Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Your Favorite Compressor

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Your Favorite Compressor

    Greetings Encode.ru Forum! I am writing something related to data compressors. I'm here to survey you guys about your favorite compressor and why.

    I've been testing them out lately, so far.. I have tried. KGB Archiver, Nanozip 0.09, FreeArc, WinUha/UHARC, FrontPAQ/PAQ, and WinRK.

    So what's your favorite compressor and why? What specific functionality did you like about it? Are you more into Compression Ratio or Compression and Decompression Speed?

    *********************************

    From the tests I made, I personally liked Nanozip. For me, it has the Com Ratio vs Com Speed vs Decom Speed balance. UHARC is a great contender for me, it has an excellent CR but is not that efficient with everyday use because of the slow Com Speed and Slow Decom Speed. It would be the same for PAQs and KGB Archiver, they may contend as having the best compression rate, but you really can't find the efficiency for everyday use.

    I'm really looking forward to your answers!

    -Hero
    \

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    France
    Posts
    22
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    7zip for everyday use, because it has great speed and ratio, and is much better than rar/zip/bz2/gz. FreeArc for often used backups and Archiving. Paq ( zpaq, paq8qx, fp8 ) when extreme ratio is required.
    If you like nanozip, you'll love FreeArc. It's great for everyday use, if you can allow yourself to use an uncommon format. The Gui, is a bit messy for the moment, but there's always improvements to expect.
    Compression ratio is my preference, as computer speeds improves faster than compression technology.

  3. #3
    Expert
    Matt Mahoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Melbourne, Florida, USA
    Posts
    3,255
    Thanks
    306
    Thanked 778 Times in 485 Posts
    zpaq, of course, because I wrote it

    But in practice, I use zip because everyone has it, and it's fast and the compression is good enough. Disk space is cheap.

    Nanozip is fast and has good compression, but it is closed source and you never know when the program will be updated and won't read your archives any more. There was an older version that had a timer so even if you kept a copy of it, you had to set back your clock to extract. I mean, it warned you to use for testing only. The current version doesn't have this warning but it is still alpha code.

    zpaq is open source, has a documented, precisely defined format, a public domain API, and has good compression. It accepts custom models which sometimes beat PAQ, and also some very fast LZ77 models. I am currently working on a deduplicating, journaling archiver for incremental backups. Journaling means it is append-only and saves both the old and new versions of your files so you don't need to save multiple full backups. When you extract you can roll back the date to retrieve the old versions. zip, 7zip, and freearc also are all free and open source.

    I prefer command line interface. An ideal GUI would be where an archive looks like a folder and you can drag files in and out, open them, etc. just like any other folder. You don't need to know the files are compressed. So far nobody has written one of these.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by 0011110100101001 View Post
    7zip for everyday use, because it has great speed and ratio, and is much better than rar/zip/bz2/gz. FreeArc for often used backups and Archiving. Paq ( zpaq, paq8qx, fp8 ) when extreme ratio is required.
    If you like nanozip, you'll love FreeArc. It's great for everyday use, if you can allow yourself to use an uncommon format. The Gui, is a bit messy for the moment, but there's always improvements to expect.
    Compression ratio is my preference, as computer speeds improves faster than compression technology.
    OH right! Thanks for reminding me, I almost forgot to do a comparison test with FreeArc lol! Doing it right now. BTW about FreeArc, there are certain functions that I don't understand like the Solid Blocks, Please enlighten me



    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Mahoney View Post
    zpaq, of course, because I wrote it

    But in practice, I use zip because everyone has it, and it's fast and the compression is good enough. Disk space is cheap.

    Nanozip is fast and has good compression, but it is closed source and you never know when the program will be updated and won't read your archives any more. There was an older version that had a timer so even if you kept a copy of it, you had to set back your clock to extract. I mean, it warned you to use for testing only. The current version doesn't have this warning but it is still alpha code.

    zpaq is open source, has a documented, precisely defined format, a public domain API, and has good compression. It accepts custom models which sometimes beat PAQ, and also some very fast LZ77 models. I am currently working on a deduplicating, journaling archiver for incremental backups. Journaling means it is append-only and saves both the old and new versions of your files so you don't need to save multiple full backups. When you extract you can roll back the date to retrieve the old versions. zip, 7zip, and freearc also are all free and open source.

    I prefer command line interface. An ideal GUI would be where an archive looks like a folder and you can drag files in and out, open them, etc. just like any other folder. You don't need to know the files are compressed. So far nobody has written one of these.
    Thanks for the reply good sir. I'll try and add zpaq to my review.

    Yeah, I guess one issue with Nanozip is its stability.
    Last edited by HeRo; 22nd September 2012 at 03:32.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    325
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts
    WinRAR for everyday use, simple and it just works. Freearc if i'm fiddling around and experimenting.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    16
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    7zip, and when compressing large sets, like roms, srep64 and then 7zip.

