Hello Mark!
24 Feb 97 22:24, Hans Mangold wrote to Mark Madronio:
 HM> See also next message.....
Here's a test I made to see how "solid" archivers outshine the standard 
archivers such as PKZip.
Files compressed (Registry from WINDOWS folder):
    SYSTEM   DA0     1,552,956  02-21-97  3:38a
    SYSTEM   DAT     1,552,956  02-24-97  6:36p
    SYSTEM   DA1     1,552,956  02-24-97  6:36p (same as *.DAT)
    SYSTEM   DA2     1,552,956  02-24-97  6:36p (same as *.DAT)
    SYSTEM   DA3     1,552,956  02-24-97  6:36p (same as *.DAT)
    SYSTEM   DA4     1,552,956  02-24-97  6:36p (same as *.DAT)
         6 file(s)      9,317,736 bytes
File *.DA0 and *.DAT are slightly different, all others are identical copies 
of *.DAT.  Unscientific Results:
    95SYSTEM JAR     1,802,788  02-24-97  6:36p
    95SYSTEM RAR     1,865,201  02-24-97  6:36p
    95SYSTEM ZIP     2,013,215  02-24-97  6:36p
Since there is so much redundancy in this example, I would have expected a 
*much* greater difference between the "solid" archivers (JAR and RAR, both 
set to max.) and the standard archiver (PKZip -ex).  I wish Robert would 
explain this one :-)
Cheers, Hans
--- GoldED/386 2.50+ / Squish / Maximus / Binkley / WINDOWS 95 / V34+
---------------