X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to opendos-bounces using -f
Message-ID: <3C6E966E.2836DC4@rogers.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 12:27:10 -0500
From: jovra <jovra AT rogers DOT com>
Organization: @Home Network
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en]C-AtHome0404  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: opendos AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: DOS Clipboard access
References: <200202151959 DOT g1FJx5W16448 AT dns1 DOT provide DOT net> <3C6DBD05 DOT 6010700 AT yahoo DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH LOGIN at fep01-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com from [24.42.207.61] using ID <jovra AT rogers DOT com> at Sat, 16 Feb 2002 12:30:13 -0500
Reply-To: opendos AT delorie DOT com

Sorry if the following are dumb remarks :
- Rar has a lot of advantages :
  it is shareware but you can use it as such,
  the nag screen is removed if you pay the license
- Rar is a multi-file uncompressor (not zip)
- Rar has an error detecting + recovering scheme (smartpar)
  allowing to recover damaged files.
These facts and information are now well publicized and
become part of the minimum knowledge (basic requirements)
one should have when using a "personal system".

Jovra

Denise L Yenko wrote:
> 
> No, there exists a peculiar file compression program that produces files
> with an ".rar" extension.  One of the correspondents here insists on
> using it, even though he's been told on a number of occasions that it is
>  a.) proprietary. b.) it is so uncommon that many people don't have a
> program to "un-rar" the files, but c.) he continues to use and send out
> files using the RAR compression method.
> 
> Perhaps someone can "un-rar" it for you, and "zip" it up.  Considering
> that this discussion has been hashed over several times in the past,
> with exactly the same result, I douubt that he'll change to something else.
> 
> FWIW, he claims that RAR compresses files "...better...", and therefore
> we should all switch.  It's been suggested to him that the benchmarking
> tests upon which he bases his arguments is hardly a reason to switch
> away from a long-time standard that *IS* open-source.
> 
> I doubt that any of this makes any difference to the poster of the file.
> 
> Mark in Clinton TWP. MI wrote:
> 
> >Hello,
> >    I also recieved this but I'm not certain what to do with a "ror" file?
> >Is that a windows extendtion?
> >    I thought that this would likely be a exe or com file that could be run
> >from dos and would axcess the windows clipboard in either 3.1 or 95?
> >    Is that incorrect?
> >
> >       Thanks,
> >
> >       Mark
> >