Hi Lars,
Lars Wigrell to Paul Walker, 27 Aug 96 00:45.
 LW> I think that as long as there's no support for "solid archives" in
 LW> ARJ, and/or a completely different algorithm is being used, RAR will
 LW> most likely offer better compression.
Yep; that's what I thought as well. Well... actually, that's what's 
/happened/ on all my files :)
 LW> However, I think the over all performance of ARJ is better. For
 LW> example, ARJ is better for batch file use etc, while RAR offers a GUI.
Rar also has batch capabilities, although this is possibly the wrong echo!
 LW> Btw, why don't you try and find out yourself ? :-)
I already have ARJ 2.50; I was just trying to find out if it was worth 
downloading the "A" file, ie how serious the bug was. :) ARJ has many 
features, but I need compression most of all, which is why Rar is what I 
usually use. However, Arj was the first non-PKZip archiver I used, which is 
why I have a soft spot for it, and why I'm in here. ;)
Paul
--- FMail 1.02
---------------