (obviously -:) ) 1
minute and 35 seconds.
CONCLUSIONS:
Stuff which is going to be posted to archives should be in compactor
form since the compression rate to uncompress time ratio is so much better.
For personal use, use 1.5.1 for speed, or compactor if size is important.
Unless you need some of the more obscure features of Classic, trash it.
Program Compress Uncompress
File Time Saved Time
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Classic - Fast Mode
FrameMaker 52 46% 45
ClipArt 1:35 27% 1:01
1.5.1 - LZW Only
FrameMaker 43 44% 39
ClipArt 1:05 23% 52
Compactor 1.21
FrameMaker 1:40 59% 40
ClipArt 2:00 47% 57
Classic - Better Mode
FrameMaker 7:00 59% 1:12
ClipArt - didn't bother since compressing framemaker took so long
--
===============================================================================
DOMAIN: sbchanin@ai.mit.edu MIT Artificial Intelligence
Lab
USMAIL: Steven Chanin, 545 Technology Square Rm. 827, Cambridge Ma 02139
PHONE : (617) 253-8963
+ Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
--
Steve Chanin - via FidoNet node 1:105/14
UUCP: ...!{uunet!glacier, ..reed.bitnet}!busker!226!20!Steve.Chanin
INTERNET: Steve.Chanin@f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORGDik.T..Winter@f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Dik T. Winter) (12/28/90)
Reply-To: dik@cwi.nl In article <SBCHANIN.90Dec27174738@fiber-one.ai.mit.edu> sbchanin@ai.mit.edu (Steve Chanin) writes: > > In response to the past few articles which mentioned problems > with stuffit, I'd say don't use it. Use Compactor instead. Compactor > is a $25 shareware copmression program which can produce > self-extracting archives if you want it. Its performance > characteristics (better compression, comparable uncompress time) make > it a much better choice for network transferred software. The > following is an article I posted to info-mac which compares Compactor > to Stuffit and Stuffit Classic. By the way, I have no connection with > any of the individuals/companies responsible for these products. > I disagree. For some reasons I still use a fairly old system (4.1 I believe) and compactor refuses to work with systems before 6.0.2. But also do not use Stuffit DeLuxe, because not all archives compressed and stuffed by Stuffit DeLuxe can be decompressed and unstuffed by UnStuffit DeLuxe. (For an example see in the sumex-aim archives game/atc-4.0 etc.) So my advise: use Stuffit 1.5.1 for which also non-Mac utilities are available to do unstuffing. (Why would you not want to unstuff on your Mac you might ask. There are a number of reasons: 1. I do not have a hard disk, and considering the prices of hard disks in the Netherlands, it is not likely I will have one in the very near future. 2. Just now there are questions in the ibm-pc groups about programs to do unstuffing. They want to use the Mac sound files on their pc; a perfectly valid request; but they do not have access to a Mac. 3. I want to look at the stuff before I download. etc.) [Obl joke: ever tried to unstuff a 600k archive on a single drive Mac? Who was more patient? You, the Mac or Unstuffit? Yes, it means swapping disks over 1000 times.] Btw, I have seen compactor working and it looks great. What it is missing (and all packing/compacting programs are missing it) is a dual progress bar. All programs display their progress either in size of the original or in size of the compacted stuff. What I would like to see is a two bars (with the same scale), one displaying original size, one displaying compacted size. -- dik t. winter, cwi, amsterdam, nederland dik@cwi.nl + Organization: CWI, Amsterdam -- Dik T. Winter - via FidoNet node 1:105/14 UUCP: ...!{uunet!glacier, ..reed.bitnet}!busker!226!20!Dik.T..Winter INTERNET: Dik.T..Winter@f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG
Garance.Drosehn@f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Garance Drosehn) (12/28/90)
Reply-To: Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu In article <SBCHANIN.90Dec27174738@fiber-one.ai.mit.edu> sbchanin@ai.mit.edu (Steve Chanin) writes: > In response to the past few articles which mentioned problems > with stuffit, I'd say don't use it. Use Compactor instead. Compactor > is a $25 shareware copmression program which can produce > self-extracting archives if you want it. Its performance As one of the people who had problems with the Stuffit deluxe installation program, I say hogwash. Stuffit is fine. I've had guys beating me over the head about how great Compactor is, and when I saw it in action I saw no reason to bother with it. If I didn't own Stuffit (in any form) then I might (maybe) have gone for Compactor, as it did seem faster. But as a registered user of Stuffit 1.5.1 you should get Stuffit 1.6 for free, in which case I certainly don't see any reason to spend $25 on some other program. Many many people already have stuffit, and for network-transfered software I'd think that would be much more important then whether people save 30 seconds decompressing a 700 megabyte file. Garance_Drosehn@mts.rpi.edu ITS Systems Programmer Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy, NY. USA + Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. -- Garance Drosehn - via FidoNet node 1:105/14 UUCP: ...!{uunet!glacier, ..reed.bitnet}!busker!226!20!Garance.Drosehn INTERNET: Garance.Drosehn@f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG
