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