| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 47061 | 2004-07-14 21:05:00 | Non-Zip Compression Agents | Steve_L (763) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 252341 | 2004-07-14 21:05:00 | While downloading a new driver, I came across this info: >>>In many cases the files you'll download from us will be self-extracting executables or zip formatted archives. But, our archive has many other file compression types as well, the most popular include .rar, .ace, .hqx, .sit, .tar.gz, and .bz2. Is there any advantage to using the above as compared to ZIP, and if so, then where do we get the compression programs? |
Steve_L (763) | ||
| 252342 | 2004-07-14 21:14:00 | It may be largely a matter of personal preference, although .tar.gz and .bz2 are Linux stalwarts. Like a lot of things, Google will find 'em. Find a hat that fits and wear it ;) R2 |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 252343 | 2004-07-14 21:42:00 | some people will say that other compression agents will compress better, not really for run of the mill things. But other programs will handle more types of compressed files, and some have better encryption than others, eg: rar is a harder nut to crack than zip. | Budda (2736) | ||
| 252344 | 2004-07-14 23:47:00 | Rar, I think, is better than zip as it allows the creation of parity files which can assist with repairing a damaged, missing or corrupted file. Lo. |
Lohsing (219) | ||
| 252345 | 2004-07-15 00:39:00 | >some people will say that other compression agents will compress better, not really for run of the mill things . OK, so for text documents and photos, Zip will still be the best to use? And Jpeg photos are already compressed so nothing will squash them any further, right? |
Steve_L (763) | ||
| 252346 | 2004-07-15 00:51:00 | It all depends,Try winrar on a file and see how it goes,Different levels of compression are available and Winrar can make zips as well . Overall i use winrar as i like the features and interface far better then winzip,which is high on my if not most hated then worthless and overated list . >And Jpeg photos are already compressed so nothing will squash them any further, right? Basicly true,You can hit them hard with some uber compression that will take hours to finish and compress a batch of them,saving about 2kb,so yeah,no real measurable gain and it takes awhile . |
metla (154) | ||
| 252347 | 2004-07-15 01:14:00 | > > some people will say that other compression agents > will compress better, not really for run of the mill > things. > > OK, so for text documents and photos, Zip will still > be the best to use? And Jpeg photos are already > compressed so nothing will squash them any further, > right? Pretty much yes. MOST compressed files on the Internet will be Zip or a self extracting EXE so therefore if sending files to other people I would use Zip for compression. Quite a few people use and understand the meanings behind a Zip file. If you want to compress files yourself for your own use then you may well want to investigate other choices such as RAR or ACE. Depending on the type of file you will be able to reduce file size further down. If you compress a pile of photos in JPG using a zip packer then there is the possibility that the resultant file size will be more than the individual photos would add up to. This does have the advantage of people being able to extract all your images in one go to a folder or directory though. Has a disadvantage in that some people will not be able to accept or download a 10 Meg file for example using their ISP or Email client. Compression was once a very important issue when you wanted to distribute a whole application like Microsoft Flight Sim Version 1 on floppy disk. Don't laugh. It was and I still have a copy. The whole issue may not be as important today. For me I use ZIP and RAR |
Elephant (599) | ||
| 252348 | 2004-07-15 01:19:00 | I've recently turned to console-based programs: tar and bzip2 :D Five years ago I thought WinZip was a killer app, two years ago that changed to WinRAR - now I don't use either, because they add too much junk entries to Windows, and there are plenty of free replacements (albeit void of a GUI). *Shudders at thought of Windows XP built-in support for zip files* |
agent (30) | ||
| 252349 | 2004-07-15 01:28:00 | Within Windows I have been very happy with PowerDesk 5 and in my opinion it makes a better file manager and I prefer it's file search. I have never realy liked WinZip. | mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 252350 | 2004-07-15 01:39:00 | Long live tar :-D | Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||