johnston@f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (johnston) (12/28/90)
Reply-To: johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu In article <SBCHANIN.90Dec27174738@fiber-one.ai.mit.edu> "Steve Chanin" writes... > In response to the past few articles which mentioned problems >with stuffit, I'd say don't use it. [Q&D benchmarks for shareware compression utilities deleted.] I disagree. I wrote some of the articles that complained about the StuffIt Deluxe installer; but I have nothing but praise for the features and performance of the application. The overall structure of the new StuffIts is more robust and forward-looking than that of Compactor. I see Compactor as perhaps the last in a series of stand-alone, inextensible, file compression applications that support only proprietary file formats. StuffIt Deluxe, on the other hand, represents the first of the next generation. It provides for direct hooks to the Finder and White Knight (And indirect access for HyperCard and Microphone through XCMDs that use the StuffIt engine). This allows compression/decompression to be done from within the Finder or other applications. If archive size, speed, and price were the only important features of for a file compression tool, then MacCompress by Lloyd Chambers would be the hands down winner. It's fast, efficient,and FREE -- and handles unix compression to boot. What's makes StuffIt well worth the few extra $$ ? While Compactor users are still clamoring for elementary features such as BinHex'ing, which StuffIt has handled in a very robust fashion for years, Aladdin has been working on tools that take file compression to a new level of integration with other computing tasks. Here are some of the new features offered by StuffIt Deluxe: All of these new features are implemented as modules that users can install optionally. The whole package is large, but the user doesn't have to install features he or she doesn't need. The modular structure allows for convenient feature additions, customization, and continued evolution of the product. It allows the user to view and "clip" archived text and pict files -- you can realistically leave clip art and text files stuffed and easily make use of them. This is better than a Disk-Doubler-type feature, because the user doesn't need to uncompress an entire archive in order to open a file and do a quick copy and paste. It offers optimized compression for particular file types such as sound and image files. It integrates directly with Mac-based e-mail packages such as Quickmail and Microsoft Mail. It also allows sophisticated scripting with wildcards that lets the user automate repetitive and boring tasks. It supports modular extensions for 'other' file compression schemes such as .arc, .zip, in addition to the out-moded 'packit' format. New file compression schemes can be handled by simply dropping a new extension module into the Extensions folder. As far as speed is concerned, Deluxe 2.0 is said to be much faster than 1.0; the free upgrade to registered users is begins shipping this week. The bottom line is that users will be able to create sophisticated, integrated file management environments that can be tailored directly to the task at hand. Lots of flavors, not just Vanilla. The Compactor format, when Goodman gets around to making it available, will simply be dealt with as a format extension file. There is more to the new StuffIts than meets the eye -- I don't want to discourage anyone from paying shareware fees to Bill Goodman, but sooner or later, you'll own StuffIt. -- Bill (johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu) + Organization: Univ. of Delaware, CCM -- johnston - via FidoNet node 1:105/14 UUCP: ...!{uunet!glacier, ..reed.bitnet}!busker!226!20!johnston INTERNET: johnston@f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG
Vladimir.G..Ivanovic@f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Vladimir G. Ivanovic) (12/28/90)
Reply-To: vladimir@prosper.EBB.Eng.Sun.COM
On the contrary, *DO* post using StuffIt! Then I can use DiskDoubler to
unpack. :-) :-) :-) <many more...> :-)
DiskDoubler is fast and nearly bullet-proof. I can't ask for more.
-- Vladimir
--
==============================================================================
Vladimir G. Ivanovic Sun Microsystems, Inc
(415) 336-2315 2550 Garcia Ave., MTV12-33
vladimir@Sun.COM Mountain View, CA 94043-1100
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself. Your mileage will vary.
