Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

- - e r i k - - · Sep 30, 2003, 08:04 AM

Test case 1:
My classic games folder (62.2 MB in about 450 objects)

Panther Create Archive
Zip: ___1m 44s
Unzip: 23s

Notes: 7B68, G4 533, 640 MB RAM

Stuffit 8
Stuff (SITx): 4m 19s
Unstuff (SITx): 2m 47s

Stuff (SIT): 5m 14s
Unstff (SITx): 3m 37s

Notes: Stuffing could not be aborted.

Conclusion
Interestingly enough, SITx was faster than SIT in Stuffit 8 despite it's sluggish reputation.

BUT, Panther's archiving (ZIP) had them both beat real hard! And yes, it does resource forks!*

Disclaimer
This test is a wildly unscientific testing approach, with lots of disk-activity, electronic stopwatches and just a single test case ran once (you wait for minutes at an end staring at Stuffit's progress...blah).

* Actually it saves the resource forks as flat files in a MAC_OS_X folder which is automatically discovered by the OS to seamlessly recombine the forks.

Developer · Sep 30, 2003, 08:10 AM

Time is cheap, but size costs money (bandwidth, online time). How does sitx at maximum compression compare to zip?

keston · Sep 30, 2003, 08:15 AM

Have you tried unzipping one of these .zips that include a resource fork on a non-panther OS? Eg. 10.2, or mac OS 9? What does it do with the "Mac OS X" folder then? Can't go around sending files and assuming everyone is using panther.

- - e r i k - - · Sep 30, 2003, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by keston:
Have you tried unzipping one of these .zips that include a resource fork on a non-panther OS? Eg. 10.2, or mac OS 9? What does it do with the "Mac OS X" folder then? Can't go around sending files and assuming everyone is using panther.

Unzipping on Mac OS X 10.2 with Expander 7.0.3 did not recombine the Resource-forks in the __MACOSX folder :/

- - e r i k - - · Sep 30, 2003, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Developer:
Time is cheap, but size costs money (bandwidth, online time). How does sitx at maximum compression compare to zip?

Considering the original file-size of 62.2 MB:

SITX: 42.8 MB
ZIP: 44.7 MB

This is a poor comparison of compression strength, seeing that I had a lot of already compressed files in there.

I compressed the Adobe FontFolio 9.0 folder instead as it contains 2,800+ files in 134.1 MB. Panther ZIP was quick as always, but created an archive of 112 MB. SITX is still working saying it will take another 15 minutes (I've waited 10 already)

Immortal K-Mart Employee · Sep 30, 2003, 09:10 AM

Can you benchmark DropZip?

- - e r i k - - · 10:54 AM

SitX finished in 25-30 minutes at 106.9 MB :/

Test case 3:
Adobe Acrobat 5.0, a folder with a nice mix of text files, PDFs, images and apps. 88.7MB, 576 files.

Panther: 2m 42s, 40.6 MB
DropZip: 5m 30s, 36.7 MB

Looks like Aladdin has the stronger, but slower algorithm. If you need compatibility with resource forks for earlier OS, you still need StuffIt. For Panther and cross-platform it looks like Panther's built in zip is fast and more than adequate.

addiecool · Sep 30, 2003, 10:31 AM

my reports of the same issues in this thread

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=178311

Immortal K-Mart Employee · Sep 30, 2003, 10:36 AM

Dude, aren't you going to compare it to Aladdin dropzip as that might be more fair.

eevyl · Sep 30, 2003, 10:50 AM

Also with StuffIt 8 you have a lot of control of the level of compression, algorithm used, and the like.

I really hope Aladdin fixes the outstanding bugs and optimize the application, as everyone else, but the solution provided by Apple is not enough for many.

It is fast and easy, a perfect mix for novice users and switchers. Best of all it comes free with Panther. But it lacks in compatibility, between Apple own software and with other compression applications.

