Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!danoc
From: danoc@clyde.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: ARC/ZOO/TAR
Message-ID: <17729@clyde.ATT.COM>
Date: Wed, 2-Dec-87 18:58:54 EST
Article-I.D.: clyde.17729
Posted: Wed Dec  2 18:58:54 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 6-Dec-87 13:22:22 EST
References: <3027@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu>
Sender: nuucp@clyde.ATT.COM
Reply-To: danoc@moss.UUCP (Dan O'Connell)
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany NJ
Lines: 23

In article <3027@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> amit@umn-cs.UUCP (Neta Amit) writes:
> ...
>PDTAR offers a number of significant advantages over both ZOO and ARC:
>  - It can compress, and the resulting archive is small; on the sample above, 
>    smaller than the .arc or .zoo files
>

pdtar will not compress on ms-dos systems. the code to handle compression
uses fork() and is surrounded by #ifdef; if MSDOS is defined that section
is not compiled.

i haven't seen a version of compress (or arc for that matter) that will
compress a file on **ix (vax svr2 style) and uncompress on ms-dos.  is
there one?  i guess i don't actually need it now that i have zoo.

zoo works beautifully.  i've packed up files into a zoo archive on the vax
and upacked it on the 6300; zoo's the first program i know about that
handles that.  some seat-of-the-pants testing (on the zoo source) showed that
the zoo archive is smaller than those created by arc and pkarc.  zoo
is much faster than arc and about the same speed as pkarc on the pc (in
creating an archive).

-dan