Bernie wrote:
>
> Correct - "the warez crowd" have changed from zip to arj to rar in order to
> get the best compression since this group often needs the few extra
> (normally bellow 5 - but can be much higher) percent compression that
> changing gives you. Why the majority of users still use (Win)Zip is
> something I can't understand.
> I've never been much into warez but I've moved along anyway (to RAR before
> the "warez crows") since HD space and transportation time isn't free.
> That ZIP as a format often gives you problems is also a reason. For
> instance imagine disk 20 of 20 getting corrupt - you'll need to get that
> one fixed before you can get data from any of the files. Arj and rar
> doesn't have this nasty bug, they just uncompress as far as they can. (That
> arj and rar files seldom get corrupted is something I can't explain...)
Hi Bernie;
That seems to be exactly opposite from my experience - not just the recent
problem either. If RAR compresses so good, how come I can ZIP a RAR to a
smaller size ? The zip header itself ADDS bytes to the product and yet it
comes out smaller.
I haven't gotten one corrupt zip download in 10 years.
I HAVE run into download problems with BOTH ARJ and RAR before. The arj
problems were encountered when downloading from Arachne. I can't recall
where I had the RAR problem - but it might have been Arachne also.
To me, ZIP is the only safe way to go.
- Clarence Verge
--
- Help stamp out FATWARE. As a start visit: http://home.arachne.cz/
--
