Talk:ARJ

Some incorrect and some questionable statements

I have found one incorrect statement and a few statements of questionable validity.

I will correct the false one, which is (in indirect quotation):

• "ARJ was popular because of its capability to make multi-volume archives." - ARJ could create mutli-volume archives, but PKZIP also could. But ARJ's implementation was much simpler and more inituitive.

The questionable statements, which I do not dare to alter:

• "ARJ also allowed the user to alter the level of an archive's compression, making it popular on small packet mail networks..." - It is not clear if the writer meant that ARJ could modify existing archive's compression level (I doubt that this could ever be possible without re-packaging the archive), or that it simply had multiple choices for compression level when making a brand new archive (virtually every mainstream archiver had/has that).
• "A very interesting feature which seems to be missing from all the other popular archivers (March 2006), is the ability to add, delete and/or modify files in a multi-volume archive..." - I have checked with WinRAR and it indeed can not do this with its RAR format. But someone should verify if ARJ really can do it.

       -- Nihad Hamzic 08:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed?

A new brand of Chinese airplanes has been introduced recently. Perhaps we need to create some disambiguation for ARJ airplanes? Marcos [Tupungato] (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this will be the main (most notable) meaning for a while to come. If ARJ airplanes becomes notable enough to warrant an article, put one of the hatnote templates on this page linking that article. Shinobu (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)