• 0

Most Compression format


Question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

I always enjoy flogging a dead horse!

Depends on the content of the file you're compressing... I'd say uharc for media files, and 7-zip for general stuff. but they aren't too common, so your overall best bet is probably rar files, like coroner said.

  • 0

Archiver Compressed size Ratio

7-Zip (7z format) 5445402 100%

WinRAR 3.10 6004155 110%

WinAce 2.3 6242424 115%

CABARC 1.0 6455327 119%

7-Zip (zip format) 9461621 174%

PKZIP 2.50 9842800 181%

FILE SET: The GIMP 1.2.4 for Windows after full installation (127 subfolders, 1304 files totaling 27,128,826 bytes). The GIMP is the GNU Image Manipulation Program. It can be downloaded from www.gimp.org.

  • 0

It depends on the files you are compressing. Try them out yourself with some files and see for yourself.

The best format in my opinion is RAR, there are other formats out there that can compress better (albeit only a tiny bit better) but RAR has so many powerful options such as spliting archices into multiple files, built in recovery records (similar to PAR files), compression profiles, archive authenticity verification and excellent SFX modules (GUI and DOS based for example). Also RAR is the most used format on the web these days.

  • 0

What saint dark said.. 7-zip is really good but its slow. The version of the client I have seems to forget to release memory too, so after compressing a few files I find I need a restart.

Rar is nice though. Fairly quick and decent compression. Ace also seems nice, though I've not done anything with that myself.

  • 0
  [saint dark said:
,Nov 26 2003, 23:02] the 7-zip format compress better, but only 10% better than rar so that doesnt matter considering that 7-zip is extremely slow at compressing and de-compressing

Very true :yes:

I recently looked at using 7-Zip at work instead of WinZip however everyone agreed it is cheaper to use winzip because of the time saved vs. compressed size. Employee time is A LOT more expensive than a few KB (or MB in extreme situations).

In the end they went for WinRAR because of the 100% ZIP compression (so customers that still use WinZip are not affected) and because of the SFX being built in (something that doesnt come with WinZip for commercial use!).

WinRAR is easily the best because it gets excellent compression levels and is very quick. Also I think the RAR Vs 7Zip levels are actually about 3-7% not 10% (well maybe with some examples). However I have compressed loads of things that RAR gets smaller than 7Zip and the WinRAR UI is excellent (7Zip's is awful at the moment!)

  • 0
  deadmonkey said:
Just a quick example...

I had 5 txt files which are 47.9KB in total.

in 7-Zip they are compressed to 16.5KB

in RAR they are compresse dto 13.5KB

in 7-Zip SFX they are compressed to 85.0KB

in RAR SFX they are compressed to 64.5KB

WinRAR wins :D

woohoo, try compressing your entire drive's contents and see which is smaller (Y) text files compress really well anyway, and two tests is hardly enough to declare a winner...

  • 0

God, I can't stand it when people jump on the "yeah, me too" bandwagon when they hear some propaganda about new software supposedly being the be all / end all for one certain thing.

Do your own testing before jumping in and saying "x" is better than "y"...

For example, here's a test text file compression test using "Maximum" values for WinRar, WinZip, and 7-zip ...

post-12-1069923584.gif

  • 0
  gameguy said:
woohoo, try compressing your entire drive's contents and see which is smaller (Y) text files compress really well anyway, and two tests is hardly enough to declare a winner...

i know it is not an excellent test but it is just a quick example. It is just like the test they show as an example on the &-Zip website when compressing the GiMP. They obviously only used it because 7-Zip compressed it better than WinRAR. They wouldnt use something where RAR got better compression would they?!

  • 0
  sryo said:
Archiver Compressed size Ratio

7-Zip (7z format) 5445402 100%

WinRAR 3.10 6004155 110%

WinAce 2.3 6242424 115%

CABARC 1.0 6455327 119%

7-Zip (zip format) 9461621 174%

PKZIP 2.50 9842800 181%

Doesn't this just tell you to go out and get WinRAR?

Come on, only a 10% compression penalty from 7-Zip yet it's widely supported, easy to use and quick.

Why waste your time with anything else?

  • 0

seriously i believe popularity is as important as compression ratio.

if u are compressing for ur own usage than ofcourse compression comes first.

my experience:

WinAce

WinRar

WinZip

(I am naming the applications)

I had liked to try out 7Zip but dont think many people in my circle use it.

  • 0

I would go for WinZip. Even though it is much limited to the file formats compared to WinRar, it has much faster compression. You can extract and compress much faster and effiecient than other programs. I have a friend that works at Symantec and he says that they also use WinZip. WinRar is most likely to be built for home users while WinZip is more of a professional line of compression.

