Re: using gzip ?

[Papp Denis Richard <>]

> 
> gzip is newer (non patented) technology. gzip -9 takes longer than compress,
> but gets much better compression. Text files will usually compress better than
> binary files because they will have more common bit strings than binary files.
> This should be a common feature across all compression algorithms. (I will
> resist the temptation to discuss models, dictionaries, and arithmetic coding...)
> 
  Well, might as well ask.  but how is gzip -9 compared to the formats
I am used to on dos:  (I wont mention a few since they are not as good)

  pkzip -eX
  pkzip 
  (same as unix unzip of course)
  arj
  lha
  (same as unix lha of course)
  pak  (actually this one isnt very good)
  and I also recently tried Ultra Compressor, and was impressed.  It was
a bit smaller (though it didnt make my ZIP files any smaller :)  - just
a test to see if it used a lot of overhead and/or a similar algorithm
to zip)	

  Zoo ha!  Tried compresing some GIFs - made them bigger.  Ignoring JPG,
ICE is also worth mentioning, it didnt do well on text etc but overall
I thought it did better than the others on GIFs.  Of course using
anything other than JPG doesnt really help.

  Anyways, top text compression I found was with pkzip 2.04g with maximal
compression.   BUT when I compared it vs Ultra Compressor recently,
Ultra Compressor did better.
  Overall PKZIP usually did better than the others, other than a bunch
of audio files where Lha seemed to do a bit better.
  But I dont think I waas using the latest ARJ/LHA at the time (a while
ago).  
  If gzip -9 is better than pkzip -eX then if theres an ibm binary I will
strongly consider switching.  Even if its only better for text.
  I will also have to try out ultra compressor more to see if it
really is better.

-- 
Denis Papp                              
"So, uh, let me uh get this straight.  You want to kidnap me and
 put me in some intuhguhlactic zoo?"--  Elvis Presley