Re: Archiver able to handle corrupted data and to showwheredamage occured

Darryl Lovato wrote:
> See the various compression test sites.  StuffIt will likely never be
the #1
> compressor as far as compression size, because it's unacceptable for
the
> "average user" to have compression take as much memory or time that
the top
> few compressors must use to achieve their impressive results.  Most
users
> are not willing to have a compressor take 10x the memory and 10x the
time in
> order to get the extra couple percent compression.  The research
compressors
> have their place, and I'm impressed by some of them - they just are
not
> ready for prime time on a computer store shelf.

I am somehow disappointed to see how all current major benchmark
results completely ignore the memory and time requirements.

Jeff Gilchrist did a great job at maitaining detailed results with time
requirements but unfortunately he had been busy with other things in
life. (His formula to include expansion/compression time when
calculating overall winners was so )

I guess it will too much work for volunteers to include timing/memory
information.

They are doing a great job at what they do, but I just wanted to say
that it will be even better if they can include that information too.


Sachin Garg [India]
http://www.sachingarg.com