** Quoting Steffen Offermann to Peter Fitzsimmons:

PF> This I agree with...I don't _want_ an ARJ for OS/2.
PF> I'm the author of one of the others (lh/2), and even though I use it
  > all the time for my own use, when I release a file for general
  > consupmtion, I use ZIP. Why fight it?
SO> There is only one reason, but this one is crucial: ARJ has by far
  > the better compression algorithm.

Nonsense.  ZIP and ARJ are, for almost all practical purposes, identical
in compression (as far as ratio goes).  ZIP tends to do a bit better on
text (though ARJ can be tweaked via a couple of options to do better on
text), while ARJ often does better on binary files.  ZIP probably
compresses slightly better, but ARJ makes up for that by not having a
central directory in the archive (thus, for archives with many small
files, ARJ will almost always be smaller than ZIP - same goes for LZH -
although its compression isn't as good as ZIP, it has a smaller archive
overhead).

Speedwise, ZIP is superior to ARJ (and LZH) in most cases, particularly
for extraction.

SO> Only RAR beats it in several situations. [...]

When using unit-packing, RAR beats ZIP, ARJ, LZH, and most other
archivers.

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.

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.

            --From Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, NY, Thu, 08-01-96--
                --Internet: joe.negron{at}consultant.com--

--- Maximus/2 3.01