Page 1 of 1
Better Compression tools
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2004 2:13 pm
by DM01
.7z and .uha files compress much better than .rar
proof:
http://www.winuha.com/
http://www.izsoft.dir.bg/
the .rar in the picture is compressed to the max.
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2004 2:19 pm
by Gil27
RAWR!!!!rar will always win muhahaha
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2004 2:31 pm
by BEEF!!!
Did an experiment...
Bloodgulch in zip: 5,468 KB
Bloodgulch in uha: 3,988
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2004 2:44 pm
by DM01
My file statisitics for Blood Gulch:
Original------14,030 kb
.zip-----------5,443 kb
.rar-----------4,173 kb
.uha----------3,988 kb
.7z------------3,634 kb
all compressed maximal
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2004 7:23 pm
by Jay
Doesn't it depend on what kind of file your compressing as to what type of compression works best?
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2004 8:32 pm
by Iron_Forge
The data being compressed determines the outcome of the compression...Some data will compress better using Rar's minimal compression alg. instead of its maximum...
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2004 9:16 pm
by DM01
in those replies, i did another test, here are the results:
-note- im going by the compression selections each one has so dont get me wrong with the fast best and stuff like that.
Blood Gulch (map file)
Original-----------14,030 kb
.7z
-maximal: 3,634 kb
-normal: 3,666 kb (im serious about this one)
-fast: 3,675 kb
-superfast: 3,971 kb
.uha
-best: 3,976 kb
-normal: 3,988 kb
-fast (alz-1): 3,999 kb
-Best (text opimized(BBM)): 4,078 kb
-fast (LZP): 4,740 kb
.rar
-Best: 4,173 kb
-Good: 4,179 kb
-Normal: 4,187 kb
-Fast: 4,315 kb
-Fastest: 4,345 kb
-these tests take a while to do, im not going to try another file type until later when i feel like it.
Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2004 8:53 am
by HunterXI
lol why didn't soneone find this out before?!? 7z will OWN ALL!!!
Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2004 4:33 pm
by Top Gunn
Its really popularity right now.
Winzip, and WinRar - the end.
-Dan
Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:29 am
by HunterXI
truely... all hail 7z!