==============================================================================
+ Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
--
Vladimir G. Ivanovic - via FidoNet node 1:105/14
UUCP: ...!{uunet!glacier, ..reed.bitnet}!busker!226!20!Vladimir.G..Ivanovic
INTERNET: Vladimir.G..Ivanovic@f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORGpeter@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)Peter.Colby@f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Peter Colby) (12/29/90)
Reply-To: peter@hari.Viewlogic.COM
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)
+ Organization: Viewlogic Systems, Inc., Marlboro, MA
--
Peter Colby - via FidoNet node 1:105/14
UUCP: ...!{uunet!glacier, ..reed.bitnet}!busker!226!20!Peter.Colby
INTERNET: Peter.Colby@f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORGvturner@nmsu.EDU (Vaughan Turner) (12/29/90)
I'd like to jump on the StuffIt bandwagon for one important reason.
I now grab .hqx files off the net and totally unpack them into aufs
files, which is much faster than using StuffIt *OR* Compactor.
If you must post in Compactor format, please don't use Self Extracting
archives. The same goes for StuffIt, and StuffIt Deluxe.
I expect someone to write Unix tools to unpack StuffIt Deluxe and
Compactor archives, but Unix *does NOT* understand any form of self
extracting archive, and all of the tools to unpack any archive are
available on sumex, at least.
So, post what you want (preferably StuffIt Old), but don't post things
that self extract!
My Mac SE with a 20MB hard disk thanks you.
Vaughan
--
VaughAn Turner Internet: vturner@nmsu.edu
Networking/Workstation Support Box 30001, Dept. 3AT
Computer Center, Networking/WSC Las Cruces, New Mexico
New Mexico State University 88003-0001
Bitnet: vturner@nmsu.bitnet UUCP: ucbvax!nmsu.edu!vturner
Work: (505) 646-4244 FAX: (505) 646-5278 Home: (505) 522-3653
Home Address: 1115 Larry Drive Las Cruces, New Mexico 88001-5457
"...the first rule of engineering [is] to work with Earth's natural forces,
never against them."
"Earth" by David Brinjohnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (12/29/90)
In article <VTURNER.90Dec28185049@wilma.nmsu.EDU>, vturner@nmsu.EDU (Vaughan Turner) writes... >So, post what you want (preferably StuffIt Old), but don't post things >that self extract! I agree with the rest of Mr. Turner's comments ... but with respect to this particular point doubly so. Self-extracting archives are convenient for other purposes, when one can be reasonably convinced that the recipient can handle them appropriately, but there are some drawbacks. First, the "Self-Extracting Archive" puts the user at the mercy of viri present in the dearchived file. Even if virus checking was incorporated in the 'self-extracting' or 'auto-unstuffing' portion of the archive, it can only be as 'up-to-date' as is virus knowledge at the time the archive is created. StuffIt Classic, (and Deluxe), on the other hand, include virus checking during dearchiving that can be updated with new versions of the software. If a self-extracting archive contains a virus unknown at the time of archiving, it creates an on-going pain in the ass. It is not my intention to fan the Compactor vs. StuffIt flames -- I think that self-unstuffers created by StuffIt are equally inappropriate for net distribution. I like to have complete control over the dearchiving process -- .cpt archives do this as well as .sit archives. Moreover, Bill Goodman can (and probably should) include virus checking in a new release of Compactor. The same topic has gotten alot of net.air.play in the ibm-pc groups, in which many posters have warned that self-extracting-archives make for particularly rapid and unwitting spread of viri. My $0.02 ... Bill (johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu)
jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) (12/30/90)
In article <VTURNER.90Dec28185049@wilma.nmsu.EDU> vturner@nmsu.EDU (Vaughan Turner) writes: >If you must post in Compactor format, please don't use Self Extracting >archives. The same goes for StuffIt, and StuffIt Deluxe. > >I expect someone to write Unix tools to unpack StuffIt Deluxe and >Compactor archives, but Unix *does NOT* understand any form of self >extracting archive, and all of the tools to unpack any archive are >available on sumex, at least. > >So, post what you want (preferably StuffIt Old), but don't post things >that self extract! > >Vaughan Ummm, why not? The self-extractors I know of can be extracted manually if desired using the normal archive program. Anyone writing a Compactor or Stuffit Deluxe extractor for Unix need only ignore the extra 10-12k application code which is added to an otherwise normal archive. jim -- __ __ / o / Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com | Proud / / /\/\ /__ Silvar-Lisco, Inc. +1.408.991.6115 | MacIIsi /__/ / / / /__/ 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086 | owner
jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) (12/30/90)
