From ct93008@black.ox.ac.uk (Robin Watts) Mon Nov 8 11:14:17 1993 Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn Path: doc.ic.ac.uk!warwick!zaphod.crihan.fr!pipex!uknet!comlab.ox.ac.uk!ct93008 From: ct93008@black.ox.ac.uk (Robin Watts) Subject: Re: ArcFS or SparkFS Message-ID: In-reply-to: rclark@xenon's message of Thu, 4 Nov 1993 15:02:37 GMT References: Date: 05 Nov 1993 18:08:25 GMT Lines: 89 In article rclark@xenon (Roger Clark) writes: ArcFS or SparkFS - which one to use ? I'm confused (aren't I always). Here we are with two archiving programs, which are both good, but incompatible. Spark is always used for ftp sites, but ArcFS is used on all the magazine cover discs. Bit of history called for here I think. Originally there was spark, and it was good. It archived stuff in archives according to its own special fileformat. These I shall call Sparkives, and the mighty Pilling gave unto them the filetype DDC. And some people said: 'Yay, it is good, but what happens if I want to give archives to my mates?'. So the Pilling gave unto them SparkPlug, which decompressed only. Then came Spark 2, and it was better - it introduced a modified version of the Sparkive that could hold more. Also, it could read and write some 'foreign' archive types. So Spark 2 could read both Spark 1 and Spark 2 files, wheras Spark 1 could read only a subset of the Spark 2 files. And then there was SparkPlug 2. And thou canst guess what this did. And someone saw it and said 'Yes, it is good, but it could be better - wouldn't it be nice if it allowed you to run applications from Archives.' So he wrote ArcFS 1. All it did was allow you to access spark archives as a filing system. So you could actually run applications from within archives. But this was written in C, and was slow, and expensive on memory, as the entirety of open files were held in RAM as they were accessed. Then came ArcFS 2. This was 'better', as it also archived stuff, but in a different format, but still maintained the ability to read Spark files. It was also written in ARM Code, and so was much faster. And Pilling Saw that this was good, and saw also that spark could also be written in this way and could handle all manner of new archive types. So he wrote SparkFS. And SparkFS was dead good. It coped with every archive type known to man (almost), and was extensible, so as people can write their own types. And it runs as archives. And it offers the best compression ratios currently around on the Arc. And it supports gzip. And I bought a copy ( :-) ). And it costs #23.00, (with 6 pounds off if you have Spark, and another 6 if you have ArcFS) from David Pilling. The only drawback is that SparkFS cannot write and read ArcFS archives (though I believe it can read them) Now, Spark 2 has been updated in parallel with SparkFS, so it can cope with some of the same formats (Things like McStuffit may not be implemented. It still costs 5.99, and comes free with SparkFS. SparkPlug is freeware, and copes (decompressing) with the same as Spark. Can be found on newcastle. ArcFS 2 read only is freeware (and is the one found on mag discs, cos it is the smallest executable.) ArcFS 2 read/write is available from Software 42, for I know not how much. Overall, if you are just looking for an Archiver, it is a toss up between the two. if you are looking for some thing to cope with Foreign Archives, then you need something from the Spark Family. SparkFS is worth the dosh if you can afford it. If I have say Spark reader module loaded, and then (for instance) mount a magazine cover disc, I get sometimes fatal crashes. So if I want one for home use, which one should I get. IMHO, Spark or SparkFS. Buy Spark, and upgrade if you need it. It costs the same in the long run. I know ArcFS quotes decompression speeds, is it quicker than SparkFS ? They both support Image Filing systems, which would be nice. Which one is more memory efficient - or are they both bad/good ? They are both about the same memorywise, but SparkFS can use the Sprite Pool rather than RMA, and so is much more memory freindly as comes to defragmentation. Comments anyone ? None that I can think of :-) Robin From smb@cs.nott.ac.uk (Simon Burrows) Mon Nov 8 11:14:41 1993 Path: doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!warwick!unicorn.nott.ac.uk!unicorn.nott.ac.uk!not-for-mail From: smb@cs.nott.ac.uk (Simon Burrows) Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn Subject: Re: ArcFS or SparkFS Date: 6 Nov 1993 12:09:09 -0000 Organization: Cripps Computing Centre, University of Nottingham Lines: 13 Sender: psyhsmb@unicorn.nott.ac.uk Message-ID: <2bg455$6v6@unicorn.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: unicorn.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk In article ct93008@black.ox.ac.uk (Robin Watts) writes: > >ArcFS 2 read/write is available from Software 42, for I know not how much. ArcFS 2.20 is available from Vertical Twist. Software 42 hasn't "closed down" or "gone to the wall" as suggested in some magazines, it has turned into a software development company, and Vertical Twist / GamesWare are handling the sales and marketing of most of their existing products. All three of the partners in Software 42 Developments have Email access, as does Mark Smith, author of ArcFS. David Pilling (of Spark/FS fame) also has Email access. -- Simon -- Disclaimer: blah From hobbs@rocks.enet.dec.com (Mike Hobbs) Tue Nov 16 13:11:43 1993 Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn Path: doc.ic.ac.uk!agate!spool.mu.edu!olivea!decwrl!pa.dec.com!uvo.dec.com!rocks.enet.dec.com!hobbs From: hobbs@rocks.enet.dec.com (Mike Hobbs) Subject: Re: !SparkFS version Message-ID: <1993Nov15.143755.3132@decuk.uvo.dec.com> Sender: usenet@decuk.uvo.dec.com (USENET News System) Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 14:36:26 GMT Lines: 5 In a mail from David Pilling recently he said the latest version of SparkFS is 1.25. Mike Hobbs hobbs@rocks.enet.dec.com