DonationCoder.com Forum
Special User Sections => General Review Discussion => Other Stuff => What's the Best? => Topic started by: delwoode on March 13, 2010, 08:20 AM
-
I use winrar, I do notice however that it often doesnt really compress that much. I also note that most files I have downloaded that are .rar files , well When i uncompress them they are hardly any bigger than the compressed form.
I have tried using best instead of fastest setting but it still doesnt save much space often, makes you wonder if you should even bother?!
-
Compression depends on the type of data being compressed. If you are attempting to compress an MP3, you will not save very much space as compared to compressing a word document or a plain text file.
What types of files are you attempting to compress?
-
Compression depends on the type of data being compressed. If you are attempting to compress an MP3, you will not save very much space as compared to compressing a word document or a plain text file.
What types of files are you attempting to compress?
-Josh
yeah I know mp3 is already compressed, I was just wondering if winrar was the best or if others give you better compression.
I dont usually bother compressing word files or text as they dont take up much space. I was thinking more video files and pictures and maybe some pdf books as they can get quite large
-
PDF, Videos (typically) and pictures are often times already compressed quite a bit so you will not gain very much. You can try winrar with the solid archive option (treats files as one large stream of data as opposed to individual files), that might get you better compression ratios but please note that it does take longer.
-
thanks for tht info I also found this interesting, anyway it seems winrar is probably as good as you can get
link (http://forums.techguy.org/all-other-software/585891-winrar-increase-compression.html)
-
thanks for tht info I also found this interesting, anyway it seems winrar is probably as good as you can get
link (http://forums.techguy.org/all-other-software/585891-winrar-increase-compression.html)
-delwoode
This has been my experience. I've tested it against the DOpus archive utility (actually quite good) and earlier versions of WinZip, StuffIt, ALZip, and PKZip. WinRar compressed files more than did the others (though its advantage over DOpus was slim).
-
I think the only archive utility that beats WinRar (only on some things & definitely not everything) is 7zip.
-
I think the only archive utility that beats WinRar (only on some things & definitely not everything) is 7zip.
-Innuendo
The Oracle database dumps I sometimes receive are preferably compressed with 7zip. The resulting 7zip file is 50 to 60% smaller than the RAR archive (both at the most extreme setting). I also noticed that using the extreme setting from 7zip in a script results in an even smaller archive than the extreme setting in the GUI.
WinRAR is handy for day to day use, but 7zip (script) is my preferred method for storing data. GUI wise WinRAR beats 7zip as in 7zip a lot actions that you take for granted with other archivers simply do not work and/or not implemented.
-
I just posted a reply to this in the wrong place!
I suggested: http://www.izarc.org/
as an archiver/compressor app.
Open it up, select all file formats, point it to your download folder and you're in business!
I've used it for years and would rather fight than switch! :-[
-
WinRAR is handy for day to day use, but 7zip (script) is my preferred method for storing data. GUI wise WinRAR beats 7zip as in 7zip a lot actions that you take for granted with other archivers simply do not work and/or not implemented.-Shades
Payware archivers aren't too popular around here, but my preference is PowerArchiver Professional. I can compress files into 7zip archives (or nearly any other format) using a modern GUI that's nicer looking than any archiver & it's pretty speedy, too, as it will use all the cores of your CPU while most archivers will not. It integrates with Windows 7 (jump lists, etc.) very well, too.
-
None of them are any good in comparisons, Squeeze Chart (http://www.maximumcompression.com/index.html) and Maximum Compression (http://www.maximumcompression.com/index.html) but you would also like a usable gui, being able to finish compressing before you must sleep and something that has been proven to work. I think some of these strange formats either die out or get bought by whoever. FreeArc (http://freearc.org/Default.aspx) seems like the most promising. Not only better compression than 7-Zip, WinRar, also faster! What they say.
-
Recent 7-zip builds with LZMA2 compression introduce an improved multi-media compression algorithm. :-*
(Although, obviously, PAQ is still the leading format. Too bad it is not widely supported yet.)
