Author Topic: Best file archiver/compresser (Read 51540 times)

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?!

Josh · « **Reply #1 on:** March 13, 2010, 08:25 AM »

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?

delwoode · « **Reply #2 on:** March 13, 2010, 08:45 AM »

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 (March 13, 2010, 08:25 AM)

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

Josh · « **Reply #3 on:** March 13, 2010, 08:56 AM »

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.

delwoode · « **Reply #4 on:** March 13, 2010, 09:02 AM »

thanks for tht info I also found this interesting, anyway it seems winrar is probably as good as you can get
link

Darwin · « **Reply #5 on:** March 13, 2010, 09:13 AM »

thanks for tht info I also found this interesting, anyway it seems winrar is probably as good as you can get
link
-delwoode (March 13, 2010, 09:02 AM)

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).

Innuendo · « **Reply #6 on:** March 13, 2010, 11:37 AM »

I think the only archive utility that beats WinRar (only on some things & definitely not everything) is 7zip.

Shades · « **Reply #7 on:** March 13, 2010, 02:02 PM »

I think the only archive utility that beats WinRar (only on some things & definitely not everything) is 7zip.
-Innuendo (March 13, 2010, 11:37 AM)

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.

Cuffy · « **Reply #8 on:** March 13, 2010, 02:21 PM »

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!

Innuendo · « **Reply #9 on:** March 13, 2010, 03:53 PM »

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 (March 13, 2010, 02:02 PM)

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.

Bamse · « **Reply #10 on:** March 13, 2010, 03:54 PM »

None of them are any good in comparisons, Squeeze Chart and Maximum Compression 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 seems like the most promising. Not only better compression than 7-Zip, WinRar, also faster! What they say.

Tuxman · « **Reply #11 on:** March 13, 2010, 09:16 PM »

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.)

Innuendo · « **Reply #12 on:** March 14, 2010, 09:21 AM »

FreeArc seems like the most promising. Not only better compression than 7-Zip, WinRar, also faster! What they say.
-Bamse (March 13, 2010, 03:54 PM)

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.

Bamse · « **Reply #13 on:** March 14, 2010, 11:59 AM »

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.

Innuendo · « **Reply #14 on:** March 14, 2010, 09:22 PM »

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 (March 14, 2010, 11:59 AM)

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.

Bamse · « **Reply #15 on:** March 15, 2010, 05:14 AM »

Compression, compression, compression.

Darwin · « **Reply #16 on:** March 15, 2010, 12:52 PM »

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).

cranioscopical · « **Reply #17 on:** March 15, 2010, 01:13 PM »

I was the one arguing for the overall driving experience
-Darwin (March 15, 2010, 12:52 PM)

So, you're trying to steer this thread in the right direction?

Darwin · « **Reply #18 on:** March 15, 2010, 02:00 PM »

I was the one arguing for the overall driving experience
-Darwin (March 15, 2010, 12:52 PM)
So, you're trying to steer this thread in the right direction?
-cranioscopical (March 15, 2010, 01:13 PM)

Just some gentle pressure on the brakes...

Bamse · « **Reply #19 on:** March 15, 2010, 08:34 PM »

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.

Dormouse · « **Reply #20 on:** March 15, 2010, 09:53 PM »

May be some will uninstall 7Zip, Winrar and change to FreeArc but most will only use it when better compression is required
-Bamse (March 15, 2010, 08:34 PM)

But on the table 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).

Bamse · « **Reply #21 on:** March 15, 2010, 10:07 PM »

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

You have to know them all to evaluate tables. Test.

The PAQ one Tuxman seems to be supported in PeaZip 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.

Bamse · « **Reply #22 on:** March 15, 2010, 11:15 PM »

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.maximumco.../data/summary_mf.php

Tuxman · « **Reply #23 on:** March 16, 2010, 04:17 AM »

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.

Jibz · « **Reply #24 on:** March 16, 2010, 05:29 AM »

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 (March 16, 2010, 04:17 AM)

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/