In article <40184@nigel.ee.udel.edu> johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu writes: >In article <VTURNER.90Dec28185049@wilma.nmsu.EDU>, vturner@nmsu.EDU (Vaughan Turner) writes... >I agree with the rest of Mr. Turner's comments ... but with respect to this >particular point doubly so. Self-extracting archives are convenient for >other purposes, when one can be reasonably convinced that the recipient >can handle them appropriately, but there are some drawbacks. They are convienent, and they may have drawbacks, but the one you mention below can be easily avoided. > >First, the "Self-Extracting Archive" puts the user at the mercy of viri >present in the dearchived file. Even if virus checking was incorporated >in the 'self-extracting' or 'auto-unstuffing' portion of the archive, >it can only be as 'up-to-date' as is virus knowledge at the time the >archive is created. Any archive puts you potentially at the mercy of virus in the archive. And I think the current (Stuffit Deluxe 1.0) method of virus checking is inadequate. Why?, cause it's too old. Updates are too infrequent. >StuffIt Classic, (and Deluxe), on the other hand, include virus checking >during dearchiving that can be updated with new versions of the software. Not often enough. >If a self-extracting archive contains a virus unknown at the time of >archiving, it creates an on-going pain in the ass. Then open it with the Archive tool itself, not the self extractor. >It is not my intention to fan the Compactor vs. StuffIt flames -- I think >that self-unstuffers created by StuffIt are equally inappropriate for >net distribution. This may be true, I have no fully formed opinions on that. But your reason isn't valid, since the archive program can be used. Better just to ask if it's worth the extra 10-12k per archive. I'm still not sure your right but at least it's a valid arguing point. > I like to have complete control over the dearchiving >process -- .cpt archives do this as well as .sit archives. Then use Compactor to dearchive compactor sea archives and Stuffit to dearchive stuffit self extractors. > Moreover, >Bill Goodman can (and probably should) include virus checking in a new >release of Compactor. I'm not sure I agree. Given that I think about 3 new virus have appeared since Stuffit Deluxe 1.0 came out, I prefer trusting GateKeeper, or Disinfectant, or SAM. When (if) the archiver is adaptable, like Virus Detective or SAM II, or updated as frequently as Disinfectant, I might trust the virus checking in the archiver. Meanwhile I have the others, and don't feel the need for it in the archiver at all. >The same topic has gotten alot of net.air.play in the ibm-pc groups, >in which many posters have warned that self-extracting-archives make >for particularly rapid and unwitting spread of viri. Are these Orange to Orange comparisons?: Do the PC'ers self extractors allow for dearchiving with the regular archive tools? Do the PC'ers have TSR's (Mac: INITs, UNIX: daemons) which watch for virus? >My $0.02 ... > >Bill (johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu) And now you have mine. jim -- __ __ / o / Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com | Proud / / /\/\ /__ Silvar-Lisco, Inc. +1.408.991.6115 | MacIIsi /__/ / / / /__/ 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086 | owner
johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (12/30/90)
In article <1990Dec29.195417.20150@silvlis.com>, jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) writes... I apologize in advance for perpetuating this for those who are bored. It may be that I feel a tinge of guilt for sparking another round of StuffIt-bashing by starting the 'Installer from Hell' thread. These will be my last words on the subject, I promise! ;-) Mr. Budler made some good points, but misrepresented the nature of StuffIt's (both Classic and Deluxe) handling of virus checking. [debate on the drawbacks of self-extracting archives omitted] >And I think the current (Stuffit Deluxe 1.0) method of virus checking is >inadequate. Why?, cause it's too old. Updates are too infrequent. This is not relevant. If you enable the detect "All (Both Viruses and Anomalies)" option then the user is protected by a scheme similar to that used by the Gate-Keeper-Aid, which alerts the user when it detects any behavior "like" that of a virus. It is thus of greater generality than is implied in Mr. Budler's characterization. Moreover, when the alert is issued during unstuffing, the user is presented with a dialog box that sends the file straight to the his/her virus elimination application. Mine is configured to send problem files straight to Disinfectant 2.4, which is current, I think. I think this represents a significant, and generous, contribution on the part of Aladdin, who could have reserved this feature for the commercial version of the software. >>StuffIt Classic, (and Deluxe), on the other hand, include virus checking >>during dearchiving that can be updated with new versions of the software. > >Not often enough. Not necessary, either. >I'm not sure I agree. Given that I think about 3 new virus have appeared >since Stuffit Deluxe 1.0 came out, I prefer trusting GateKeeper, or >Disinfectant, or SAM. >When (if) the archiver is adaptable, like Virus Detective or SAM II, >or updated as frequently as Disinfectant, I might trust the virus >checking in the archiver. Well ... I would argue that "adaptable" virus detection is a "sophisticated- user-only" feature. Even if everybody downloads the latest search strings at the instant they are uploaded by their authors (bless them), this technique still lacks the generality and convenience of the