-
FreeArc (http://freearc.org/Default.aspx) seems like the most promising. Not only better compression than 7-Zip, WinRar, also faster! What they say.-Bamse
From the FreeArc homepage:
"Compared to RAR and 7-zip, FreeArc at this moment lacks the following: multi-volume archives, 64-bit version, storing of file attributes/extended timestamps/NTFS streams in the archive, bcj2, data segmentation."
I could live without the 64-bit version and *maybe* the multi-volume archives, but the lack of storing file attributes and extended timestamps just isn't going to work for me. The author's got time to implement 11 different compression algorithms, but can't be bothered to put in support to store file attributes? I think his development priorities are a little skewed, IMHO.
And FreeArc is compatible with......nothing. And the amount of people and/or web sites I have seen using this file format......none. My friends & I would never use anything like this till the author gets the basic features in & I suspect most people are the same way.
-
You are missing the point of better compression ratios. That FreeArc also is cross-platform, opensource and an easy to use GUI just makes it better. And a lot different than most alternatives. Why they say "it’s superior to any existing practical compressor" They hint at strange command line tools which might be better in some tests. FreeArc is ready to go which is why you had to scroll past long list of features and advantages to find planned fixes.
Compatibility means very little in this context but it does SFX as well. Many have used 7zip without knowing what it is. Can be used in Total Commander, PeaZip, Innosetup as they say. Don't expect Windows 7 SP1 to support arc format but who cares.
-
You are missing the point of better compression ratios. That FreeArc also is cross-platform, opensource and an easy to use GUI just makes it better.-Bamse
I'd argue that you are missing the point. I don't care if it can compress a 9GB ISO file down to 100 KB if it doesn't support file attributes and extended timestamps the program is worthless to me & I would wager I am not in the minority.
The point of having an archive utility is to create archives (perfect copies) of your data in a compressed form. Lacking file attributes and extended timestamps make the copies imperfect & useless for archive functionality for many people.
-
Compression, compression, compression.
-
This is a silly argument - kind of reminds me of being a kid and arguing about whether raw horsepower and cubic inches trumped the overall driving experience (balance, handling, braking, etc.). Just my two bits (hint: I was the one arguing for the overall driving experience).
-
I was the one arguing for the overall driving experience
-Darwin
So, you're trying to steer this thread in the right direction?
-
I was the one arguing for the overall driving experience
-Darwin
So, you're trying to steer this thread in the right direction?
-cranioscopical
Just some gentle pressure on the brakes...
-
May be some will uninstall 7Zip, Winrar and change to FreeArc but most will only use it when better compression is required - so not silly to focus on that part. Actually only reason to even care. Why it is mentioned and what was requested or wondered about in first post.
-
May be some will uninstall 7Zip, Winrar and change to FreeArc but most will only use it when better compression is required
-Bamse
But on the table (http://www.maximumcompression.com/data/summary_mf2.php#data) cited on the FreeArc page, FreeArc does not have the most compression (marginally less even than WinRar) just fast compression. And they only claim themselves to have the fastest compression (to the same level of compression as the others).
-
Depends on how you read tables but if you click Benchmark link at their site you see
As net result, FreeArc provides the same compression ratio as zip/bzip2/rar/7-zip (in different modes) while being 1.5–3x faster, and in maximum compression mode it compress 2-10% better than 7-zip while providing the same speed. Make sure of this yourself by looking at test results or by performing your own benchmarks.
I have found that to be true though could not care less about speed. When there is need for better compression time is not high priority. Many options when packing, one requires 2gb ram to extract 8) You have to know them all to evaluate tables. Test.
The PAQ one Tuxman seems to be supported in PeaZip (http://peazip.sourceforge.net/) so should be easy to use? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAQ Might be even better than FreeArc then. Looks like crap in "Results sorted on compressor efficiency" tables but not relevant.
-
Nope, PAQ is not an option. Time becomes a priority when it take 10+ min to pack 50mb on fastest setting. I gave up at default and maximum. The others are snappy.
