.sit vs .sitx

mrmistermrmister
Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
I'm curious about adoption rates--does anyone use .sitx



a)for their personal storage use, and

b)to send files to other folks?



I have StuffitDeluxe 7.0.3, and after some tests with the .sitx format I can't see a lot of improvement in compression size over .sit...and I have not seen a .sitx download ANYWHERE on the net yet.



Finally, i still have SD 6.5, and does anyone else feel that this actually did a better job at decompressing archives? I swear it seems like SD is actually getting slower.



Am I crazy, or does that mesh with other people's experiences?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 10
    der kopfder kopf Posts: 2,275member
    I have noticed a little slowness, but with the 7.0.3 update, I expect a little boost (maybe wrongly, but hey). What rules out 6.5 for me, however, is the fact that it does not handle long file names well, in both compressing and expanding. (it just truncates files at the old, OS 9, file name limit - very cumbersome if, e.g., you've tried installing the PHP manual in HTML format).



    Anyway. I always use droptar. It may be dumb, but I like it. Thing is, it strips mac resources from the file. So, for an app, it's not advisable, but I have the impression that I get lower file sizes AND I am more compatible with the entire world. Macs speak .sit, Windows speak .zip but everyone speaks .gzip!
  • Reply 2 of 10
    mrmistermrmister Posts: 1,095member
    Hmmm. What are the downsides, if any, to .gzip? It kills apps--anything else that might have problems? What if I put the app in a folder? I just played with it, and it *does* seem both faster and to make smaller archives.
  • Reply 3 of 10
    der kopfder kopf Posts: 2,275member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mrmister

    Hmmm. What are the downsides, if any, to .gzip? It kills apps--anything else that might have problems? What if I put the app in a folder? I just played with it, and it *does* seem both faster and to make smaller archives.



    Well, the stripping of mac resources can cause problems with various types of files. I think if, for example, you have a collection of images, which have, as their icons, a preview of themselves, you're sure to lose all of those icons. Even further than this: any file that has a custom icon will lose it in the gzip process (except maybe for, ironically, appz, which oftentimes have their icons hardcoded in the file rather than in the resources).



    I have noticed that, for example, gzipping an internet explorer created .waf (web archive file, a binary format that internet explorer creates if you save a webpage with its images, sounds or movies) effectively makes it useless. I don't know why.



    In any case, I would use it with caution. I use it primarily for things that are, by nature, used in the community that brought forth .gzip: plain .html and .txt files. For binary information, I would lean towards .sit, albeit that I hardly compress anything binary.
  • Reply 4 of 10
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Quote:

    Macs speak .sit, Windows speak .zip but everyone speaks .gzip!







    What's everyone else, a few Linux geeks, some archaic servers, and some Amiga weirdos? Through in a random XBOX running Linux perhaps? And don't foget WebTV
  • Reply 5 of 10
    der kopfder kopf Posts: 2,275member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquatic





    What's everyone else, a few Linux geeks, some archaic servers, and some Amiga weirdos? Through in a random XBOX running Linux perhaps? And don't foget WebTV



    No, no, not everyone ELSE, but EVERYONE. Granted, macs speak .zip too, and there might be ways to deal with .sit on windows, but I lean towards .gzip, cuz I kind of have a severe liking for all things unix and gnu.
  • Reply 6 of 10
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    Not only can everyone uncompress .gzip, but the thing about the resource forks being stripped is actually a GOOD thing sometimes. I don't know how many people I've confused with the .rsrc files showing up after they uncompress a stuffed file. I've taken to cp'ing word docs in the terminal and the stuffing those just to get rid of the resource forks. Stoopid illiterate computer users. And they use windows. Poor saps.
  • Reply 7 of 10
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Anyone else noticed that sitx is slower than death? It is like Stuffit keeps getting slower with every update!
  • Reply 8 of 10
    mrmistermrmister Posts: 1,095member
    Yep. Between that and the fact that no one seems to be using it, I've been sticking with .sit.
  • Reply 9 of 10
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    .sitx correctly stores Unix permissions. That's the difference.



    Barto
  • Reply 10 of 10
    mrmistermrmister Posts: 1,095member
    So I could use .sitx on my entire Applications folder (for example) and then when I unstuffed it all the permissions would be in place?



    Good to know.
Sign In or Register to comment.