  • 0

home users/professional users

now this is weird. i dont think winrar is not secure or good enough to be used by organisation.

Zip just happen to be the most widely used format. That's it. That does not make WinZip the software of choice when it cant handle the alternative technologies.

WinAce and WinRar on the other hand accepts other formats too. :)

  • 0
  LiLViEtDuDe917 said:
I would go for WinZip. Even though it is much limited to the file formats compared to WinRar, it has much faster compression. You can extract and compress much faster and effiecient than other programs. I have a friend that works at Symantec and he says that they also use WinZip. WinRar is most likely to be built for home users while WinZip is more of a professional line of compression.

How is it more effiecent? I suppose it depends on how you define efficiency with compression, but with WinRAR and 7zip clearly able to pack a lot more into a smaller file than Winzip, I fail to see how you may be interpreting Winzip's superior efficiency over the competition.

With WinRAR able to function within a console for scripting purposes, being able to support archives up to 8 terabytes (with Winzip maxed at 4GB), and lastly, having 128-bit encryption (where Winzip's encryption is very weak), WinRAR is far more suited to a professional enviroment than Winzip is.

My 2 cents.

  Quote
i dont think winrar is not secure or good enough to be used by organisation.

See post above regarding encrpytion.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • so you just moved data to onedrive? Or did you upgrade the disk? I see multiple options either actual SSD or NVME options on amazon for around 50 bucks.. If you are low on space, and after a cleanup/purge of you stuff you don't need your still low it would be good idea to upgrade to bigger drive.  As to /sageset:65535, I don't think that value is valid https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/administration/windows-commands/cleanmgr Displays the Disk Cleanup Settings dialog box and also creates a registry key to store the settings that you select. The n value, which is stored in the registry, allows you to specify tasks for Disk Cleanup to run. The n value can be any integer value from 0 to 9999. For more information, see Registry key information. So I would guess trying to use such a high value wouldn't store your settings.. You sure do not need  to use sageset or sagerun to run the disk cleanup..  That is for running it later with the same setting you pick when you set it. 
    • Yes while it's still a great browser it seems bloated more with each update by things I'm not the least interested in
    • We now know why Nvidia blocked yet another review, the new RTX 5050 is apparently terrible by Sayan Sen With its latest RTX 5000 series of GPUs, Nvidia has not been transparent with how its cards perform. The company did not ship review drivers for the RTX 5060 on launch day and has repeated the same deed with the new RTX 5050 as well. For those who may not have followed, Nvidia unveiled the GeForce RTX 5050 last month for $249 and released the Game Ready driver for the card this month with version 576.88. As such, the RTX 5050 has now been tested by Korean site Quasar Zone where the GPU has been compared against other cards that are priced around that same bracket. The site has found that Nvidia's new entry-level offering is worse than Intel's Arc B580, a card that launched around six months ago for the same price. As you can see in the image above, the Arc B580 was slightly faster on average. The biggest gap between the two was on Path of Exile 2. Another point in favor of the Arc GPU is that it has 12 Gigs of video memory whereas the RTX 5050 only has 8 GB. The 5050 was also pitted against Nvidia's last gen RTX 4060 as well as AMD's RX 7600, both of which are also 8 Gig cards. The 7600 is often found at around $250 these days while the RTX 4060 frequents around $275. The RTX 5050 is essentially neck and neck with the 4060 and is ever so slightly faster than the RX 7600. Once again this just highlights that Nvidia is essentially giving the same kind of performance that Intel and AMD GPUs have provided since last year or so. In fact, if we consider the Radeon RX 6600 and 6650 XT GPUs, which have been available for around $180 to $220 in the past, it becomes clearer just how bad of a value the RTX 5050 is as those 6000 series AMD cards probably get pretty close to the 5050 in rasterization throughput. Chances of something like "Fine Wine" are also slim given that the RTX 5050 just does not seem to have the hardware resources to pull off something like that later in this lifespan. If anything, we are more likely to see that happen from the Intel B580 GPU or AMD's $299 RX 9060 (there is already evidence of that). Source and images: Quasar Zone
    • A messaging network full of adult content. Ewww. 🤮
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      loose_observer earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      BeeJay_Balu earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      filminutz earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Reacting Well
      SteveJaye earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      MadMung0 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      444
    2. 2
      ATLien_0
      161
    3. 3
      +FloatingFatMan
      145
    4. 4
      Nick H.
      65
    5. 5
      +thexfile
      62
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!