approach taken by StuffIt. It can't replace Disinfectant and GateKeeper, of course, but it enforces the virus check. I often copy downloaded files directly to floppies or make copies for friends. GateKeeper and the Disinfectant init don't search all incoming files for viri, they merely attempt to catch them in the act. If I fail to check incoming files with Disinfectant, I may be protected, but those who get copies of the files from me fend for themselves. I like the convenience of handling this automatically, within the context of the scripted dearchive routines enabled by Deluxe. No virus protection scheme is perfect, but by combining a GateKeeper-like catch-all with built-in launch of the Disinfectant application of your choice, StuffIt comes as close as is currently possible. ( And makes it EASY. ) >Meanwhile I have the others, and don't feel the need for it in the archiver >at all. That is fine for you and the rest of the "power-users" on the net. The original issue in this thread was the question of what makes for an appropriate archive format for ALL the users who take advantage of usenet archives. Even computer-illiterate idiots like me. Virus handling is just one of the StuffIt advantages that *everybody* can benefit from. Others have pointed out that the "known" SIT format has enabled unSIT utilities to be made available for unix and the IBM PC -- giving PC users access to Mac ftp archives as well. I like being able to take advantage of PC files archived in known formats like arc and zip. It is only reasonable that PC users get to enjoy the same advantages. ( I was particularly glad to see that StuffIt Deluxe allows alternate format handling to be directly incorporated as extension modules.) I look forward to replacing the 4 plus megs of PD dearchiving software that currently resides redundantly as stand-alone binaries or .exe files on my hard disk. Compactor just offers yet another good, but inflexible and proprietary, file compression solution. Why not MacCompress? It's free. -- Bill (johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu) -- 38 Chambers St.; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949
Jim.Budler@f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Jim Budler) (12/30/90)
Reply-To: jimb@silvlis.com In article <40184@nigel.ee.udel.edu> johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu writes: >In article <VTURNER.90Dec28185049@wilma.nmsu.EDU>, vturner@nmsu.EDU (Vaughan Turner) writes... >I agree with the rest of Mr. Turner's comments ... but with respect to this >particular point doubly so. Self-extracting archives are convenient for >other purposes, when one can be reasonably convinced that the recipient >can handle them appropriately, but there are some drawbacks. They are convienent, and they may have drawbacks, but the one you mention below can be easily avoided. > >First, the "Self-Extracting Archive" puts the user at the mercy of viri >present in the dearchived file. Even if virus checking was incorporated >in the 'self-extracting' or 'auto-unstuffing' portion of the archive, >it can only be as 'up-to-date' as is virus knowledge at the time the >archive is created. Any archive puts you potentially at the mercy of virus in the archive. And I think the current (Stuffit Deluxe 1.0) method of virus checking is inadequate. Why?, cause it's too old. Updates are too infrequent. >StuffIt Classic, (and Deluxe), on the other hand, include virus checking >during dearchiving that can be updated with new versions of the software. Not often enough. >If a self-extracting archive contains a virus unknown at the time of >archiving, it creates an on-going pain in the ass. Then open it with the Archive tool itself, not the self extractor. >It is not my intention to fan the Compactor vs. StuffIt flames -- I think >that self-unstuffers created by StuffIt are equally inappropriate for >net distribution. This may be true, I have no fully formed opinions on that. But your reason isn't valid, since the archive program can be used. Better just to ask if it's worth the extra 10-12k per archive. I'm still not sure your right but at least it's a valid arguing point. > I like to have complete control over the dearchiving >process -- .cpt archives do this as well as .sit archives. Then use Compactor to dearchive compactor sea archives and Stuffit to dearchive stuffit self extractors. > Moreover, >Bill Goodman can (and probably should) include virus checking in a new >release of Compactor. I'm not sure I agree. Given that I think about 3 new virus have appeared since Stuffit Deluxe 1.0 came out, I prefer trusting GateKeeper, or Disinfectant, or SAM. When (if) the archiver is adaptable, like Virus Detective or SAM II, or updated as frequently as Disinfectant, I might trust the virus checking in the archiver. Meanwhile I have the others, and don't feel the need for it in the archiver at all. >The same topic has gotten alot of net.air.play in the ibm-pc groups, >in which many posters have warned that self-extracting-archives make >for particularly rapid and unwitting spread of viri. Are these Orange to Orange comparisons?: Do the PC'ers self extractors allow for dearchiving with the regular archive tools? Do the PC'ers have TSR's (Mac: INITs, UNIX: daemons) which watch for virus? >My $0.02 ... > >Bill (johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu) And now you have mine. jim -- __ __ / o / Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com I Proud / / /\/\ /__ Silvar-Lisco, Inc. +1.408.991.6115 I MacIIsi /__/ / / / /__/ 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086 I owner + Organization: Silvar-Lisco, Inc. -- Jim Budler - via FidoNet node 1:105/14 UUCP: ...!{uunet!glacier, ..reed.bitnet}!busker!226!20!Jim.Budler INTERNET: Jim.Budler@f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG
