Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Krypton · Sep 15, 2005, 03:55 AM

I know we all love to hate this app, but it appears to have been rewritten somewhat in Cocoa (try pressing help within the app).

It actually launches quickly now (one of my biggest gripes), although there appears to be no drop stuff included with the free version. Much improved I say

Chuckit · Sep 15, 2005, 04:11 AM

Are they still using an annoying proprietary format and suing anyone who tries to be compatible with it?

Big Mac · Sep 15, 2005, 04:40 AM

They've sued clean roomed engineered compatible software? I wasn't aware of that fact.

yukon · Sep 15, 2005, 10:05 AM

I didn't like 9, it had a bug where if you gzipped a file using StuffitCM, the next time you tried to do a MacBinaryIII encoding, it would output .bin.gz, and the file would be garbage...."Surprise! All those files you archived are irretrievable". If there's anything I hate more in an archival application, it's bugginess like that. Hopefully 10 fixes it, but I'm just in the process of deleting/converting all .sit files to .bin. Anyone know of a quick way to see if a file has a resource fork?

Riot Nrrrd · Sep 16, 2005, 06:27 AM

Anyone know of a quick way to see if a file has a resource fork?

Open Terminal, drag-`n'-drop the folder you want to look at a file in onto Terminal, then type

Code:
ls -l filename/rsrc

If the result is a non-zero file, it's got a resource fork.

Here's an example of a file that does not have a resource fork:

Code:
[3:20] nightowl:/<3>Resources/English.lproj % pwd
/Applications/Camino.app/Contents/Resources/English.lproj
[3:20] nightowl:/<3>Resources/English.lproj % ls -l Credits.rtf Credits.rtf/rsrc
-rw-r--r--  1 riot   admin  452 14 Sep 12:40 Credits.rtf
-rw-r--r--  1 riot   admin      0 14 Sep 12:40 Credits.rtf/rsrc

This file has no resource fork - the size of the /rsrc is 0.

Maflynn · Sep 16, 2005, 07:02 AM

Originally Posted by Krypton

I know we all love to hate this app,

Why do you (or we) love to hate this app? stuffit seems to work for me no problems, does what it has too.

Mike

lenox · Sep 16, 2005, 11:28 AM

Because there's no point to a proprietary compression format in this day and age, especially with an OS that has a built in archiver and unarchiver, but people still distribute .sit files often, forcing the others to use it...and many people complain that stuffit is slow/buggy. This is why many people may love to hate it.

wataru · Sep 16, 2005, 11:58 AM

Stuffit 10 (is no longer necessary!)

Why bother when we have built-in .zip and .dmg (and native .gz, .tar, etc. decompression in Tiger)? I honestly would like to know who prefers .sit or .sitx to these, and why.

:dragonflypro: · Sep 16, 2005, 12:35 PM

About it's only advantages I can see are the ability to browse compressed archives. It comes in handy when all you need is the one or two items from a 400mb backup item.

Other than that, even if .sit and .sitx are technically more efficient algorithms the proprietary aspects make it less than desirable.

Millennium · Sep 16, 2005, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by wataru

Stuffit 10 (is no longer necessary!)

Why bother when we have built-in .zip and .dmg (and native .gz, .tar, etc. decompression in Tiger)? I honestly would like to know who prefers .sit or .sitx to these, and why.

Actually, .sit had its place, back when nothing else out there supported Mac resource forks. It was a Mac-only format for quite a few years, and was designed around that. However, now that more open formats have caught up, you're right; there isn't much need for it left.

This said, I wouldn't call it completely useless. There are still many .sit files on the Net, and something will be needed to decompress them for people who need those files.

Angus_D · Sep 16, 2005, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by Riot Nrrrd

Anyone know of a quick way to see if a file has a resource fork?

