• 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

    • Let's see how long this lasts. In the end, it comes down to productivity lost because of workflow disruptions. It's not even a question of "which is better", rather how painful will it be to switch and it's hard enough for a single person to switch - imagine an entire city's bureaucracy. Remember, there are governmental system in the US that are still using 5.25" floppy disks... Having been involved in these kinds of swaps, I can tell you - it's never as easy as the fanbase thinks it is.
    • Right, saw it in the microsoft blog, wasn't mentioned in the article, thanks.
    • Multiple internal and external HDDs from Seagate, Western Digital are now at great prices by Fiza Ali Amazon and Newegg are currently offering substantial discounts on a wide selection of internal and external hard drives from Seagate and Western Digital, with prices reduced across multiple capacities. The 4TB WD Purple Surveillance is a 3.5-inch SATA III drive offering sustained transfer rates of up to 175MB/s. It employs Conventional Magnetic Recording (CMR) with a 256MB cache buffer. The drive operates reliably between 0°C and 65°C and can be stored in temperatures ranging from –40°C to 70°C. Western Digital backs this unit with a three-year limited warranty as well. 4TB WD Purple Surveillance Internal HDD: $84.41 (Amazon US) - 8% off The 6TB WD Blue is also a 3.5-inch internal hard drive that connects via SATA III (6Gb/s) and delivers sustained transfer rates of up to 185MB/s. It spins at 5,400 RPM, employs Conventional Magnetic Recording (CMR) technology, and features a 256MB cache buffer. The drive operates reliably in temperatures from 0°C to 60°C (with safe storage down to –40°C and up to 70°C). It is backed by a two-year limited manufacturer’s warranty. 6TB WD Blue PC Internal HDD: $99.99 (Amazon US) - 17% off The 10TB WD Red Pro NAS drive comes in a 3.5-inch form factor and connects via SATA III (6Gb/s). It sustains transfer speeds of up to 267MB/s thanks to its 7,200 RPM spindle and 512MB cache buffer, and employs Conventional Magnetic Recording (CMR) for reliable multi-drive operation. It operates safely between 0°C and 65°C, can be stored or transported in temperatures from –40°C to 70°C, and is covered by Western Digital’s five-year limited warranty. 10TB WD Red Pro NAS Internal HDD: $237.49 (Amazon US) - 15% off This WD Elements Desktop external hard drive offers a 14TB of storage via a USB 3.0 interface (up to 5Gb/s), using a USB Micro-B connector that is backward-compatible with USB 2.0. It operates reliably between 5°C and 35°C and can be stored in temperatures ranging from –20°C to 65°C. The drive is powered by an external adapter and carries a two-year limited warranty. 14TB WD Elements Desktop External HDD: $199.99 (Amazon US) - 31% off The 16TB Seagate Expansion Desktop external hard drive delivers vast storage capacity in a simple, plug-and-play design. USB 3.0 connectivity provides high-speed data transfer rates. Out of the box, the Expansion Desktop model is recognised automatically by Windows, macOS, and ChromeOS systems. If you wish to use Apple’s Time Machine backup utility, the drive must be reformatted to the HFS+ file system. 16TB Seagate Expansion Desktop External HDD: $229.99 (Newegg) - 30% off The 16TB WD Elements desktop external HDD connects via a USB 3.0 interface using a Micro-B cable (up to 5Gb/s.) The drive features plug-and-play functionality, working straight out of the box with Windows PCs. It operates reliably in ambient temperatures from 5°C to 35°C and can be stored in temperatures ranging from –20°C to 65°C. The drive comes with a 2-year limited warranty as well. 16TB WD Elements Desktop External HDD: $249.99 + $20 off promo code SAAET2384 = 229.99 (Newegg) The 16TB Seagate BarraCuda 3.5-inch internal HDD offers Multi-Tier Caching Technology (MTC) which balances NAND flash, DRAM, and media cache layers to accelerate application launches, reduce load times, and maintain consistently high sustained read/write speeds. The included Seagate DiscWizard software simplifies drive migration, cloning, partitioning, and backup tasks. The drive is covered by a two-year limited warranty. 16TB Seagate BarraCuda Internal HDD: $194.99 (Newegg) - 7% off The 20TB Seagate Exos X20 delivers an enterprise-class solution for high-density storage environments and data centres. It offers a sustained sequential transfer rate of up to 285MB/s and advanced caching to ensure low-latency, repeatable response times for data-intensive workloads. It further features 550TB/year workload rating, 2.5 million-hour mean time between failures (MTBF), and five-year limited warranty. PowerChoice and PowerBalance technologies allow administrators to tailor power consumption profiles for active and idle states, reducing energy costs and cooling requirements. Hardware-based AES-256 encryption, password protection, and Seagate Secure certification safeguard sensitive data. 20TB Seagate Exos X20 Internal HDD: $379 + $50 off promo code EPET2523 = $329.99 (Newegg) This Amazon deal is US-specific and not available in other regions unless specified. If you don't like it or want to look at more options, check out the Amazon US deals page here. Get Prime (SNAP), Prime Video, Audible Plus or Kindle / Music Unlimited. Free for 30 days. As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • It's all 1Password's fault for using it before anyone else. 🙃
    • Of course you would say that James. Mr everything Microsoft does is perfect. Mr who posts " I love it " on most articles regarding Microsoft. At least Firefox isn't a bloated pig that has an embarrassingly low market share given it's the default. Mr Microsoft evangelical James needs to learn some self awareness. It's embarrassing for you to criticize any browser give your worship of Edge.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Collaborator
      Mighty Pen went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Week One Done
      emptyother earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      DarkWun earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Very Popular
      valkyr09 earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Week One Done
      suprememobiles earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      562
    2. 2
      +FloatingFatMan
      178
    3. 3
      ATLien_0
      175
    4. 4
      Xenon
      116
    5. 5
      Som
      109
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!