🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2056@cod.NOSC.MIL> bmarsh@cod.nosc.mil.UUCP (William C. Marsh) writes:
->In article <3wJXN2w162w@halcyon.wa.com> ralphs@halcyon.wa.com (Ralph Sims) writes:
->>SEA went to court and now ARC 7.0 is better, faster, tighter (read ad hype
->>here) than anything else on the planet. [hyperbole mine]
->
->I wonder if going to court prompted this 'new' version, or the fact that ZIP
...
->we all would all have better utilities.  But as it stands I have removed all
->ARC files from my systems...
->
->Bill
->-- 
->Bill Marsh, Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA

Fact is, that ARC 7.0 seems to provide tighter compression than PKZIP
1.10.  I sat down last night and tested it on various types of files
(binaries, text, program source, database...etc.) and in all cases it
compressed to a greater degree than PKZIP 1.10, LHARC 1.13d and PAK
2.10 with about the same speed as PKZIP. Registration for PKZIP is $47;
ARC 7.0 sells for $49.95; so they're comparably priced. Lawsuit or not,
I'll use the product that makes most efficient use of limited
resources: disk space and transmission time.

The outcome of the current situation is that we DO have better
utilities.  Both PKZIP 1.10 and ARC 7.0 are significantly faster and
compress to a greater degree than PKARC and ARC 5.21 did. Can one
really be confident that if things had gone differently that we would
have even better utilities?  At least I can't.

Mark
--
Mark Henderson, Tektronix, Inc., MS 50-662, P.O. Box 500, Beaverton, OR 97077
Telephone: +1 503 627 6280  FAX: +1 503 627 5502  TELEX: 6503784996MCI UW
INTERNET: markh@crl.labs.tek.com ATTmail: !mchenderson  MCI MAIL: 378-4996
X.400: ADMD=MCI/C=US/Surname=Henderson/Given_Name=Mark/DDA ID=3784996