Total Commander folder zipped:
7Z Ultra lzma 11.863.385
7Z Ultra lzma2 11.839.834
ARC best 11.455.354
PAQ8O fastest 11.004.214
WinRAR best 12.950.766
PeaZip is apparently not optimized for FreeArc, when program itself is used result improves
ARC best 11.340.604
Too bad WinRK is payware http://www.maximumcompression.com/data/summary_mf.php
-
Packing files for redistribution is also a question of the supported platforms. Neither PAQ nor 7zip are actually an option, .7z on Linux is still quite unusual.
-
Packing files for redistribution is also a question of the supported platforms. Neither PAQ nor 7zip are actually an option, .7z on Linux is still quite unusual.
-Tuxman
There has been some work to give 7z a more gzip/bzip2 like interface to make it easier to adopt in linux etc.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xz
http://tukaani.org/xz/
-
Still it is a rather rare case. ;)
-
7Zip on Windows is also a rare case - unless you know it. Are you sure majority know Zip? Majority will probably have used Zip but do they know what it is? what alternatives there are? I doubt it.
There is even a 7zip plugin for Nautilus/File Roller in Ubuntu http://sourceforge.net/projects/p7zip/ so people can easily get 7zip compatibility if they want. Matter of public opinion and awareness.
-
7Zip on Windows is also a rare case - unless you know it. -Bamse
Most archivers for Windows support it, and there is almost no chance to have a Windows user without any WinRAR, 7zip or anything.
-
I don't have to look far for people who have no clue what a rar or 7z file but those people know nothing about technical details - which was my point or assumption. Well since Ubuntu Software Center have a "7 Zip" entry may be difference to Windows is not that big. Click, click - now supported. It also handles RAR, Zip64, cab and more.
-
Well an interesting read these posts. Pity it got a bit heated.
I was just wondering if I was right to keep using winrar and if there was an alternative that would compress to a smaller size. Of course speed is a consideration to a degree.
FreeArc sounds interesting but I would want multivolume support. I may try using 7zip more often (i have it installed) and compare the results with Winrar. Yeah whatever archiver you use has to support the more common formats in case you want to send a file to somone, in that case I think it has to be .zip or .rar support. On your own machine you can use what you want.
thanks for all the views!
-
.rar is not a common format unless the user is a software pirate on Windows. :D
-
.rar is not a common format unless the user is a software pirate on Windows. :D
-Tuxman
That's something of a stretch.
-
.rar is not a common format unless the user is a software pirate on Windows. :D
-Tuxman
That's something of a stretch.
-cranioscopical
When it should have been a shrink.
-
Non-pirates seldomly need .rar support.
-
True, zip all the way. And with the right attitude that will never change, WinZip is also cool. How come pirates have always been more open to alternatives? I put money on better compression ratios. Why was ARJ popular in the old days? Again compression ratios. So if there is a desire to find something better look for a program which is excellent in compressing, focus - later worry about missing features, GUI, pretty icons, what your friends will think, how likely it is to become a universal std. There are not many to choose from or much reason to love 7Zip. Pretty sure none are useful if FreeArc is out of the question because planned fixes are not yet implemented, unheard of! Those long lists at benchmarks sites just looks impressive but check out details, if there are any. Having same standards towards them as you do Winrar or even 7Zip will dismiss most of them very fast.
-
Non-pirates seldomly need .rar support.-Tuxman
clearly I'm going to need to update my resume - I've used both RAR and 7ZIP for years but never considered myself a pirate
I laboured with very limited resources for a very long time (when all my friends were buying 500G SATA drives I was still working with a 40G IDE drive, and I still only have a dialup internet connection) so the need for an efficient archiving tool was paramount.
They both offered (and still do) far superior performance and options to the existing ZIP solutions, without being so obscure that I can't share a file when I need to.
I don't run any sort of file sharing, I don't post or download pirated software,
yet somehow because I use a legitimate piece of software I am suddenly a pirate?
I somehow doubt it, and I for one consider those sort of statements to be purely inflammatory, ie your claims are unsubstantiated and contribute nothing
and if you can't offer constructive statements, why post them?