johnston@f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (johnston) (12/30/90)
Reply-To: johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu In article <1990Dec29.195417.20150@silvlis.com>, jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) writes... I apologize in advance for perpetuating this for those who are bored. It may be that I feel a tinge of guilt for sparking another round of StuffIt-bashing by starting the 'Installer from Hell' thread. These will be my last words on the subject, I promise! ;-) Mr. Budler made some good points, but misrepresented the nature of StuffIt's (both Classic and Deluxe) handling of virus checking. [debate on the drawbacks of self-extracting archives omitted] >And I think the current (Stuffit Deluxe 1.0) method of virus checking is >inadequate. Why?, cause it's too old. Updates are too infrequent. This is not relevant. If you enable the detect "All (Both Viruses and Anomalies)" option then the user is protected by a scheme similar to that used by the Gate-Keeper-Aid, which alerts the user when it detects any behavior "like" that of a virus. It is thus of greater generality than is implied in Mr. Budler's characterization. Moreover, when the alert is issued during unstuffing, the user is presented with a dialog box that sends the file straight to the his/her virus elimination application. Mine is configured to send problem files straight to Disinfectant 2.4, which is current, I think. I think this represents a significant, and generous, contribution on the part of Aladdin, who could have reserved this feature for the commercial version of the software. >>StuffIt Classic, (and Deluxe), on the other hand, include virus checking >>during dearchiving that can be updated with new versions of the software. > >Not often enough. Not necessary, either. >I'm not sure I agree. Given that I think about 3 new virus have appeared >since Stuffit Deluxe 1.0 came out, I prefer trusting GateKeeper, or >Disinfectant, or SAM. >When (if) the archiver is adaptable, like Virus Detective or SAM II, >or updated as frequently as Disinfectant, I might trust the virus >checking in the archiver. Well ... I would argue that "adaptable" virus detection is a "sophisticated- user-only" feature. Even if everybody downloads the latest search strings at the instant they are uploaded by their authors (bless them), this technique still lacks the generality and convenience of the approach taken by StuffIt. It can't replace Disinfectant and GateKeeper, of course, but it enforces the virus check. I often copy downloaded files directly to floppies or make copies for friends. GateKeeper and the Disinfectant init don't search all incoming files for viri, they merely attempt to catch them in the act. If I fail to check incoming files with Disinfectant, I may be protected, but those who get copies of the files from me fend for themselves. I like the convenience of handling this automatically, within the context of the scripted dearchive routines enabled by Deluxe. No virus protection scheme is perfect, but by combining a GateKeeper-like catch-all with built-in launch of the Disinfectant application of your choice, StuffIt comes as close as is currently possible. ( And makes it EASY. ) >Meanwhile I have the others, and don't feel the need for it in the archiver >at all. That is fine for you and the rest of the "power-users" on the net. The original issue in this thread was the question of what makes for an appropriate archive format for ALL the users who take advantage of usenet archives. Even computer-illiterate idiots like me. Virus handling is just one of the StuffIt advantages that *everybody* can benefit from. Others have pointed out that the "known" SIT format has enabled unSIT utilities to be made available for unix and the IBM PC -- giving PC users access to Mac ftp archives as well. I like being able to take advantage of PC files archived in known formats like arc and zip. It is only reasonable that PC users get to enjoy the same advantages. ( I was particularly glad to see that StuffIt Deluxe allows alternate format handling to be directly incorporated as extension modules.) I look forward to replacing the 4 plus megs of PD dearchiving software that currently resides redundantly as stand-alone binaries or .exe files on my hard disk. Compactor just offers yet another good, but inflexible and proprietary, file compression solution. Why not MacCompress? It's free. -- Bill (johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu) -- 38 Chambers St.; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949 + Organization: Univ. of Delaware, CCM -- johnston - via FidoNet node 1:105/14 UUCP: ...!{uunet!glacier, ..reed.bitnet}!busker!226!20!johnston INTERNET: johnston@f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG
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?