Open Terminal, drag-`n'-drop the folder you want to look at a file in onto Terminal, then type

Code:
ls -l filename/rsrc

As of Tiger, foo/rsrc is deprecated. Use foo/..namedfork/rsrc instead. (You may see warnings about it in system.log, actually).

alphasubzero949 · Sep 16, 2005, 08:22 PM

I'd love to send Stuffit into my trash can, but too many idiots still insist on packaging their apps in .hqx and .sit.

galarneau · Sep 16, 2005, 08:40 PM

If I never had to use a .sit or .sitx file that I downloaded, I would never use Stuffit.

I look forward to the day it dies for good.

Horsepoo!!! · Sep 16, 2005, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by alphasubzero949

I'd love to send Stuffit into my trash can, but too many idiots still insist on packaging their apps in .hqx and .sit.

Please tell them (politely of course) to use .dmg or .zip. Some people actually listen to me when I ask this so it's worth the effort.

alphasubzero949 · Sep 16, 2005, 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

Please tell them (politely of course) to use .dmg or .zip. Some people actually listen to me when I ask this so it's worth the effort.

And I'm sure the likes of Epson and Microsoft will listen...

Cold day in hell when they do.

CaptainHaddock · Sep 17, 2005, 12:26 AM

Those of us who collaborate with Windows users need an archiving program that leaves out resource forks. That's what I need Stuffit for, at the moment.

yukon · Sep 17, 2005, 01:06 AM

I've been using .bin for old mac files, and .dmg for OS X applications....the dmg denotes it's MacOS X only, and the MacBinaryIII encoding lets me transfer the mac files on any filesystem and use any compression method I want (gzip, bzip2, 7zip), if only Apple had built in bin decoding in System 7. I chose MacBinary over BinHex since I've always been more compatible with it for some reason, and the latest version of BinHex broke compatibility with the previous version (5 and 4 I believe).

SIT did have it's place, it was handy, it had a good compression ratio, and mac files never really needed to go to any other platform. But MacOS X showed some limitations in the format (character limits etc) that made the sitx format needed, and the quick/crappy carbon port pushed an already buggy program suite over the edge. If only img/dmg was more compatible, I actually concidered making files like "Disk Charmer.iso.7z". In the meantime, every old file gets binned, tarred, and compressed, every sit file gets uncompressed and the same treatment.

As of Tiger, foo/rsrc is deprecated. Use foo/..namedfork/rsrc instead

Uh huh. I've just been dropping files onto a program called Togglefork to see if it outputs anything. Maybe I'll write an applescript to use that shell command, or just binary encode every damn old file.

Thinine · Sep 17, 2005, 03:25 AM

Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock

Those of us who collaborate with Windows users need an archiving program that leaves out resource forks. That's what I need Stuffit for, at the moment.

Zips created by the Finder preserve resource forks.

CaptainHaddock · Sep 17, 2005, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by Thinine

Zips created by the Finder preserve resource forks.

I know, and I don't want that behaviour when I'm zipping files for my Windows-using contractors.

The real fault is on the Windows end. De-archiving programs should be smart enough to discard resource forks if the file system can't use them. But that'll never happen. *sigh*

Sven G · Sep 17, 2005, 10:59 AM

Is StuffIt a really proprietary format, so that Apple wouldn't be able to include it in the native OS X decompression utilities (à la Zip)?

At least, the Expander program could become optional, if .sit and .sitx decompression were included in BOMArchiveHelper's capabilities...

TETENAL · Sep 17, 2005, 11:35 AM

Yes, the StuffIt format is proprietary.

Expander is optional. It isn't even included in Tiger.

Krypton · Sep 17, 2005, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Yes, the StuffIt format is proprietary.

Expander is optional. It isn't even included in Tiger.

A related question; is it possible to get Safari 2 to auto open Stuffit files?

alphasubzero949 · Sep 17, 2005, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Yes, the StuffIt format is proprietary.

Expander is optional. It isn't even included in Tiger.

This is a real problem for switchers. Say they want to update something like Windows Media Player, which is downloaded as a .sitx. Will these users know to go to the Allume site to get Stuffit Expander?

