.sit vs .sitx
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?
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
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!
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.
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
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.
Barto
Good to know.