• 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

    • This feature has been useful when applying for jobs and creating/editing cover letters in seconds! Not worried MS might see the jobs I'm applying to 🤣
    • What annoys me is the people that try to buy a higher end product, and then low ball you, and say but I don't need that function, all I need is to use it for video out so I don't feel like paying higher price.   I had a person that was trying to buy RTX 3080 from me for $100 and his excuse was, well I won't be playing games on it, I just need four monitor outout. Or someone was trying to buy 2TB Gen5 M.2 for $50, well I don't need the speed, is just for basic storage. Or i was offered $80 for 20TB hard drive, that person said well, right now I only about 7TB, so rest won't be in use Just some examples in last month or two...   The guy with the 3080, I replied to with something like go to Chevy dealer and offer them $15K for that brand new corvette and tell them that you you only need to drive to work, so you don't need to go fast.   There a lot of low ballers that try to take advantage.
    • Not in Syracuse, NY. They're about to break ground! https://www.syracuse.com/micro...on-and-other-tech-jobs.html
    • Here in Finland we have lots of rural areas with narrow roads, one of the highest taxes in the world (cars are taxed way above EU standards) and fuel is quite expensive. Yet we educate our drivers to drive responsibly and safely in all areas, and our people respect each others rights and freedom to move around safely. Which is why we have even small children under 10 years old walking and cycling alone to schools in the streets, even in big cities. Safety is about being responsible and about respecting others. And I would hate to see AI (or anyone else) destroy our way of life. There are and always will be outliers, accidents happen and machines break. I dont't want to see people relying on AI to do things like driving for them. I want people to think and react to the world around them themselves, and being responsible instead of them browsing TikTok or whatever instead of looking out the window, and then saying that "It wasn't me, it was the car". Already people walk around town with their eyes glued to a screen – I don't want people driving around the same way.
    • And I should hope none will. I don't want to walk ouside to have some randome AI drive over me and mine. Not that I want a person to do it either but I want there to be an actual person who takes responsibility of their actions instead of relinquishing control to a machine. In some highways I can accept self-driving, but even then there should be some kind of dead man switch etc. that actually monitors the drivers status.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      POR2GAL4EVER earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      Orpheus13 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      Orpheus13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Orpheus13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      serfegyed earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      536
    2. 2
      ATLien_0
      248
    3. 3
      +FloatingFatMan
      177
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      166
    5. 5
      Xenon
      118
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!