Hi,
 VH> What kind of functionality do you actually miss on RAR that ARJ has?
       Type RAR /? and ARJ /?.... you should see a big difference.
 VH> Well, the fact that it resembles ARJ (and LHArc) won't make it any
 VH> worse archiver. It's easy to adapt into RAR if you're familiar with ARJ
 VH> or LHA. At least it was for me.
       RAR basically has the same command syntax as ARJ, however it's not as
flexible on the command line with options and syntax.
 VH> Why I prefer RAR over ARJ is the fact, that RAR compresses a lot
 VH> better, and it has native versions for OS/2 and Windows.
       My ARJ works great in a DOS Box. Don't see why I would need a windows
version.
 VH> Before I found RAR, I too used ARJ for personal archiving for the fact
 VH> that it had (and still has) a very fine multi-volume handling system.
       I have a BBS and I use ARJ for easy multiple volumes along with it's
functionality I can use to perform certain duties which I can't with PkZip.
-- www.colba.net/~concept    [)(]::::: Jesse@bnInter.org :::::[)(]    :)
--- GEcho/386/JAM/V.34+
---------------