🚀 go-pugleaf

> PKWare says that this is the legitimate release, and it is not infected.
> 
> The reports of virus infection are coming from people using older versions 
> of Norton Antivirus.  Later versions report (correctly) no virus.
> 
> While PKZip 2.04c may have a lot of problems (typical of Phil Katz, he 
> released it with a bunch of power user options [DPMI, XMS, EMS all enabled 
> unless you turn them off using obscure switches] defaulting to on, so that 
> it is likely to crash Windows 3.1 and OS/2 DOS boxes) it is not infected 
> by any virus.

For what it's worth, I have been using the latest release of PKZip 2.04c
for over a week with various files and have had no problems, and am quite
impressed by the speed; of course, it may have something to do with the
fact that I use a 486DX/33.

Francis

--						IMI URU LIVE & LET LIVE
Francis Morley

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

	FRANCIS@AC.DAL.CA			MORLEY@UG.CS.DAL.CA

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

In article <SCT.93Jan18171235@barley.dcs.ed.ac.uk> sct@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Stephen Tweedie) writes:
>From: sct@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Stephen Tweedie)
>Subject: Re: Comparison of ARJ 2.3 and PKZip 2.04 and 1.1 (Was: pkzip 2.04c uploaded to w)
>Date: 18 Jan 93 17:12:35 GMT

>> francis@ac.dal.ca writes:
>> Well, here are the results of my preliminary test of PKZip 2.04c and 
>> how it compares to ARJ 2.3 and PKZip 1.10.

>> ...

>> Also note that PKZip 2.04 on the -en "normal" mode STILL gets better 
>> compression than ARJ -m1 and does so in two-thirds the time.

>OK, but for fair comparison, shouldn't you be using the BEST
>compression option for arj?

No.  -en is not the BEST compression of pkzip, -ex is.  -en is the middle 
level.

>ARJ -jm1 is better that ARJ -m1 (at least on my copy of arj, which is
>over two years old).  I have a 486/33, so the (significantly) greater
>compression times for ARJ are still tolerable; the better compression
>(with -jm1) and the multiple volume and auto-verify options make ARJ a
>winner.

Depends on who you are.  I frequently compress files of 25 to 40 MB, and 
time is money.

>Mind you, I haven't tested PKZip 2.04c yet, so I don't know whether or
>not ARJ -jm1 will actually win.  But it's worth trying, at least.

It doesn't.

 -----------Visit the SOUNDING BOARD BBS 214-596-2915, a Wildcat! BBS--------
 ObQuotes:
 "Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand..."
 "Ignorance and prejudice, and fear go hand-in-hand..."

    Patrick Taylor, Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                    "Don't let the .se fool you"

In article <1993Jan18.095526.12886@mfltd.co.uk> sts@mfltd.co.uk (Steve Sherwood) writes:

>Quite right, +/- 1% is irrelevant for most people, and arj is slow.  This is 
>something that the author should address.  ZIP is fast and it compresses well,
>but it is horribly full of bugs.  I can't even use it in a DOS window without
>adding -) on the end on the command line.  It's multi-volume (in)capabilty
>is pretty bad, and it is rather limited in functionality.

>All in all, functionality and freedom from bugs makes me use arj.  It is
>a pity that it is rather slow.  Ok.. Mr Robert K jung, if you are reading,
>this is this weeks chalange.

On the other hand, I could tolerate the slowness of arj if it were a windows 
app.

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.

You wouldn't be using QEMM by any chance?
 -----------Visit the SOUNDING BOARD BBS 214-596-2915, a Wildcat! BBS--------
 ObQuotes:
 "Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand..."
 "Ignorance and prejudice, and fear go hand-in-hand..."

    Patrick Taylor, Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                    "Don't let the .se fool you"

In article <exuptr.698.0@exu.ericsson.se>, exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Sunbird a la 400ci) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan18.095526.12886@mfltd.co.uk> sts@mfltd.co.uk (Steve Sherwood) writes:
|> 
|> >Quite right, +/- 1% is irrelevant for most people, and arj is slow.  This is 
|> >something that the author should address.  ZIP is fast and it compresses well,
|> >but it is horribly full of bugs.  I can't even use it in a DOS window without
|> >adding -) on the end on the command line.  It's multi-volume (in)capabilty
|> >is pretty bad, and it is rather limited in functionality.
|> 
|> >All in all, functionality and freedom from bugs makes me use arj.  It is
|> >a pity that it is rather slow.  Ok.. Mr Robert K jung, if you are reading,
|> >this is this weeks chalange.
|> 
|> On the other hand, I could tolerate the slowness of arj if it were a windows 
|> app.
|> 
|> 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.
|> 
|> You wouldn't be using QEMM by any chance?

My setup is simply DOS5.00, Himem.sys (as supplied with windows 3.1), and
smartdrv (again, as supplied with windows 3.1.  Probably the most basic
setup that most people will use for windows.  The fact that It crashes in
a DOS window on this level of machine setup, shows a distinct lack of
testing by pkware.

Steve

-- 

         Extn 5543, sts@mfltd.co.uk, !uunet!mfocus!sts
+-----------------------------------+------------------------+ Micro Focus
| Just like Pariah, I have no name, |    rm -rf *            | 26 West Street
| Living in a blaze of obscurity,   |      "rum ruff splat"  | Newbury
| Need courage to survive the day.  |                        | Berkshire
+-----------------------------------+------------------------+ England
         (A)bort (R)etry (I)nfluence with large hammer

>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