>  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).

btw: my thougths about ARJ is that it's a out dated archiver, once good enough.

>> Only RAR beats it in several situations. [...]
>  When using unit-packing, RAR beats ZIP, ARJ, LZH, and most other
>  archivers.

UC/2 beats RAR in sevaral cases.. but's it's a strange archiver.. i never use it..

>> 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.

the only need I got for arj/2 is to have a arj archiver I can do other
things with than unpack.. :) (I have no other os2 arj archivers than an
unpacker.

.tDr.

--- BBBS/2 v3.33 SaMmIk-9