Hi Errol,

 ES> RG>Why ?  Is then any reason that you
 ES> RG> know of why it would run any slower
 ES> RG>than ARC or LHZ ?    (go on, tell me
 ES> RG> you were being sarcastic again).
 ES> Well I think when I wrote that I meant
 ES> slow as compared to an ibm which
 ES> takes a few seconds to compress a 64k file. Maybe it was sarcasm (:

That depends on what your "ibm" hardware consists of.
Using a 286 under windows is slower than a C64.

I dunno what Network BBS is like these days, but the last time I called
there it was slower than the IMAGE software for the C64..  it took no
less than 15 minutes to compress a 100 message mail packet (about 60k).
Methinks you should be a bit more specific when you talk about "ibm"
otherwise you are doing C64 users a great dis-service by leading them
astray into thinking that "ibm" automatically means super-speed with
supurb graphics and sound. We both know that this isn't true.

 ES> ES> anything about compression I'd do it but I don't so I won't (:
 ES> RG>Ditto.
 ES>
 ES> Well if you have the programming ability,
 ES> what do you use it for? (:

Are you serious ???

 ES> means). ARC is rather difficult to use (&

It is ???
Gee, what so hard about typing
arc file *

This'll arc the entire disk.
'corse, you could always use the arc utility program and do it all via
menus.

 ES> you (I think) mentioned that SDA's can
 ES> only be created on a 128 with a ram expansion.

Nope...  it is SFX's that you need a C128 and REU to create.

 ES>  Not 'quite' true (: I can
 ES> create them on my 64,

Yup... I've never said different.

 ES> the problem is they dont work when you run them 

Probably because SDA's (by their very nature) need to be loaded
entirely into memory before you can "run" them.. if you create an SDA
larger than about 200 blocks you will have problems.

Same applies with any self dissolving archive (SFX, SDZ, SDL).
Incidently, the C64 can handle slightly larger files than the C128.

 ES> RG>Nope, you can easily create ARC's of ANY size.
 ES> RG>Dissolving them with only one drive
 ES> RG> will still be a problem, but you
 ES> RG>are in the same situation even if we had ARJ or ZIP.
 ES>
 ES> Hmm.. what we need is something that works like LNX except
 ES> compresses the files, so you can do an
 ES> entire disk into one small file &
 ES> expand it again with one drive.

Not an easy task, but it is possible.

 ES> I guess ZIP comes close..

Assuming you mean ZIP64 then nope..  This has no compression either
(I think).
ZIP64 works very similar to LYNX, but it creates 4 files instead of 1.
It has the advantage though in that where as lynx dissolves only the
files, ZIP64 maintains the disk structure/format. This makes it possible
to transmit disk copy protected programs via modem.

 ES> ES> RG>here (not that there is any BBS with decent CBM support
 ES> RG>anyway).
 ES> ES> Yeah, well I cant do much about that (:
 ES> RG>Me neither...   I did try though (was rather succesful too)
 ES> Explain?

I was running a BBS over here for about 3 years (Thistle Dome).
Before I pulled the plug on it I had about 150 regular callers and was
getting an average of 20 callers a day (all C64/128 users).
The line was busy for about 20 hours a day :-)

It took a *lot* of work and dedication though, and I was picking up
files from around the world...

I was the silly bunny that pulled such gems as Desterm V2.0, Novaterm
9.2, Desoto, and heaps of other "well known" software.. generally they
were available on my system within 24hrs of their USA release.
(Dazza can confirm this, he was a regular caller).

I was also doing regular exchanges with Mick Lazic (Pirate - Pilbara
BBS) and Steve Elwood (Scruff - Club64).
MickL was also doing regular exchanges with Glenn Thompson, so between
us we had quite a good distribution system going around the country.

When Thistle Dome went offline all the C64 modemers over here went back
into the woodwork due to lack of support.

As far as I can determine I am now the only active CBM BBS user in SA.
:-(

Cheers
Rod
___ QWKRR128 V4.1 [R]

--- EzyQwk V1.05