Hi Glenn and all, On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 22:16:21 -0400, Glenn McCorkle wrote:
> Yeah.... > But not everyone is interested in small, efficient programs. > Most users like large, slow inefficient programs. <VBG> all archivers are fast on a 133 MHz 486 :-). What them slows down is access to the drives, i.e. floppy disks. > As for RAR.... > IMO, it's most useful feature is the ability to create mutliple > files of "user specified" size. > Here are the results of a little test I just ran. > --- test-rar.bat --- > @echo off > time 22:00 > cd\ > md \!testrar > md \!testrar\rar > echo start>c:\!testrar\rar\!start.txt > rar32 a -v1000 -r c:\!testrar\rar\test-rar c:\1recv\*.* > echo end>c:\!testrar\rar\~end.txt > md \!testrar\zip > echo start>c:\!testrar\zip\!start.txt > pkzip -ex -rP c:\!testrar\zip\test-zip c:\1recv\*.* > echo end>c:\!testrar\zip\~end.txt > call ls.bat -r c:\!testrar\*.*>>c:\!testrar\results.txt > time > ____________________ > --- ls.bat --- > sf.exe -lhstwa %1 %2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8 %9 > ______________ > --- c:\!testrar\results.txt --- > Listing directory: C:\!TESTRAR\ > Name mask: *.* > Listing directory: C:\!TESTRAR\RAR\ > Name mask: *.* > !START.TXT 7 10-16-2001 22:00:00 -----A-- > TEST-RAR.RAR 1000000 10-16-2001 22:00:08 -----A-- > TEST-RAR.R00 1000000 10-16-2001 22:00:18 -----A-- > TEST-RAR.R01 1000000 10-16-2001 22:00:26 -----A-- > TEST-RAR.R02 454958 10-16-2001 22:00:30 -----A-- > ~END.TXT 5 10-16-2001 22:00:30 -----A-- > Sub-Directories: 0 > 3454970 bytes used in 6 files. > Listing directory: C:\!TESTRAR\ZIP\ > Name mask: *.* > !START.TXT 7 10-16-2001 22:00:30 -----A-- > TEST-ZIP.ZIP 3454991 10-16-2001 22:00:48 -----A-- > ~END.TXT 5 10-16-2001 22:00:48 -----A-- > Sub-Directories: 0 > 3455003 bytes used in 3 files. > RESULTS.TXT 0 10-16-2001 22:00:48 -----A-- > Sub-Directories: 0 > 0 bytes used in 1 files. > 6909973 bytes used in 10 files in 3 directories. > _______________________________ > Total file size is almost identical. > (the 4 RARs are only 33 bytes smaller that the 1 ZIP) did You turn on the "solid archive" option? This can save some kBytes compared to pkzip. > PKZIP was faster than RAR32 > (RAR32 = 30 sec ..... PKZIP = 18 sec) > However.... > PKZIP can't split the file into any size we want. that's one important reason why I like RAR. Think of sending large files to someone with a slow internet connection or a mailbox with limited space. Regards Joerg
