Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
CWuestefeld:
a measure which is based on internet connection speed can not be used to judge how good an achieve[sic] program is.
-tslim (August 26, 2010, 08:19 AM)
--- End quote ---
This is false. You seem to believe that there is a single best program for everyone, that they can be judged in absolute terms.
Really, the only valid measure is how well a given program meets its user's needs. Since each of us are trying to accomplish different things in different ways, it's likely that there will be a range of programs that excel, with some of us choosing different ones as the optimum.
Shades has explained quite clearly (at the risk of belaboring a sub-thread that I think is already a dead horse) that total time to move a chunk of data is his greatest criteria, so obviously the best for him is the program that can compress the greatest. On the other hand, when I'm compressing I'm generally doing it as a backup; with this cumbersome task, I'm much happier when the time of the compression and decompression is optimal, even if it costs me a bit more space. So Shades and I have opposite "best archiver" conclusions, but neither of us is wrong.
And by the way, please take some time to spell-check your posts. Your repeated substitution of "achieve" instead of "archive" took me several reads to figure out.
iphigenie:
I have almost never given much thought to compression - use what comes with the OS (ususally providing a combo of bz2, gz and zip), or little old peazip. On the servers I still tend to stick with gz - files are bigger, but the time and CPU load compressing large log files with the other formats is too disruptive
Although watching people with different priorities in the time vs cpu use vs size debate trying to argue the best product out (nicely) is rather entertaining :)
Curt:
7-Zip 9.16 Beta: http://majorgeeks.com/7-Zip_d4603.html
tslim:
a measure which is based on internet connection speed can not be used to judge how good an achieve[sic] program is.
-tslim (August 26, 2010, 08:19 AM)
--- End quote ---
This is false. You seem to believe that there is a single best program for everyone, that they can be judged in absolute terms.
-CWuestefeld (August 26, 2010, 08:26 AM)
--- End quote ---
No! My statement is not FALSE. It has nothing to do with "single best program for everyone"
I just want to point out that, if there is a formula which measure the power of archive program, then "internet connection speed" can never be a factor of that formula.
In a layman concept, you can of course relate anything as a mean to measure the usefulness of archive program, but any conclusion you made will become subjective and (no offense, please) is a crap. Just like I could say, because my keyboard is crack and therefore very difficult for me to type/input into MS Excel, I therefore find MS Excel is not good.
Would you agree with me that "keyboard" is a solid factor to measure how good MS Excel is?
dhuser:
I use WinRAR for its speed and ease of use, but I also have the PowerArchiver Free version installed as well - They recently released a free version at http://www.powerarchiver.com/blog/2010/07/01/powerarchiver-free-happy-4th-of-july/ . On a less powerful system in my house, I have 7-Zip installed.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version