Mail Archives: opendos/2000/11/20/21:51:11
X-Comment-To: Alain
Hi!
20-ξΟΡ-2000 23:45 alainm AT pobox DOT com (Alain) wrote to <opendos AT delorie DOT com>:
>>>> AM> Yeees !!! I upgraded both ZIP 2.3 and UNZIP 5.41 and it works very
>>>> AM> nice with LFN :-))
>>>> AM> FWIK it is the first free archiever that can be used in a batch
>>____________^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> AM> file (for automated work) that uses LFN :))
>> A> Arkady B. wrote:
>>AB>> Don't know about others but WinRAR distributive includes command line
>>AB>>RAR.EXE which works as Win32 console app and, of course, fully support LFN
>>AB>>and all RAR possibilities like 1M window for packing.
>> A> Sorry, you missed one point: Info-Zip is FREE and RAR is shareware...
AB>> 1. RAR includes free UNRAR.EXE and UNRAR.DLL with sources. 2. As I say
AB>>"don't know about others" - but sure, there _is_ free archivers with LFN
AB>>support beside InfoZIP. 3. ZIP format inconvenient (excessive data, called
AB>>"Directory", which gives almost nothing except additional archive size; no
AB>>support for recovery information; very odd archive splitting by parts; etc).
A> 1. unrar.exe shoul be ok, I propose that you distribute it in the same site as
A> ctmouse.
This question to Nagy because this is his site. Note: he publish final
version usually in .ZIP format.
A> 2. Where?
Look at ACT (Archive Comparision Test), for example, at
http://act.by.net/ At hands I have only November 99 edition 4.6 and below
tested in ACT archivers with LFN and CPUs below 386 support: ARJ, InfoZIP,
LHARK, SARJ, TAR, UC, UC2.
From these archivers ARJ, UC and UC2 are shareware but have free
uncopmress (ARJ with sources), InfoZIP are freeware and have uncompress
sources, LHARK and SARJ are freeware, tested TAR (there are lots of other
TAR implemetation for DOS) are shareware.
If enable working on 386+ only (but as previously under DOS) then there
is other freeware archivers (or with free uncompress, sometime with sources)
with LFN support: ACE, BVI, JAR, LZOP, X1 (btw, this archiver supports many
other formats).
Satisfied?
A> 3. For What I know zip is the most widelly used and
A> that is important for me... The inconvinients you name are real, but
A> minor.
AB>> 1. I buy RAR and free in creating any archive by it. 2. Until you use
AB>>only UNRAR (and this is sufficient for use contents of archives from me)
AB>>there absolutely nothing problems. 3. When I switch from ARJ to RAR it was
AB>>almost best archiver in sense of packing. Now this is not so but RAR still
AB>>good, it is Russian and it stable. 4. RAR allows create script controlled
AB>>self extracting archive (for DOS this is IDOS.SFX).
A> 1. 2. and 3. No comments. 4. This may be a very strng advantage...
("strng" - strange? strong?) Sure, this is very useful when you create
distributive for wide usage.
- Raw text -