The obvious answer is no, as evidenced by the majority of PC users who don't even know about FireFox, much less OS X or OSS alternatives.

suthercd · 10:44 AM

Heads up and a FYI. For Stuffit Expander 10 to function with OS X 10.4+, IPv6 needs to be set to Automatic in the TCP/IP window of the Network Preference Pane until version checking is turned off in Expander's preferences. Won't launch to turn off the pref until IPv6 is available. Their support forum indicated they are aware of the problem.

Craig

alphasubzero949 · Sep 17, 2005, 04:26 PM

...not to mention the million hours remaining to unstuff a file.

indigoimac · Sep 18, 2005, 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by alphasubzero949

This is a real problem for switchers. Say they want to update something like Windows Media Player, which is downloaded as a .sitx. Will these users know to go to the Allume site to get Stuffit Expander?

The obvious answer is no, as evidenced by the majority of PC users who don't even know about FireFox, much less OS X or OSS alternatives.

And this is why they shouldn't switch!

Also I love Stuffit it is a great app, my osx.3 decompression (the built in thing) doesn't work so I use stuffit 7 or 8(can't remember) because it was the last version to open fast. I use it on my pc too the program is really well done and it is great at handling HUGE compressed files unlike what is built in to 10.3 or windoze.

Chuckit · Sep 18, 2005, 10:50 PM

Originally Posted by indigoimac

Also I love Stuffit it is a great app, my osx.3 decompression (the built in thing) doesn't work so I use stuffit 7 or 8(can't remember) because it was the last version to open fast. I use it on my pc too the program is really well done and it is great at handling HUGE compressed files unlike what is built in to 10.3 or windoze.

How would you know what Panther's compression is meant to handle if your install is FUBARed and doesn't work?

pliny · Sep 18, 2005, 11:24 PM

There's sooo many .sit and .sit.hqx files around, so we need Stuffit. That bit about turning ipv6 back on for 10 to work--weirdness. The Tiger ipv6 implementation is a pain.

yukon · Sep 19, 2005, 12:49 AM

.sit.hqx. I HATE that. It's almost as stupid as the .zip.ace.zip.rar (in 80 parts) files.

If there are any offenders here, .sit preserves resource forks and compresses, BinHex simply preserves resource forks on single files, .sit.hqx is redundant, complex, and both formats are obsolete. Aswell, compressing a compressed file doesn't work, decompress and compress with stronger compression if you want, redundant compression actually adds to the filesize, also adding to the effort and compatibility required to decompress it fully.

alphasubzero949 · Sep 19, 2005, 02:58 AM

Don't forget those who distribute their apps as .dmg.hqx, .dmg.bin, or .dmg.sit.

Come on, I know some of you offenders are in this forum...

P · Sep 19, 2005, 04:56 AM

.hqx doesn't just preserve the resource fork. It also preserves 8-bit files on 7-bit systems. There are still people with Internet connections from the stone age that have to have such files, even though they aren't very common anymore. A little more common is files that are mirrored on UNIX servers with 7-bit connections (when you select ASCII and not binary in your FTP program). .hqx files survive those connections - .sit does not. .hqx also has another unique feature - you can add comments directly in the file.

.sit.bin is completely pointless, however.

pliny · Sep 19, 2005, 08:20 AM

.dmg.sit.hqx

timmerk · Sep 19, 2005, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by pliny

.dmg.sit.hqx

haha, i actually saw a program like this a few days ago!

Liquidity X · Sep 19, 2005, 11:03 AM

I have stuffit for splitting and and combining files, usually .rars sent to me form a PC.

yukon · Sep 19, 2005, 03:01 PM

Early dmg had crappy compression, files like .dmg.gz were a bit more common. dmg.sit made a little sense, though a bit overkill compared to gzip. I haven't noticed that lately, and I believe dmg now suppots gzip, bzip2, etc.

Didn't think of the 7bit/8bit thing with BinHex, surprised it's still an issue, but OK. There's still lots of annoying compression things people do.