UCSD CP/M Adaptable system

[Dwight K. Elvey]

>From: "Randy McLaughlin" <cctalk at randy482.com>
>
>From: "Jules Richardson" <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk>
>Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 3:38 PM
>> On Fri, 2005-04-01 at 12:52 -0700, Ben Franchuk wrote:
>>> Randy McLaughlin wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > I started using self-expanding archives because of complaints that
>>> > people couldn't unzip straight Zip files.  Not everyone uses the same
>>> > Zip format. I use Winzip v8.1, many people use a variety of programs.
>>> >
>>> > I have yet to find one archival format that everyone can use,
>>> > self-extracting archives at least supports 99%.
>>>
>>> Umm I may want files for my LINUX box...  I favor raw files for TEXT
>>> since anybody ( using ascii ) can read them.
>>
>> And tar for multi-file archives... more portable than zip I'd say, plus
>> errors won't trash the archive (or at least not so much!).
>>
>> Of course if compression *has* to be used... hmm... I suppose zip *is*
>> the best bet there, as at least it's more widely supported than some of
>> the other compression methods.
>>
>> Self-extracting archives sound like a *very* bad idea when you have no
>> idea what the target machine will be! :)
>
>As stated in a different post the *.exe file can be renamed to *.zip and any 
>zip program will handle it normally, that is if the algorithms are 
>compatible.  I had too many complaints from people that didn't have a 
>compatible program so a self extracting archive is the best way I've found 
>so far.
>
>If anyone can come up with a method that is truly better I'll jump on it. 
>The problem is simple if it's not a self extracting file then everyone has 
>to use a compatible extractor :-(
>
>For DOS/Windoze there are many different incompatible zip programs.
>
>
>Randy
>www.s100-manuals.com 
>
>

Hi
 The older ZIP program works fine and is compatable with
most any newer versions that I know of.
Dwight