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.
Topic: WinUHA 2.0 alpha (Read 4769 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

WinUHA 2.0 alpha

Reply #1 –
Are you developer of WinUHA?

EDIT: After lilte testing with WinUHA and WinRAR, i'm quite surprised the results. Speed is something what i was expecting to be, but in every test WinUHA manage to pack smaller packets than WinRAR, altho the difference of size between packets are no't so mutch allways. Werry good job.

WinUHA 2.0 alpha

Reply #2 –
Yes I'm.  B)

UHA is the Winner!

WinUHA 2.0 alpha

Reply #3 –
It`s slightly better than 7-zip ... But both formats are under development, 7-zip will have multimedia compression l8r...
 

WinUHA 2.0 alpha

Reply #4 –
I've just tested it on 39.9mb of e-mail data from outlook express. So mainly text but a few pictures and stuff in there as well.

7z - Max, Solid, 0=BCJ2 1=LZMA 2=LZMA 3=LZMA b0:1 b0s1:2 b0s2:3 1a=2 2a=2 3a=2 1d=16M 2d=16M 3d=16M 1fb=128 2fb=128 3fb=128 hcf=on 1mf=bt4b:                                    14,320,821 bytes

uha - ppm, no mm, no pathnames:          14,708,029 bytes
uha - ppm, mm, no pathnames:              14,708,833 bytes
uha - alz best, no mm, no paths:            14,143,066 bytes
uha - alz best, mm, no paths:                  14,146,555 bytes
uha - lzp, no mm, no paths:                    15,372,038 bytes
uha - lzp, mm, no paths:                          15,372,038 bytes

uha is a bit slower than 7-Zip. There are probably custom commandlines for 7-Zip which would enable the 7z to be smallest. The difference seems minimal at this level and not really worth the extra time. It's definitely a good idea to continue the work on the gui and if possible work on the compressor as well.

I know warez people like uha so it is probably better at compressing various datas than 7z but I'll have to set up some better test data. As such those results cannot be considered the be all and end all of uha (especially as I didn't include rk or rar. but rar isn't free ) unless you just want to compress e-mails.

Thanks for your time.

EDIT:

I don't know how good these switches are for rk archiver but...

rk -c -p0 -sa -mx3 -B50000 -M50:                14,735,752 bytes
superdumprob
____________________________________________

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" - Albert Einstein

WinUHA 2.0 alpha

Reply #5 –
Original Data: The GIMP windows installation with "English (United Kingdom)" translations installed.

Size: 19,332,329 bytes

I used this data as I have seen it used in data compression comparisons before and so thought it suitable for a better comparison.

I am not that familiar with 7-Zip's commandline switches, so if there is a better set please tell me and I will update the results.

The compression tests were carried out storing relative paths only.

UHA with 32mb dictionary (Latest winuha version):

alz best mm: 4,267,117 bytes
alz best no mm: 4,547,606 bytes

lzp mm: 5,019,542 bytes
lzp no mm: 5,019,542 bytes

ppm mm: 4,162,003 bytes
ppm no mm: 4,336,215 bytes


7z Max compression, solid archive (Latest beta):

commandline= "0=BCJ2 1=LZMA 2=LZMA 3=LZMA b0:1 b0s1:2 b0s2:3 1a=2 2a=2 3a=2 1d=16M 2d=16M 3d=16M 1fb=128 2fb=128 3fb=128 hcf=on 1mf=bt4b"

size: 4,174,626 bytes


Zip Max compression (the 7-Zip one):

commandline= "fb=255 pass=4"

size: 6,722,893 bytes


Rar 3.20. Best compression. Everything set to auto. Solid Archive. High precision modification time deselected.:

size: 4,760,939 bytes


RK Archiver (1.04.1):

commandline= "-c -pr -r -sa -mx3 -B50000 -M50"

size: 4,258,512 bytes


The ranked order is:
  • UHA PPM MM            4,162,003 bytes
  • 7z with above commandline      4,174,626 bytes
  • RK with above commandline      4,258,512 bytes
  • ALZ Best MM            4,267,117 bytes
  • PPM No MM            4,336,215 bytes
  • ALZ Best No MM            4,547,606 bytes
  • RAR Best Solid No HP Time         4,760,939 bytes
  • LZP MM            5,019,542 bytes
  • LZP No MM            5,019,542 bytes
  • Zip with above commandline      6,722,893 bytes
I think I'll stick with 7z for compression and usability. Although they could work on the gui a bit.

Thanks
superdumprob
____________________________________________

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" - Albert Einstein

WinUHA 2.0 alpha

Reply #6 –
Slightly Off topic... For 7z compression, I use IZArc, which is much more WinZip-like, and supports the format as well as a bunch of other formats... freeware, of course. Geez, the second time I mention it in this forum... I am not their sales person!!!
Anyway, this is the main page, but it goes slooooooow.... Look for IZArc 3.31 in Google, to get other mirrors.
http://free.top.bg/izsoft/

WinUHA 2.0 alpha

Reply #7 –
Kblood: I also like IZArc but the problem is, it's not possible to use custom switchs as far as I can see.  Still good though.
superdumprob
____________________________________________

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" - Albert Einstein

WinUHA 2.0 alpha

Reply #8 –
Hehe, there's a big long thread (better zip compression) which I ended up dabbling in with UHA, it seems to beat 7z by a slim margin most of the time, but at the expense of being even slower.

The problem for me is, even with WinUHA - the actual compressor isn't under development anymore, it hasn't been touched since 2001..
< w o g o n e . c o m / l o l >

WinUHA 2.0 alpha

Reply #9 –
7z will probably overtake uha soon don't you think Mac?
superdumprob
____________________________________________

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" - Albert Einstein

WinUHA 2.0 alpha

Reply #10 –
I think 7z is close enough to beating UHA at the moment to not be worried, it's losing about 10-20mb per gigabyte compressed..  It should beat it one day unless Ukeowe springs back to life again

The real area I want to see development is in the 'additional features' that I enjoy with rar.. multipart volumes, and REAL self extracting modules  (eg, not having to resort to NSIS to do what is easy with rar)
< w o g o n e . c o m / l o l >