vd09+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent M. Del Vecchio) (12/31/90)
I'm not sure I understand exactly how StuffIt checks for viruses. Launching a (configurable) virus-handling application when a virus is discovered sounds like useful behavior, but I don't understand how the detection is done. Mr. Johnston says that it has a Gatekeeper- or GKAid-like mechanism. (I'm not sure which and they are quite different.) First, I don't understand how the process works because all (known) Mac viruses reside in resources and a compression program has no way to look at resources during the decompression process, during which it should be using a linear write of the resources in the data fork. Of course, the program could open the resource fork after it was done writing it, but then it could make itself susceptible (I think) to WDEF-like virii. Therein would lie the advantage of having a GKAid-like system built in--but I think GKAid (I could be wrong about this) only looks at Desktop files. It certainly only looks for a very specific and small subset of the known and possible virii. (GKAid catches WDEF; does it also catch MDEF/CDEF? I don't recall; I've never seen either of the latter.) And as to emulating the functionality of Gatekeeper itself, the power and generality of Gatekeeper lies in its passive approach to virus detection. Gatekeeper detects things when they try to spread. This usually requires that an infected application or system be started up. I don't think it is practical for StuffIt to start up an application in order to detect whether it is infected or not; it would be simpler just to launch Disinfectant. The only other reasonable alternative to virus-catching besides the passive approach is (surprise) the active approach, but until we have something which is artificially intelligent enough to do the work of determining whether an arbitrary segment of code is virus material or not, this method depends on looking for known viruses, with regular updates when new viruses appear. As has been noted, Stuffit is not updated frequently enough to make such an approach reliable. So until System 7's IAC, or John Norstad supplies an "engine" to do virus-checking from within other programs (I think personally that the former is much cleaner than the latter, although it does require waiting for 7.0 :-(), I don't much see the point of virus checking in compression programs. Personally, I don't often give copies of stuffed programs directly to friends, and almost never do that without having used the program first... And if I detect a virus in downloaded software, I will check the source. On top of this, I find that it is extremely rare that I ever download an infected archive from anywhere anyway. I think this is a tribute to the integrity and carefulness of the people who contribute to and work with the download sites I deal with. (Getting a little sidetracked here.) So I think that an IAC method which interfaces to the normal virus checking interface would be great, but anything else is likely to be sub-standard. >( I was particularly glad to see that StuffIt Deluxe allows alternate format >handling to be directly incorporated as extension modules.) I look forward >to replacing the 4 plus megs of PD dearchiving software that currently >resides redundantly as stand-alone binaries or .exe files on my hard disk. Surely you exaggerate! The only compression or decompression programs that take up more than 100-150K are, ironically, the latest versions of Stuffit. Most of them don't come anywhere near that. I collect these things, and, not including the latest versions of Stuffit, I don't have anywhere near 4 megs for the Mac. Less than 1 meg, I think. And PC binaries are even smaller, in many cases (isn't the latest PKZIP about 40K?). >Why not MacCompress? It's free. Have you compared MacCompress with other programs in terms of compression and speed? Unix compress is really getting outdated as well (in terms of both compression AND speed, though the latter is rarely noticed as Unix boxes get faster and faster and some newer methods are even slower. Personally, I never use compress any more under Unix--I uncompress and then use either LHarc or Squeeze, which uses something called Miller-Wegman encoding. Unfortunately, neither is nearly fast enough to run reasonably on a Mac, though Stuffit Deluxe tries the former. Just my two cents... Whenever people start talking compression, I have to put them in somewhere. In case you can't tell, my preference for a Mac compressor is Compactor... -Vince Del Vecchio vd09@andrew.cmu.edu
weave@brahms.udel.edu (Ken Weaverling) (01/01/91)
