Any Compression Utilities That Actually Work?
<div class="IPBDescription">Winrar, winzip, are 99.5% useless.</div> I just spent the past 20 minutes compressing a 100mb folder in Winrar, in "best" compression, and the final .rar filesize is... 99.7mb. Score!
Do any of these compression methods actually work competently? How else can I compress file sizes efficiently?
It seems that these compression programs/methods don't do anything, even with large files [700mb+ takes off about 3mb], and are only useful as archivers - i.e keeping proper directory structures.
Do any of these compression methods actually work competently? How else can I compress file sizes efficiently?
It seems that these compression programs/methods don't do anything, even with large files [700mb+ takes off about 3mb], and are only useful as archivers - i.e keeping proper directory structures.
Comments
If you're trying to compress something that's already compressed, I'm afraid you're out of luck.
<a href='http://7-zip.org/' target='_blank'>http://7-zip.org/</a>
It also has everything else
What about compressing programs...
What about compressing programs... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah if you really have to lower the filesizes of video files using an outside lossless compression (rar, zip, etc) won't help. Just like you said: you'll have to open it up with a program like <a href='http://virtualdubmod.sourceforge.net/' target='_blank'>Virtualdubmod</a> and then save it off with a lower video/audio bitrate.
What about compressing programs... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, if its already been compressed once (as almost every AVI and mp3 is) you can't really compress it again. You can, but you'll just get that tiny bit of difference that you noticed earlier.
Think of it as a sponge. You squeeze the sponge really really hard, and it gets smaller. You can squeeze again, but it just ain't gonna get much smaller than that...
UHARC (gui by Brhack) <a href='http://www.softbasket.com/download/s_5766.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.softbasket.com/download/s_5766.shtml</a>
it only makes .exes but they are daaaaamn small .exes
edit: since we're talking about mp3s and dvd's lets give it a spin, screenies pending.
edit2: since the last time i used it, it seems they have added support for .uha in addition to sfxs (self extracting archives)
UHARC (gui by Brhack) <a href='http://www.softbasket.com/download/s_5766.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.softbasket.com/download/s_5766.shtml</a>
it only makes .exes but they are daaaaamn small .exes
edit: since we're talking about mp3s and dvd's lets give it a spin, screenies pending. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ooh, 52% of people liked it. That's like more than half.
I had a file that was 200 mb, uncompressed it was 1.50 GB !
Here's alink if you don't beleive me. <a href='http://umn.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/pearpc/pearpc-3gib.img.bz2' target='_blank'>http://umn.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/...pc-3gib.img.bz2</a>
edit: ran some tests with uharc 0.4b, results:
boondock marines.avi: 640x480, 30fps, 49.1MB --> 44.9MB
Otherworld - 64.mp3: 3:15, 64kbps, 2.98MB --> 2.91MB
Otherworld - 192.mp3: 3:15, 192kbps, 4.46MB --> 4.37MB
Rei10.jpg: 1024x768, quality 10, 11.1kb --> 11.2KB
Rei95.jpg: 1024x768, quality 95, 199kb --> 200KB
#ns logs.txt: 71.5MB --> 14.7MB
as you can see, compression works best when you're compressing repetative data like my logs of #ns (lots and lots of timestamps), as opposed to already compressed data like a jpg where attempting to compress it can actually increase the filesize
Try saying that with a mouthful of chips.