Hello RAYMOND!
26 Sep 97 20:23, RAYMOND BRODEUR wrote to ALL:
 RB> I never understood why people like ARJ so much.. it's a very big EXE
 RB> file, the options can be found in most any other compression program,
 RB> and actually the only cool thing about it is the multiple volumes...
The size of ARJ doesn't matter at all, unless an application shells out and 
doesn't leave enough memory.  You are =very= wrong with regards to options: 
no other archiver comes even close in matching the flexibility of ARJ.
 RB> but even at that, RAR is more fun... so if someone out there knows
 RB> why ARJ is so famous (and why!) please reply soon...
I don't know about "fun" - I use archivers to get a job done.  If I want fun, 
I party.
RAR still has a long, long way to go until it comes even close to ARJ's 
flexibility and reliability.  Matter of fact, it wasn't until the recent RAR 
upgrade 2.01 that RAR finally gained the simple ability to use and/or clear 
the "A" (archive) attribute.  Meaning: prior to 12 March 1997, you could not 
even use RAR for simple backups!  Shows you just how little thought went into 
RAR!
However, comparing ARJ and RAR is like apples and oranges.  RAR is a =solid= 
archiver, as such, you should compare it to ARJ's big brother, JAR, from the 
same author, Robert Jung.
JAR's commands & switches are very close to ARJ's.  JAR is generally faster 
than RAR and has better compression.  It's flexibility is much superior to 
RAR and it is also considerably safer than RAR.
Here's just one example of safety:
For add and especially move commands, only three archivers that I know of 
have the brains to run a test on the temporary file before deleting files: 
ARJ, JAR and InfoZip's ZIP.  Take a close look at the ARJ and JAR switch -jt, 
or InfoZip's ZIP T option.  In this regard, RAR is a bit brain dead: it 
deletes first and asks questions later.
Each archiver has it's strengths and weaknesses; so far, I have not come 
across an archiver that's perfect for all tasks.  Just like a mechanic or a 
carpenter has to chose the right tools for the job, so you have to chose the 
right archiver for the job -- there is no such thing as "one size fits all". 
Personally, depending on the task at hand, I use, in alphabetical order:
           ARJ                 2.55c DOS & Win 95 Command Line
           JAR32               1.02  Win95 Command Line
           LHA                 2.13  DOS & Win 95 Command Line
           LHA32               2.67  Win95 Command Line
           PKZip/W32           2.50  Win95 GUI
           RAR                 2.01  DOS & Win 95 Command Line
           RAR                 2.01  Win32 Command Line
           RAR                 2.01  Win95 GUI
           WinZip              6.3   Win95 GUI
           ZIP (from InfoZip)  2.1   DOS
           ZIP (from InfoZip)  2.1   Win32 Command Line
Of those, ARJ and JAR are the "Swiss Army Knives" of archiving.
Cheers, Hans
... Hey SysOp! You'd better upgrade me or el%$^&%NO CARRIER
--- GoldED/386 2.50+ / Binkley32 / Maximus / Squish / WINDOWS 95 / V34+
---------------