-
Whoa! That pirate crack was a joke, I'm pretty sure. I don't think anyone is accusing you of being a software pirate (?). My read on that comment was that it was a pun - equating "rar" to a pirate's "arr" (as in "Arr, me mateys").
However, while I believe that my reading of it is correct, looking at it again I can certainly see how you would interpret it that way.
-
Good Target point out actual need for better compression. Kind of the idea with these tools. May be more obvious if you have suffered from zip-format back when a floppy could be distribution media. Worldwide adoption of zip(winzip!) was annoying. Fast internet, big drives makes format less important, not an issue for most who are so lucky to have these things.
-
Whoa! That pirate crack was a joke, I'm pretty sure. I don't think anyone is accusing you of being a software pirate (?). My read on that comment was that it was a pun - equating "rar" to a pirate's "arr" (as in "Arr, me mateys").
However, while I believe that my reading of it is correct, looking at it again I can certainly see how you would interpret it that way.
-Darwin
could be, but that fact that he stated it twice kind of makes that assumption a bit questionable
FWIW, I wasn't particularly offended personally, but making blanket statements like that sure isn't a good way to win points, nor does it contribute in any way.
-
could be, but that fact that he stated it twice kind of makes that assumption a bit questionable
-Target
Hmm... hadn't noticed that :huh:
-
I think Long-John Target should Zip it! ;)
-
Yeah, he should Stuff-It (http://www.stuffit.com/win-deluxe.html)!
-
that's it, I'm packing it in...
-
Rar is indeed the archiver of choice for software pirates. It's just a fact of life. However, there are plenty of legitimate uses & users as well. For example, Rit Labs distributes all beta versions of their email program The Bat! in rar archives.
-
Rar is indeed the archiver of choice for software pirates.-Innuendo
I was unaware of this... I wonder why?
-
Rar is indeed the archiver of choice for software pirates.-Innuendo
I was unaware of this... I wonder why?
-Darwin
most likely for the same reason everyone else uses it, because it's a good product (dare I say a leader in it's class...)
-
Rar is indeed the archiver of choice for software pirates.-Innuendo
I was unaware of this... I wonder why?
-Darwin
most likely for the same reason everyone else uses it, because it's a good product (dare I say a leader in it's class...)
-Target
Doh! Why didn't I think of that :-[
Very true, of course.
-
Doh! Why didn't I think of that :-[-Darwin
I think you might be pulling my (arrrr...wooden?) leg...
-
I just found the FREE RAR for Pocket PC!
-
Doh! Why didn't I think of that :-[-Darwin
I think you might be pulling my (arrrr...wooden?) leg...
-Target
So you decided to stick around, ha? You must have BALZ (http://balz.sourceforge.net/)
-
Rar is indeed the archiver of choice for software pirates.-Innuendo
I was unaware of this... I wonder why?
-Darwin
The reason is probably the RAR's option to encrypt not only the contents, but also the folder structure and filenames, so without the password you can't see anything. In an encrypted ZIP archive you can see the filenames inside, although you can't decrypt them. This might be an important option not only for software pirates.
-
I was unaware of this... I wonder why?-Darwin
You haven't heard? WinRAR really whips the llama's ass.
No, but seriously...RAR became the standard way back in the day before everyone had a high-speed internet connection. Having a high-speed connection in your home was unheard of. That is, if you had even heard of the internet at all. High-speed connections were reserved for business or, if you were lucky, you were a college student who had access to the university's connection.
Back then ZIP and RAR were roughly equivalent, but where RAR pulled ahead by a large margin was error recovery. When you were on dial-up and and downloading that hot state-of-the art game (that shipped on 6 floppy disks! :D ) the game was always broke down into multi-archives with one part comprising each disk. With ZIP if one of those parts were compromised during the download due to transmission errors you were stuck re-downloading the entire part again which took a long time. The key feature that ensured RAR's success with the pirate crowd was the recovery records feature. RAR could almost always repair the files saving a lengthy repeat download.
-
I've used Winrar for ages, and not just because of compression ratios. I just like Winrar's interface and configurable context menu. I also like the multiple formats it handles. With a lifetime license, I see no need to change.
