🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> On 9 Sep 92 14:01:56 GMT, sheldon@iastate.edu (Steve Sheldon) said:

>> In <BuA1Eu.480@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ezachris@cochiti.ucs.indiana.edu writes:


>I (too) am running out of diskspace and Stacker and SuperStor came to  
>mind. SuperStor will give you compressed floppies, which Stacker won't.

>Which is better?
>Any difference in performance (compression ration/speed)?


	Um, Stacker does give you the ability to write compressed floppies.
Probably the difference here (and I could be wrong, but...) I think that
the latest SuperStor gives you the ability to write compressed floppies that
are readable by any machine, even without superstor, whereas the Stacker
compressed floppies require that Stacker be running in order to read them.
	In any case, I have only used Stacker 2.0 and it works just fine for
me.  Dunno what my current compression ratio is, but it's been as high as 1.8:1
Either choice seems o.k. (though there are definitely some people on this
net that take this whole thing rather religiously, so watch out :-)  I'm sure
the developers of both really love the fact that they've got so many devoted
worshippers ;-)

-Scott

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail:  Scott.Johnson@FtCollinsCO.NCR.com
	 uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-mpd!Scott.Johnson
My opinions are mine and mine alone (unless I only live in your dream, in
which case they are yours and I denounce all responisbility).
GA to SK