Re: lha vs compress

Article View: comp.sys.next.misc

Article #4091

Back to comp.sys.next.misc Previous Next

#4091

From: Matthias Zepf
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 09:55

24 lines
1485 bytes

Matthew Dillon writes
>     pkzip is better then lharc, but generally not better then lha. (make
>     sure you are using lha, which is the -lh5- compression algorithm). I
>     could be wrong, the only zip I have is on an IBM and I've no idea what
>     version it is.  zip *is* faster.

The zip implementation on NeXT is faster than the lha is, but
the lha version of S. Boberg for Amiga is faster than all
other archivers. My A3000 (68030 @ 25 MHz) with Boberg's lha
beats my Station (68040 @ 25 MHz).

In general lha offers better compression than zip. Best
compression is offered by Squash.

>     I tend to use lha/lharc because I can run it on my Amiga, PC's, AND my
>     NeXT box.

Good idea. lha is as portable as zip. I would like to use Squash,
but it is only available for NeXTs ...

Matthias
-- 
** Matthias Zepf, Riegelaeckerstrasse 27, 7250 Leonberg, Germany **
** +49 7152 41917    Email: agnus@amylnd.stgt.sub.org (NeXTmail) **

Technical Details

Message-ID: <1992Dec22.095509.9898@amylnd.stgt.sub.org>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!ira.uka.de!smurf.sub.org!nadia!amylnd!agnus

References: <dillon.0t23@overload.Berkeley.CA.US>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.misc
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!ira.uka.de!smurf.sub.org!nadia!amylnd!agnus
From: agnus@amylnd.stgt.sub.org (Matthias Zepf)
Subject: Re:  lha vs compress
Message-ID: <1992Dec22.095509.9898@amylnd.stgt.sub.org>
Sender: agnus@amylnd.stgt.sub.org (Matthias Zepf)
Reply-To: agnus@amylnd.stgt.sub.org (Matthias Zepf)
Organization: Agnus' Home, Leonberg/Warmbronn, Germany
References: <dillon.0t23@overload.Berkeley.CA.US>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 09:55:09 GMT
Lines: 24

Reply to Parent Message