    Did fiddle around with FA and others, but I like my archiver stable and with 64 bit support.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    116
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 32 Times in 11 Posts
    Rar.exe for everyday usage, together with totalcommander and a selfwritten wrapper.
    - So I can use archives like folders
    - can use different archive extensions for different compression profiles (wrapper)
    - can use advantage from the strong container format
    - recovery record
    - and can store already compressed data together with compressable data in one go.
    - can easily check file integrity of all my data in one go, because there is no single file on my hdd, that is not in a rar archive

    Rar + srep for data deduplication

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    369
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by HeRo View Post
    Greetings Encode.ru Forum! I am writing something related to data compressors. I'm here to survey you guys about your favorite compressor and why.

    I've been testing them out lately, so far.. I have tried. KGB Archiver, Nanozip 0.09, FreeArc, WinUha/UHARC, FrontPAQ/PAQ, and WinRK.

    So what's your favorite compressor and why? What specific functionality did you like about it? Are you more into Compression Ratio or Compression and Decompression Speed?

    *********************************

    From the tests I made, I personally liked Nanozip. For me, it has the Com Ratio vs Com Speed vs Decom Speed balance. UHARC is a great contender for me, it has an excellent CR but is not that efficient with everyday use because of the slow Com Speed and Slow Decom Speed. It would be the same for PAQs and KGB Archiver, they may contend as having the best compression rate, but you really can't find the efficiency for everyday use.

    I'm really looking forward to your answers!

    -Hero
    \
    For me there are only 3 main archivers in the world (not compressors, I mean complete "archive suites"):

    - FreeArc: beacause it is so damn fast and efficient in -m1 to -m4 modes
    - 7zip: because it is the "heart of FreeArc" and sometimes beats FreeArc in compression ratio (depends on the file set) and it was my favorite before I discovered FreeArc
    - WinRAR: because of its unbeatable extremely reliable file recovery features (recovery volumes in combination with archive splitting!), its compatibility with other archivers and it was my favorite before I discovered 7zip
    Last edited by JangoFatXL; 23rd September 2012 at 16:05.

  9. #9
    Tester
    Nania Francesco's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    1,565
    Thanks
    220
    Thanked 146 Times in 83 Posts
    Definitely for me is ZCM ...
    ... joke for now!

    I mainly use 7ZIP and NanoZip which is the most powerful x 86 version!

  10. #10
    Member m^2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ślůnsk, PL
    Posts
    1,612
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 65 Times in 47 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by JangoFatXL View Post
    - WinRAR: because of its unbeatable extremely reliable file recovery features
    That don't work.
    Seriously. I've seen failures in the real world and some time ago when I mentioned it, Shelwein asked for a proof. Took me a while to brute-force multiple different failure scenarios. It's described somewhere in here.
    If you want error recovery, use parchive.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    369
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by m^2 View Post
    That don't work.
    Seriously. I've seen failures in the real world and some time ago when I mentioned it, Shelwein asked for a proof. Took me a while to brute-force multiple different failure scenarios. It's described somewhere in here.
    If you want error recovery, use parchive.
    Seriously?! Hmm, I remember to able restoring a multivoume archive with WinRAR (with some recovery volumes). I know that there is PAR(2) for recovery, but the clue is, that with WinRAR you don't need an external program...

  12. #12
    Member m^2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ślůnsk, PL
    Posts
    1,612
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 65 Times in 47 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by JangoFatXL View Post
    Seriously?! Hmm, I remember to able restoring a multivoume archive with WinRAR (with some recovery volumes). I know that there is PAR(2) for recovery, but the clue is, that with WinRAR you don't need an external program...
    I should have said:
    Sometimes it works and I've seen it working more than once too, but it can't be relied on.
    Search and you'll see the evidence.

    I too dislike having to use an external program but that's the most reliable solution...there are other archivers that I haven't seen failing to repair like SQX or FreeArc, but this feature of them is yet to be proved (in case of SQX it won't, with FreeArc - it may) and myself I don't trust they implemented it right.

  13. #13
    Programmer Bulat Ziganshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Uzbekistan
    Posts
    4,497
    Thanks
    733
    Thanked 659 Times in 354 Posts
    freearc uses the the same XOR scheme, it's even worse than RAR because it can't find archive headers in a broken archive

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    369
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by m^2 View Post
    I should have said:
    Sometimes it works and I've seen it working more than once too, but it can't be relied on.
    Search and you'll see the evidence.

    I too dislike having to use an external program but that's the most reliable solution...there are other archivers that I haven't seen failing to repair like SQX or FreeArc, but this feature of them is yet to be proved (in case of SQX it won't, with FreeArc - it may) and myself I don't trust they implemented it right.
    Tested today PAR2 and WinRar. It seems that winrar has an implementation of PAR1 itself (the recovery volumes). But I guess that PAR2 is more reliable than WinRar's recovery records (not the recovery volumes, these work fine), although I was able to recover all test files and missing parts with WinRAR.

  15. #15
    Member m^2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ślůnsk, PL
    Posts
    1,612
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 65 Times in 47 Posts
    Possibly.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •