lha vs compress

Article View: comp.sys.next.misc

Article #4478

Back to comp.sys.next.misc Previous Next

#4478

From: Matthew Dillon
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:38

20 lines
1111 bytes

    I'm sure this has been hashed out before, but I would like to point out
    to anyone who is having disk-space problems that unix 'lha' (of lharc
    fame) does a hellofabetter job compressing stuff the compress.

    For example, the meat of the gcc distribution on sonata is 3178496
    bytes compressed, 2183101 bytes lha'd.  (uncompressed/unlha'd is
    6303744).

    The downside is that compress runs much faster then lha, but generally
    people are concerned more about space utilization for archives.  Most
    microcomputer users use lha now a days.

					-Matt

--

    Matthew Dillon		dillon@Overload.Berkeley.CA.US
    1005 Apollo Way		uunet.uu.net!overload!dillon
    Incline Village, NV. 89451	ham: KC6LVW (no mail drop)
    USA 			Sandel-Avery Engineering (702)831-8000

Technical Details

Message-ID: <dillon.0t0e@overload.Berkeley.CA.US>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!overload!dillon

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!overload!dillon
From: dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.misc
Subject: lha vs compress
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <dillon.0t0e@overload.Berkeley.CA.US>
Date: 17 Dec 92 12:38:42 PST
Organization: Not an Organization
Lines: 21