lha vs compress

Thread View: comp.sys.next.misc

4 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

4 total messages Started by Matthew Dillon Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:38

#4478

Author: 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

Re: lha vs compress (use zip instead)

#4487

Author: Mark Adler
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:11

15 lines
1136 bytes

>>     to anyone who is having disk-space problems that unix 'lha' (of lharc
>>     fame) does a hellofabetter job compressing stuff the compress.

And zip does better than lha, and is faster.  And is far more portable.
And works as a filter.  And lots more.  It is on the usual NeXT archive
sites in both source and compiled forms.  It is also on the NeXT
Educational Sampler CD.

If you want the very best compression, you can pay a quite reasonable
price and get Squash, which in its high compression mode compresses
better than zip, but at the cost of being rather a lot slower.

Mark Adler
madler@cco.caltech.edu

Re: lha vs compress (use zip instead)

#4528

Author: Matthew Dillon
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 19:40

33 lines
1728 bytes

In article <1gt7p3INNa8s@gap.caltech.edu> madler@cco.caltech.edu (Mark Adler) writes:
>
>>>	to anyone who is having disk-space problems that unix 'lha' (of lharc
>>>	fame) does a hellofabetter job compressing stuff the compress.
>
>And zip does better than lha, and is faster.  And is far more portable.
>And works as a filter.  And lots more.  It is on the usual NeXT archive
>sites in both source and compiled forms.  It is also on the NeXT
>Educational Sampler CD.
>
>If you want the very best compression, you can pay a quite reasonable
>price and get Squash, which in its high compression mode compresses
>better than zip, but at the cost of being rather a lot slower.

    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.

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

					    -Matt

>Mark Adler
>madler@cco.caltech.edu

--

    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

Re: lha vs compress (use zip instead)

#4531

Author: Mark Adler
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 15:18

17 lines
1219 bytes

>>     pkzip is better then lharc, but generally not better then lha. (make

Actually, I was referring to zip (a free, portable program in source), vs.
pkzip (a shareware executable for MSDOS).  However, both pkzip 1.93a and
zip 1.9 consistently compress better than lha.

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

zip 1.9 and unzip 5.0 compile and run on virtually any Unix machine (NeXT
included--zip was originally developed on a NeXT), MSDOS, OS/2, Windows/NT,
Amiga, Atari, Macintosh, VMS, and maybe some others I'm forgetting.  And it
is compatible with pkzip and pkunzip on MSDOS.

Mark Adler
madler@cco.caltech.edu

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads