| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 40681 | 2003-12-14 21:17:00 | Compression | gerardkean (1765) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 200538 | 2003-12-14 21:17:00 | Simple question. I have a freeware compresstion programme (winzip clone) that supports a number of file types incl; CAB ZIP LHA TAR JAR and BH Does anyone know which has the highest compression ratio? BTW the programme is called ultimatezip |
gerardkean (1765) | ||
| 200539 | 2003-12-14 21:22:00 | it depends on the files you put it to compress...... have a play and see for yourself. |
robsonde (120) | ||
| 200540 | 2003-12-15 00:03:00 | All depends on what it is you're compressing and the settings used. I remember there being a thread on what would be a good compression method for distributing Mozilla Firebird, it turned out that 7-zip (http://www.7-zip.org) came out a few megabytes smaller than zip, though they decided to stick with zip due to everyone having it. | -=JM=- (16) | ||
| 200541 | 2003-12-15 00:59:00 | TAR.BZ2 would be the best if it supports it, TAR.GZ isn't too bad either (better than ZIP). Straight TAR doesn't do any compression. | bmason (508) | ||
| 200542 | 2003-12-15 01:20:00 | I went through this a long time ago. Stick with ZIP when you are making archives. It's the most popular on "PC" machines. All compression routines make useful savings of disk space. The difference is not enough to be bothered with, and ZIP files travel anywhere. I was interested to find that JAR files are ZIP files. That's the way Java libraries are packaged. |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 200543 | 2003-12-15 01:35:00 | Thanks for the advice. I haven't yet come across a type that this programme won't deal with and a lot of people I know have it so I'll try out those formats | gerardkean (1765) | ||
| 1 | |||||