| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 51478 | 2004-11-22 05:48:00 | Whats a good, small, free file splitter? | mejobloggs (264) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 294862 | 2004-11-23 01:48:00 | Why not use Zip? Good question - Here's my answers: Winzip is becoming bigger and more and more bloated! I like WinZip 6.4 which was somewhere 600 <-> 850 kb IIRC Better compression: WinZip doesnt use the best compression methods for the majority of things. Im yet to try 7z but Ive heard it beats even .rar in most things. Even .ace is better than .zip by-and-large! |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 294863 | 2004-11-23 01:57:00 | Mostly I use PKZIP 2.04. The executables are only 20 or 30 kB. :D | Graham L (2) | ||
| 294864 | 2004-11-23 03:59:00 | I remember that... pkzip and pkunzip - the _real_ zip programs! Those were the days..... Sadly Zip isnt the best compression for the majority of things though, and rar is becoming more and more common. Although in saying that Im seeing a lot more 7z files too! |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 294865 | 2004-11-23 04:45:00 | We've been through this before. :_| Twenty odd years ago there were lots of compression utilities around,with arguments about which was best. Partly this was justified because disk space was expensive, and so was FTP. Part of it was that people will still trying to find something to dowith a personal computer. Some people wrote clever programmes --- many of them for compression. Have a look at the Compression directory of Simtel. But the confusion and the annoyance of having to fetch the neccessary decompressor (and possibly yet another, to decompress the decompressor :O) whenever you FTPed a file, led to a gradual acceptance of Phil Karn's PKZIP as a standard (for PCs. Macintosh, and the Unix community have their own). Standards (formal or defacto) don't need the best. What's needed is something which works, and everyone has got. |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 294866 | 2004-11-23 05:38:00 | I was amazed when Winzip became popular,i found every version i have had the misfortune to use to be badly laid out,lacking features,intrusive and pig ugly. Winrar all the way,even if one prefers to compress to .zip. |
metla (154) | ||
| 294867 | 2004-11-23 06:11:00 | I agree, I install WinRAR on my customers PCs rather than WinZip, due to the simple fact it does Zip also. Looks like 7z would be a good replacement for that though seeing as it does Rar, as well as .zip :-) From the website: For ZIP and GZIP formats 7-Zip provides compression ratio that is 2-10 % better than ratio provided by PKZip and WinZip |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 294868 | 2004-11-24 07:43:00 | the 7-zip compression is good as! Only problem is the time it takes. If you are going to be compressing 100mb + files, then don't bother with the 7-zip compression unless you can wait, or you actually need an extremely compressed file. Even creating a .zip file on 7-zip turned out to be smaller than winzip. I think, I will have to check that. I am confused about this "creat solid archive" option, I can't seem to figure out what it does. Also, another note about the 7-zip compression, if I do it on Ultra, it turns out larger the Max, even though Ultra is meant to be one up from Max. |
mejobloggs (264) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||