🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1jono1INNsf8@shelley.u.washington.edu>,
rkimmel@stein.u.washington.edu (Robert Kimmel) says:
>
>In article <s0522457.20.0@let.rug.nl> s0522457@let.rug.nl (L.E. Plat) writes:
>>>Subject: Re: Comparison of ARJ 2.3 and PKZip 2.04 and 1.1 (Was: pkzip 2.04c
>uploaded to w)
>>[STUFF DELETED]
>>
>>>Mr. Jung has some speed to address, but PKWARE may address their bug
>>>problems also.  For some reason, the copy I got from them seems to be
>>>missing some of these bugs, but I'm also running a real straight setup.
>>>
>>
>>I'd rather have a slow, but correct ARJ file than a fast, but sloppy
>>ZIP file. Especially when I've only got one copy.
>>
>>Just my $.02.
>>
>>Bert Plat
>>mail to: bplat@rugrcx.rug.nl
>
>Just my $.02 worth, I prefer to use arj when time is critical (or space), oh,
>and thats uploading time, and I was impressed with Pkzips 2.04c speed, and
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>compression, but the as I'm usually in OS/2, i want something that works.  But
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You might wanna try InfoZip 5.1 which has been release recently for OS/2.
From what I read off the announcement, 5.1 is now compatible with Pkzip 2.04c
I'm still not sure if Pkzip2.04c other features have been ported to InfoZip
like the multiple volume compression.

I'll stay out of the ARJ vs Zip debate :-) just adding some info. peace

>until,
>either Pk makes a working pkzip 2.xx or info zip is able to specifiy what
>directory you want to uncompress the stuff into, I'll probably stick with arj.
>
>
-------
------------------------------+             All The Best,
Reply To:                     |
     LenBC@CunyVM.Cuny.Edu    |             Edward Galarza
     LenBC@CunyVM.BitNet      |             Brooklyn College Of The
     IRC: Spartacus           |             City University Of New York
------------------------------+             "Que viva el OS/2! v2.1"