** Quoting Steffen Offermann to Joe Negron:

JN> ZIP and ARJ are, for almost all practical purposes,
  > identical in compression (as far as ratio goes).
SO> Not at all.

Yes, "at all". :)

SO> I run a bbs,

So do I.

SO> and whenever my time allows it, I repack the files in my incoming
  > directories with the archiver that yields the best results. In most
  > of all cases ARJ compresses better than all the other archivers
  > except RAR:

That is definitely not the case here.  Most of the files I get are in
.ZIP format, with some in .RAR format.  The difference between .ARJ and
.ZIP is negligible, with .ZIP usually better for large text files and
.ARJ better for most binary filetypes, as well as almost any archive
containing a large number of small files.

SO> When an archive contains lots of small files, RAR wins, otherwise
  > ARJ does. [...]

I've hardly seen *any* archive which is smaller in .ARJ format than in
.RAR format, especially when using .RAR's unit-packing ("solid")
archives.
 
JN> Speedwise, ZIP is superior to ARJ (and LZH) in most
  > cases, particularly for extraction.
SO> I cannot confirm that either. My experience is, that ARJ usually
  > compresses faster, and I think it also is faster in decompression.

I suggest you re-do your tests - even without using EMS/XMS/DPMI/CPU
specific instructions, PKZIP is faster than ARJ and always has been.
 
SO> Disk space is an important resource, and besides: Files sent over
  > the modem cost less if they are smaller. So from my point of view
  > there really _is_ a need for ARJ/2.
JN> The need for an ARJ/2 has little to do with disk space (when
  > compared to other archivers which offer superior compression),
  > but more to do with options and features.
SO> Well, _I_ really do _not_ care about fancy features. [...]

Then you're probably using the wrong archiver as features are ARJ's
strong suit. :)  Superior compression (compared to ARJ) is available in
*many* other archivers.

SO> But lets end this thread here -

Feel free to decline to answer this post. :)

SO> it's up to Robert Jung to port ARJ to OS/2 or leave it. I think he
  > is not very inclined to do so, anyway.

ARJ/2 sure doesn't seem to be at or near the top of Robert's list of
priorities.

            --From Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, NY, Wed, 08-07-96--
                --Internet: joe.negron{at}consultant.com--

--- Maximus/2 3.01