>> What kind of functionality do you actually miss on RAR that ARJ has?
> Type RAR /? and ARJ /?.... you should see a big difference.
I know, that ARJ's help includes several pages of switches, but I have not 
found any use for most of them.
I would really like you to answer my original question, as RAR serves my 
archiving purposes very well.
>> Why I prefer RAR over ARJ is the fact, that RAR compresses a lot
>> 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.
Sure it works OK, but I would expect a Win32-version to act more 'nicely', 
than dos-version. Also, it doesn't store long file names, or, under OS/2, 
extended attributes.
--- BBBS/2 v3.42 ToMmIk-6v
---------------