OK, here comes my two cents.... This thread has broken down into many general topics, of which different arguments apply to each. 1) Don't post using stuffit deluxe 2) The merits (or lack of) using Stuffit as an archiver 3) The speed and compression capability of Stuffit Deluxe The one we should be most concerned about and to concentrate on is #1. I am a registered user of Stuffit Deluxe, but I DO NOT think it should be used to post stuff to the net with, for the following reason below... In article <1990Dec29.043759.24299@svc.portal.com> daven@svc.portal.com writes: > >The Aladdin people (publisher's of StuffIt Deluxe) are willing to place >the StuffIt Deluxe file formats and compression alogrithms in escrow. >Should Aladdin go out of business completely, then CIS can gain the >necessary information on how to extract files from all the Deluxe archives >in their libraries. Bingo. Read that again. This indicates that the file formats for Deluxe archives ARE NOT PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE. That means no free compatible un- stuffing utilities for PCs and UNIX. On the other hand, Stuffit 1.5.1 format must be available since we have unstuff programs for UNIX and MS/DOS around. Archived files that are posted under UNIX, DOS, or Mac should be easily unarchived on all three systems. DOS ZIP files meet this. Unix compress tar files meet this requirement, and so do old Stuffit archives. This reason is why I'm against compactor as well... >Neil went on to state that StuffIt 1.5.1 file formats and compression >techniques being public knowledge made it a more than acceptable format >for use on CIS. He then went on to state that Compactor's author was >unable to reach an agreement with CIS on placing his file formats and >compression techniques into escrow. Another point about Compactor, which I've never tried... Does the license allow you to keep it for free for unarchival purposes only? If not, then that's another blow against it. In article <8bTek_u00aw301AtdE@andrew.cmu.edu> vd09+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent M. Del Vecchio) writes: > >>Why not MacCompress? It's free. >Have you compared MacCompress with other programs in terms of compression and >speed? Unix compress is really getting outdated as well (in terms of both >compression AND speed, though the latter is rarely noticed as Unix boxes get >faster and faster and some newer methods are even slower. Personally, I never >use compress any more under Unix--I uncompress and then use either LHarc or >Squeeze, which uses something called Miller-Wegman encoding. Unfortunately, >neither is nearly fast enough to run reasonably on a Mac, though Stuffit Deluxe >tries the former. I am hesitant to answer this one for fear this will break into another thread regarding UNIX compression techniques, but my argument is the same as for stuffit. The #1 concern should be universal ability to unarchive on multiple platforms and should be free. Now I did put lharc on my UNIX box, but don't use it. I do occasionally get one of my users lharc'ing files and then uuto'ing the archive to me. When I extract it, damn lharc chown's the individual files back to the original user and I have to su to root to get them to be owned by me. (A curse of being Sys V I guess :-). I briefly looked at the flags of lharc and didn't see anything similar to the o flag of tar. I mean, for pete sake, I even have compress for my Prime running PRIMOS. I doubt I'll ever see lharc on THAT box!!!! -- >>>---> Ken Weaverling >>>----> weave@brahms.udel.edu
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 + ----------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
vd09+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent M. Del Vecchio) (01/02/91)
> Another point about Compactor, which I've never tried... Does the license > allow you to keep it for free for unarchival purposes only? If not, then > that's another blow against it. This part isn't a concern; as is the case with UnStuffit, Extractor (the uncompress-only version of Compactor) is free. I do agree that it would be nice if Bill Goodman would at least release info on how to decompress his archives, similar to what Phil Katz has done. If the names in Stuffit are at all meaningful, the non-availability of info on Stuffit formats is almost a non-issue. The "better" formats are the same as the 1.5.1 formats, and the "best" format, I believe, is LZH, the same thing used in Lharc, which is hardly proprietary. JPEG is also a standard. Other formats may be more of a problem, but these that are known are the most commonly used, I think. > as for stuffit. The #1 concern should be universal ability to unarchive > on multiple platforms and should be free. I think that this is a non-issue for any Unix archiver. For it to be available across Unixes, source must be available, and hence the archive format is implicitly known. Also, (excepting the possibility of a patent problem with compress) these things tend to be free. I guess that's four cents now. -Vince Del Vecchio vd09@andrew.cmu.edu
Reid Ellis <rae@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> (01/06/91)
Vladimir G. Ivanovic <vladimir@prosper.EBB.Eng.Sun.COM> writes: >On the contrary, *DO* post using StuffIt! Then I can use DiskDoubler to >unpack. :-) :-) :-) <many more...> :-) > >DiskDoubler is fast and nearly bullet-proof. I can't ask for more. I recently found a stuffit archive that DiskDoubler couldn't handle but with which Stuffit Classic had no problems. It was one of the CM_Font files from the OzTeX distribution of TeX for the Mac, and the archive had 86 files in it. I think it might have been the file count that gave DiskDoubler headaches. Reid -- Reid Ellis 176 Brookbanks Drive, Toronto ON, M3A 2T5 Canada rae@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu || rae%alias@csri.toronto.edu CDA0610@applelink.apple.com || +1 416 446 1644