These results are bogus, because they do not compare the same settings on all the archivers. You optimized some of the archivers for speed, and some of them for space. Not a very fair comparison. For instance, arj should have had a -jm instead of -jm4 (4 is fastest, but not tightest) Pkzip should have used an -ex for tightest compression, not a -es. These are the two that jumped out at me right away. I've not checked thoroughly the rest of the results, but I'd wager that similar foobars were done with the other archivers. In my opinion, time of packing/unpacking is not an issue, since processors get faster all the time, if it takes a couple extra seconds to compress a file, I'm happy, as long as I get the best possible compression out of the program. Perhaps you should perform these tests again, except this time try using comparable switches on each archiver. After that, I'll take your results as something useful. Until then, it's just a bunch of useless numbers. To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message. Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