With a terabyte hd costing under $100 and broadband connections ubiquitous, I don't even look at the compression ratio. I'm not that worried about a few bytes, although, I'd wager that rar is one of the better formats for compression ratios.
-
I've used Winrar for ages, and not just because of compression ratios. I just like Winrar's interface and configurable context menu. I also like the multiple formats it handles. With a lifetime license, I see no need to change.-edbro
I won a free license for WinRAR here on DC (I think everyone else that month were gunning for the glamorous, glitzy programs) & while that's a lifetime license I still opened my wallet and paid for PowerArchiver Pro. With the Windows 7 integration, modern ribbon GUI interface, quick file preview, etc. it just makes every other archiver on the market seem primitive by comparison.
(Of course it didn't hurt that I bought PA Pro on sale, either, and the PA licenses are lifetime as well.)
-
Doh! Why didn't I think of that :-[-Darwin
I think you might be pulling my (arrrr...wooden?) leg...
-Target
So you decided to stick around, ha? You must have BALZ (http://balz.sourceforge.net/)
-PhilB66
stick? STICK!! enough with the wooden leg jokes already...
-
Heh, heh - I won a WinRar license here as well :Thmbsup: It supplanted PKZip and Stuff-It licenses, both of which I had purchased previously. I'll have to give PowerArchiver a look.
A hex on you, Innunendo! You make a rotten 12 step program partner :P
-
With the Windows 7 integration, modern ribbon GUI interface, quick file preview, etc. it just makes every other archiver on the market seem primitive by comparison.-Innuendo
Hmm, PA was fine while it was free. Anyway, ribbons for an archiver? So how many functions do you need in an archiver's toolbar? :o
-
stick? STICK!! enough with the wooden leg jokes already...
-Target
You need to be taken down a peg or two!
-
stick around, ha? You must have BALZ (http://balz.sourceforge.net/)
-Target
stick? STICK!! enough with the wooden leg jokes already...
-cranioscopical
You need to be taken down a peg or two!
Belay that...
-
Hmm, PA was fine while it was free. Anyway, ribbons for an archiver? So how many functions do you need in an archiver's toolbar? :o
-Tuxman
Looking at some of the newer features in PowerArchiver, a lot. I mean, it's slowly becoming Nero. Literally (http://www.powerarchiver.com/features/)
-
Hm, it can't cut video files yet. :D
-
Looking at some of the newer features in PowerArchiver, a lot. I mean, it's slowly becoming Nero. Literally (http://www.powerarchiver.com/features/)
-Lashiec
I thought so at first, too, but I really use a lot of those features. Of course, if you don't need all the Pro features you can always use the Standard version.
-
Belay that...
-Target
Hop it!
-
Belay that...
-Target
Hop it!
-cranioscopical
HA, is that the best you got?
As the scourge of DCea's I thought you would have tied me in knots over that one...
-
scourge of DCea's I thought you would have tied me in knots-Target
I've been roped in once again to correct you, if I can get you to come off abridge.
-
scourge of DCea's I thought you would have tied me in knots-Target
I've been roped in once again to correct you, if I can get you to come off abridge.
-cranioscopical
Don't make me stern with you - this thread is in danger of running aground, and it'll be on your shoalders..
-
Don't make me stern with you - this thread is in danger of running aground, and it'll be on your shoalders..
-Target
I'd reefer you to my shallow draught which allows me to squaff at your admonishment and take a bow.
-
Don't make me stern with you - this thread is in danger of running aground, and it'll be on your shoalders..
-Target
I'd reefer you to my shallow draught which allows me to squaff at your admonishment and take a bow.
-cranioscopical
don't make me luff...
-
don't make me luff...
-Target
Get aweigh, how could that come about?
-
don't make me luff...
-Target
Get aweigh, how could that come about?
-cranioscopical
I deliberately took that tack, in order to broach a response.
now I'm swamped but any minute now I'm going to give you a broadside
-
Don' say no more, I've put up with enough of this sheet!
Wanna keep sparring? You'll soon be in a shroud!
-
I'm seo sick of this thread! :p
-
Ask not why song the sirens fling...