Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.

Poll

File Compression

ACE
[ 6 ] (4%)
ARJ
[ 0 ] (0%)
BZ2
[ 3 ] (2%)
CAB
[ 1 ] (0.7%)
GZip
[ 2 ] (1.3%)
QLFC
[ 0 ] (0%)
RAR
[ 72 ] (47.7%)
TAR
[ 1 ] (0.7%)
ZIP
[ 52 ] (34.4%)
Other
[ 14 ] (9.3%)

Total Members Voted: 171

Topic: File Compression (Read 12590 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

File Compression

Reply #25 –
Quote
I use NTFS built-in compression

And if you want to send files via inet? or to transport by some kind of disks?

As for me, I've started using RAR from version 1.6 (in deep '93) and I stay loyal to him for years.
When I've trying to use zip or arj for commandline, RAR already had an UI and support for external comandline compressors.
Once I wants to try WinZip (version 6, seems) I couldn't create the archive! His interface confused me!  I've said: "@#$%!" and have returned to WinRAR. Forever.

File Compression

Reply #26 –
I like WinRAR too, RAR is very good, and the UI is the greatest. BUT, by staying blindly loyal you're taking a risk, to deny things that are actually as good or better. 7-Zip is very good, and very often compresses better than RAR to .7z format, sometimes even much better.
Try compressing with it (the latest beta) using the default configurations, use solid compression, and max compression.
And you can try one of these command line configurations (depends on how much RAM you have) by sven bent:
Code: [Select]
(128 MB)
0=BCJ2 1=LZMA 2=LZMA 3=LZMA b0:1 b0s1:2 b0s2:3 1a=2 2a=2 3a=2 1d=6m 2d=19 3d=19 1mf=bt4b 2mf=bt2 3mf=bt2

(256 MB)
0=BCJ2 1=LZMA 2=LZMA 3=LZMA b0:1 b0s1:2 b0s2:3 1a=2 2a=2 3a=2 1d=16m 2d=1m 3d=1m 1mf=bt4b 2mf=bt2 3mf=bt2

(384 MB)
0=BCJ2 1=LZMA 2=LZMA 3=LZMA b0:1 b0s1:2 b0s2:3 1a=2 2a=2 3a=2 1d=32m 2d=1m 3d=1m 1mf=bt4b 2mf=bt2 3mf=bt2

(512 MB or more)
0=BCJ2 1=LZMA 2=LZMA 3=LZMA b0:1 b0s1:2 b0s2:3 1a=2 2a=2 3a=2 1d=48m 2d=2m 3d=2m 1mf=bt4b 2mf=bt2 3mf=bt2

from here
You might be very surprised of the performence.

File Compression

Reply #27 –
Try compressing with it (the latest beta) using the default configurations, use solid compression, and max compression.

I assume it's quite slow at those rates.  If speed isn't a concern, how does 7-zip compare to RK with such options?

-h

File Compression

Reply #28 –
Actually, Win users elect between zip and rar formats: When I send a .7z file for my friend I should talk him about pretty 7-Zip archiver that beats even RAR in some cases in compressing degree or speed and then I should give a link to 7-Zip or send the archiver's binary with archive 
No, I believe SK1 right but ... There isn't much time to get announced with a new archiver to me and all my friends for the only purpose to a bit faster or a bit smaller ... That's not such thing...
Anyway, thanks, Shy K!

File Compression

Reply #29 –
Sorry, but your reason doesn't make much sense to me at all, roman.
I mean, so ok, don't ever use anything new...you know what i mean?..
Oh and in my experience, the compression is not sometimes better than of RAR, it's most of the times better, and sometimes much better.
And hey, you called me Shy K  nice, someone's paying attention to me.

-h, woo, compared to RK, 7-Zip is MUCH MUCH faster. RK is low speed hell, yeah
The compression at these levels is slower than of RAR, but the decompression really is quite fast. I haven't compared the two really, but 7-Zip's speed is really not bad at -all-, better try it .

File Compression

Reply #30 –
7-Zip is good, yes, the problems is that you can use this format for yourself but if you want to share a compressed archive with people who don't know this format (99%) you'll really have to convince them to use this program, give the link and finally learn they how to use it.

Rar support zip and can compress using zip, other format aren't so practice (it's like send an album encoded with mpc to a person who don't know not even mp3).
[ Commodore 64 Forever...! ]

File Compression

Reply #31 –
Quote
And if you want to send files via inet? or to transport by some kind of disks?


Well I use RAR for those matters, but again, the question was:

Quote
What Default compression will you use to compress local files?
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you."

File Compression

Reply #32 –
7-zip + SFX (SelfExecutable) is OFTEN smaller than RAR or ACE or ZIP

UHARC has better compression ratio than 7-zip....

File Compression

Reply #33 –
Does anyone know what the status of the RAR file format is - is it open?

Using the file recovery record seems a good way to make cdr archives more robust, but i'd be hesitant trusting my flacs or pngs to a closed file format. On the other hand, 7zip which is GPLed, does decompress it so i'm a little confused here.

Someone enlighten me

File Compression

Reply #34 –
Quote
Does anyone know what the status of the RAR file format is - is it open?


The sources for unrar is available here and if you search for rar at Wotsit's Format you will find the specs for the format.

Anyway;

I'm using zip mostly for small files and rar for everything else. Even when sending files to other people I'm using rar, almost everyone has winrar installed

Have done some testing with 7z (as seen in this thread), right now I'm using 7z only when I need to compress very large stuff.

File Compression

Reply #35 –
Different implementations of zip achieve different levels of compression.

eg.  Stuffit for Windows from Aladdin Systems actually achieves higher compression ratios in their implementation of zip than other popular zip tools like Winzip or PKZip.

File Compression

Reply #36 –
So does 7-Zip... you never really checked this program out did you ?

File Compression

Reply #37 –
Quote
The only bad points I see about rar is not so good linux support (command line only) and that winrar is not open source, not even free.

WinRAR stated that it is only a 40 days trialware, but I still can continue using it even after 40 days! WinACe too!

File Compression

Reply #38 –
Good reasons for me to try open sourced 7-zip!

File Compression

Reply #39 –
Quote
The sources for unrar is available here and if you search for rar at Wotsit's Format you will find the specs for the format.


Thanks hey

Looks like i'll be using rar for cdrs then ....

File Compression

Reply #40 –
COOL, 7-zip seems to outperfome rar3 now, great compression ratio, not only just a little better but  most of the time much better!

File Compression

Reply #41 –
Personally, I prefer ZIP for archiving, and WinZIP is my choice of archiver  ... for 2 reasons


(A) Compatibility. Say what you want, but ZIP is probably the most widely-used, well documented compression format around. Source for compression/decompression of ZIPs ( in the form of Zlib, Infozip ) is widely and easily obtainable, and binaries available for more platforms then you'll probably ever use. Heck, Infozip even claims to be 3rd most portable program ever... This is in contrast to RAR, ACE and 7zip, all of which although boasting of a superior file format to the ZIP, lack an established user base and history.


(B) User interface. Amongst all the various graphical shells for each compressor, only two have a more professional, polished look - WinRAR and WinZIP. And for me, WinZIP wins hands down due to its sleeker interface.. alpha-blended icons, XP theme integration ..

Of course, the fact that Winzip is (unlimited) nag-ware doesn't hurt as well

File Compression

Reply #42 –
Quote
Personally, I prefer ZIP for archiving, and WinZIP is my choice of archiver   ... for 2 reasons


(A) Compatibility. Say what you want, but ZIP is probably the most widely-used, well documented compression format around. Source for compression/decompression of ZIPs ( in the form of Zlib, Infozip ) is widely and easily obtainable, and binaries available for more platforms then you'll probably ever use. Heck, Infozip even claims to be 3rd most portable program ever... This is in contrast to RAR, ACE and 7zip, all of which although boasting of a superior file format to the ZIP, lack an established user base and history.

You may have a point, but on the other hand this kind of attitude is the reason the really crappy and way-too-old formats and codecs like zip, mp3 and avi are still the most widely spread and popular. Would there be any progress at all if we would just stick to same old things and not use better ones? Same goes for nice gui - why would a programmer work hard to write a really nice proggy (like winrar for example) for 7zip, rk, sbc, etc. if most people just stick to the winzip?

File Compression

Reply #43 –
avi's not a codec, just a file format that you can use pretty much any codec with.

File Compression

Reply #44 –
oh really?.. avi (audio video interleave) is basically an audio & video container right? Well then, it SUCKS at doing what it's supposed to do, which is be usable with combined audio and video.
AVI and VBR audio can never be. Some VBR MP3 yeah, using hacks of kinds, and it still sucks. But MPC, Vorbis? Will never happen. Because AVI sucks, new stuff is needed badly. Matroska and OGG will bring us that...
(maybe i wouldn't say avi sucks so much, after all it's just an old, "outdated" format. but, the fact it's called avi (audio video interleave) pisses me off!  y'know?..)

File Compression

Reply #46 –
7zip is the best overall. Highest compression ratio and Open Source. Needs promotion/advocacy/evangelism.
Zip is the most popular, and useful for public distribution, just not efficient.
bzip2 is second to 7zip, especially with text, and widely used in open source apps.
gzip is the most popular in *nix enviromoents, and strongly used for public distribution.
tar is not a compression format.
Rar is closed, cripleware. I only have it for unrar, because its gaining some popularity among those pesky distro groups. It is one of the most efficient, but now useless for me.
Ace is even worse than rar, also only used in the "scene". Underground and useless.
lzh/lha is one of the few japanese compressors, and very old, like zip, yet still in use in Japan.
I really hate those microsoft ".cab" thingies.
And "live" compression done in the OS level is the source of all evil, perfect to waste CPU and memory resources, "could" be useful in certain applications, but if only applied to the data and not the whole thing. You could encript things live as well. Those things are better done in *nix systems because you mount disks in subdirectories and there are no drive "letters", not to mention stability/reliability issues...
She is waiting in the air

File Compression

Reply #47 –
And "live" compression done in the OS level is the source of all evil, perfect to waste CPU and memory resources, "could" be useful in certain applications, but if only applied to the data and not the whole thing. You could encript things live as well. Those things are better done in *nix systems because you mount disks in subdirectories and there are no drive "letters", not to mention stability/reliability issues...

All NT4/Win2k/XP file servers should be using NTFS-level file compression, the savings in disk space, latency and throughput are significant.  It's a lot easier to saturate a gigabit line when you can read twice as much data off the drives "for free."

-h

File Compression

Reply #48 –
Has anyone thought of including lossless audio compressors in to a ZIP program ?

Let's say your ZIP'er finds audio files(PCM stuff only -> WAV or AIFF). It renames the file from *.wav to *.ape(or changes the code in MacOS), streams the audio file through lossless audio compression routines of Monkey Audio or Flac, and dumps that in to the ZIP archive.

That way, if a ZIP'er that doesn't automatically unpack these lossless-audio compressed files find these files, you'll simply get lossless-audio-compressed files, which are still playable and editable.

Somehow there's no open source app that does this. Do correct me if I'm wrong of course, but this is what I'd like to use for archiving my audio projects. The original source format of the audio material could be stored in one of the tags of the lossless-audio-compression formats for restortation later.

If someone would like to get started on an app like this, please let me know. Docs, testing and design would flow in from me.

Any coders that want this as much as I do ?

Tony

File Compression

Reply #49 –
i use windows xp's built in ntfs compression for my documents, rar for my backups, and zip if i'm sending to someone else. the best file compression though? ppm. double digit compression ratios aren't uncommon. but it takes FOREVER to compress/decompress even the smallest files. definately not suitable for everyday use.