** Quoting Robert Jung to Joe Negron:
JN> Actually, I hardly see the functional difference between a DOS
  > archiver which fully supports HPFS and a native OS/2 version.  Of
  > course, the OS/2 version could be natively 32-bit and not require a
  > DOS memory management kludge, and therefore be (supposedly) faster
  > in some instances, but I doubt that for *practical* use it would
  > matter much (except for those running OS/2 without the DOS component
  > installed).
RJ> I did not realize that OS/2 users might leave the DOS component out
  > of their installation.  That would preclude use of a DOS ARJ/2.
There are some, but I don't think it's very common.  Even though I
hardly use DOS programs any longer, I stil like having OS/2's DOS
component installed so that I have the option of doing so.
 
RJ> but at least I know that I can back up my own OS/2 system with ARJ
  > if necessary.
JN> How do you do backup now?
RJ> I use EABACKUP and EARESTORE and then do a DOS type backup to tape.
Well, at least you're not using EAUTIL. :)
RJ> This does NOT provide for selective restores.  I have the SAME
  > problem with Win95.  I use DOSLFNBK 1.5 and use a DOS backup also.
  > Disaster recovery for Win95 is a real kludge at best.  However, with
  > an ARJ/2, I can do historical archives and then restore as needed in
  > both OS/2 and Win95.
Do you have a tape backup?  There are some good tape backup programs for
OS/2 (I use Back Again/2, which is mainly for SCSI drives), and I
imagine there must be some good ones for Windows 95.
            --From Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, NY, Mon, 04-07-97--
                     --Internet: jnegron@ibm.net--
--- QScan/PCB v1.19b / 01-0154
---------------