Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 00:07:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca>
Reply-To: "Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca>
To: "Colin W. Glenn" <cwg01 AT gnofn DOT org>
cc: opendos AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Interactive shells Re: 32bit BIOS
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970407181517.1840A-100000@sparkie.gnofn.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970412000521.309H-100000@capslock.com>
Organization: Total disorganization.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, Colin W. Glenn wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> > On Sat, 5 Apr 1997, Colin W. Glenn wrote:
> > > On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Jonathan E. Brickman wrote:
> > > > > using TGZ.  No sane person anyway.  Besides when is the last time
> > > > Agreed.  .tgz / .tar.gz is not really a very processor-efficient
> > > The reason I suggest using a tar file is because _it's not compressed_.
> > Ok, that is correct, cluster wastage would be eliminated on the
> > help system (which otherwise would waste TONNES of space on the
> 
> I see no problem with INCLUDING a detar engine within the help reader at
> all, and BTW, when was the last time YOU used something slower than that
> speed demon you own?  Ever uncompress a big file with a slow machine?
> 
> Coffee...  perk perk perk.

The size of the ZIPPED archive is pretty irrelevant.  It is the
size of the source files that matters.  If each HTM file inside
the ZIP file is only 1-8k or even 15k or more, unzipping a SINGLE
15k file from ANY size archive is relatively quick on any
machine.  Have you tried DOS HELP on a 286?  It is compressed,
and relatively fast.

Mike A. Harris        |             http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris
Computer Consultant   |                  Coming soon: dynamic-IP-freedom...
My dynamic address: http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris/ip-address.html
mailto:mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca

URL: Sun Microsystems                    http://www.sun.com