StuffIt Standard 2009 - 13.0.2

How about working on the programs so they dont crash? The only thing new about this update is they want more money! and your email so they can send you spam. This software is crap.

This program, which was once a powerful, well supported, important utility, has been reduced to a buggy, poorly supported, piece of junk that is apparently only designed to make a little money for the company from the uninformed with occasional “upgrades” that upgrade nothing.

Considering Stuffit version 11.0 crashed on my MBP upon load, this version is is 1000x better, e.g. I can use it. Stuffing works, unstuffing works, all seems well. I still dislike the combining of dropstuff/dropzip into one application -- why mess with us, guys??? -- but it functions, and if I'm making a zip, I'll be using the Finder's "Create Archive" feature, which is faster than anything else.

I did some speed comparisons, the new Stuffit 11.0.2 compared with "old reliable" Stuffit 7, which I've been using with no problems, although it's slow. A 155 mb Windows EXE file was stuffed with both versions on a MacBook Pro. The results

Stuffit 7.0.3 in Rosetta, 8 minutes
Stuffit 11 native, 3 minutes

So from that point of view, it's worth the price of upgrading if, like me, you want to have the "drag to dropstuff and forget about it" ease of use, which includes deleting the original file, which for some reason ever other compression tool out there is shy about doing. I am happy enough.

You can download it directly from here:

http://www.stuffit.com/downloads/files/StuffItStandard11.0.1.dmg

As stuffit finally got their act together and moved to pure Cocoa, integrated with Spotlight, optimised their code better and released a major version update, here comes the unix geeks trying to save us, poor fooled users of Allume software. :) Lets ignore the mass abuse of comments which goes on for years in every release. Ignore the format exists since ZIP invented (.sit), ignore jpeg compression invention which is big deal for home users having life,err multiple huge jpegs and speak about ZIP.

Built in OS X ZIP support is a JOKE. Apple should be ashamed of the coding quality of bomarchive_helper which is single threaded, coded without any kind of optimisation, ignoring INDUSTRY STANDARD zip's industry standard encryption feature. Lets not get into ZIP doesn't in fact a "standard" for encryption, PKWare and Winzip has completely different formats.

I would agree to add the resource/metadata information of HFS (yes, you hate it too unix nerds) to really open, modern format such as tar.bz2 but Apple is clever. They know their customers will get "Why are you sending me virus?" feedback from windows users so they have built in ZIP. OS X got ZIP built in not because it is some sort of "superior" format. OS X got ZIP because of the Windows monopoly and its users who doesn't know anything other than ZIP to compress.

ZIP is standard on DOS/Windows which is sadly the "industry standard OS" if we will suggest standards based on how many people use it.

Lets agree on ZIP format. Can I ask what kind of a JOKE bomarchive helper is? It is the built in. free ZIP to OS X ($140). Lets see:

1) Single threaded. Compression programs were the first ones to use SMP capabilities of end user multiple CPU configurations. Result: If you have multiple CPUs (common on Mac) it will take 2x or 4x (quad) time making a zip archive if you use built in ZIP.

2) Creates hidden "resource" directory to archives BY DEFAULT. Why? Because the "industry standard" ZIP was originally intended for MS DOS systems having no kind of metadata unlike HFS / HFS+ having metadata since they were introduced. That is "filetype", "icon" and various data file has especially with professional applications like Photoshop suite. You know the result of hidden directory inside a ZIP file? Your file comes back from paranoid windows user, company telling you may have a virus on your system. The reason behind hacking the format: They suggest a MS DOS format to a filesystem having metadata since it was invented.

Windows users using Winzip aren't exactly fooled too. They want something:

1) Commercially supported
2) Having a professionally designed user interface
3) Having practical, easy to use features (such as drag/drop)
4) Optimised for their CPU

I'd say WinRAR is a better solution but lets face the fact that Winzip has been the first to discover the potential of native GUI archive programs.

We aren't speaking about some "clueless", "poor" people who got tricked by those companies. Majority of users buy commercial software because they CAN and they want some unique features.

If you think that way, nobody needs OS X or Apple too. They can install Linux on a barebones PC freely and here it becomes "industry standard" desktop. Do they? No. Are they stupid? Hell no!

Perhaps people using Roshal's excellent RAR format are fooled too? You should go to Winrar comment area and "save" them too? :)

I know one thing. Allume, Winzip or RAR Labs never called ordinary Mac users who buys professionally coded software "maccies" like some "fools" or something. Nor they organise sort of mass versiontracker abuse on a known unix nerd site which hates anything easily used or commercial.