- - e r i k - - · Sep 30, 2003, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by Immortal K-Mart Employee:
Dude, aren't you going to compare it to Aladdin dropzip as that might be more fair.

Sorry. That was just a typo. It's really DropZip

I would compare to Sit and Sitx as well, but frankly it took too long for me to bother.

nforcer · Sep 30, 2003, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by - - e r i k - -:
Unzipping on Mac OS X 10.2 with Expander 7.0.3 did not recombine the Resource-forks in the __MACOSX folder :/

I wouldn't expect it to. The "__MACOSX folder" thing seems like an Apple convention with their file zipping implementation. I would assume that once that convention is finalized when 10.3 ships, other file expanders would have to be coded specifically to support it.

Also, interesting tests you are doing. When I have the time, I plan to do a very detailed file compression review of my own.

FraiseTagada · Sep 30, 2003, 04:11 PM

The ultimate test for the built-in .zip support that will kill Stuffit in Europe:

Erik, can you please zip on Windows a file called "��.txt" and unzip it on the Mac.

Are the accent keep in the resulting file or are you getting garbage?

If Apple though about cross plate-forme character mapping and long file name support in their zip implementation they are definitly the best of the best !

I have been requesting this from Aladdin since version 6, but as it does not affect english language users...

Thanks

Geobunny · Sep 30, 2003, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by - - e r i k - -:

* Actually it saves the resource forks as flat files in a MAC_OS_X folder which is automatically discovered by the OS to seamlessly recombine the forks.

Oh hell, that's similar to the way netatalk stores resource forks on UFS/ReiserFS disks. It's a HUGE pain in the neck to move files (in the CLI), I'm forever forgetting to move the resource fork "file" in the ".AppleDouble" directory which leads to knackered files!

Once they've been recombined, does the terminal see them as one file, or does the "MAC_OS_X" folder remain? It can't be that hard to recombine them, maybe it's not implemented yet...

Horsepoo!!! · Sep 30, 2003, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by FraiseTagada:
The ultimate test for the built-in .zip support that will kill Stuffit in Europe:

Erik, can you please zip on Windows a file called "��.txt" and unzip it on the Mac.

Are the accent keep in the resulting file or are you getting garbage?

If Apple though about cross plate-forme character mapping and long file name support in their zip implementation they are definitly the best of the best !

I have been requesting this from Aladdin since version 6, but as it does not affect english language users...

Thanks

Well...it does keep the accents if you zip it in Mac OS X 10.3 but I haven't tried zipping on Windows and then seeing if it keeps the accents on Mac.

- - e r i k - - · Oct 1, 2003, 02:08 AM

Originally posted by Geobunny:
Oh hell, that's similar to the way netatalk stores resource forks on UFS/ReiserFS disks. It's a HUGE pain in the neck to move files (in the CLI), I'm forever forgetting to move the resource fork "file" in the ".AppleDouble" directory which leads to knackered files!

Once they've been recombined, does the terminal see them as one file, or does the "MAC_OS_X" folder remain? It can't be that hard to recombine them, maybe it's not implemented yet...

The __MACOSX folder exists only in the zip. If the file is unzipped and recombined it becomes the same dual-forked file as before.

darcybaston · Dec 23, 2003, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
Well...it does keep the accents if you zip it in Mac OS X 10.3 but I haven't tried zipping on Windows and then seeing if it keeps the accents on Mac.

I just created a file called ��.txt on WinXP and sent it to a zip folder (zip file in other words) and called that zip file ��.zip.

I turned on windows file sharing on my iBook 933MHz 14incher OS X 10.3.2 setup and copied the file from the winxp machine to the ibook. Copied fine, filename preserved.

It was a zip file so it had the bom zip icon. I clicked twice on it to get it to expand and an error dialog came up:

"Unable to unarchive "��.zip" into "/Users/username/Desktop". (Error 22 - Invalid Argument.)

Oh well!