Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:18067 comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d:731 Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!whuts!homxb!mhuxu!skeeve From: skeeve@mhuxu.UUCP (Chris Riley) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Subject: Re: PK361.EXE Message-ID: <7950@mhuxu.UUCP> Date: 12 Aug 88 17:38:49 GMT References:<11792@steinmetz.ge.com> <4936@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <173@falkor.UUCP> Reply-To: skeeve@mhuxu.UUCP (79533-riley c) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 21 In article <173@falkor.UUCP> heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (Ron Heiby) writes: >Craig Browning (browning@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP) writes: >> In <11792@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >> Maybe it will do tree structures, something I >> haven't seen a practical use for yet but a few seem to strongly desire. >Some people out here have a hard disk. Tree structures in the file system >make life a whole lot easier when you have multiple megabytes of files to >organize, much more so than 360K on a single floppy. Besides, when you No kidding. But 99% of all the stuff I archive or extract goes into one directory, the current directory. Therefore you don't need a tree structure for the archive. I have never seen an archiver that only works on the root directory. When I backup my hard disk I use something designed to back up the entire thing, not something that's designed to archive a small portion. I don't use ZOO because it doesnt' suit my needs as well as PK***. I don't really want a tree structure archiver. >Ron Heiby, heiby@mcdchg.UUCP Moderator: comp.newprod & comp.unix -Chris Riley