Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account



Photo

WinRAR 5 WOW!

- - - - - WinRAR WinRAR 5 Compression

  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1
-X-

-X-

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,425 posts
  • Joined 08-January 04
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

****! Look at the difference.

 

lFsZRPJ.png

 

I compressed an XP installation that's on my second hard drive. Set everything to maximum in WinRAR on both runs. Obviously used the WinRAR 5 format for WinRAR 5.


[ Download all Windows XP Post SP3 High-Priority Updates with a simple double click @ xdot.tk Posted Image ]
If someone helps you fix a problem, please report back so they and others can benefit from the solution. Thanks!


How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#2
Octopuss

Octopuss

    I am the walrus

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,118 posts
  • Joined 31-January 07
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

No matter how unimportant tens of megabytes difference is in today's world, this is an impressive result.

 

I am actually waiting for the moment I have extra money so I can get WinRAR legally at last and get back to it. I was using it pretty much since early 2.x versions, and switched to 7-zip about two years ago after feeling guilty. That program might compress well, but the GUI is crap, and the whole development process is a joke.


Edited by TheWalrus, 26 September 2013 - 10:46 AM.


#3
CharlotteTheHarlot

CharlotteTheHarlot

    MSFN Master

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,048 posts
  • Joined 24-September 07
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

****! Look at the difference.
 
lFsZRPJ.png
 
I compressed an XP installation that's on my second hard drive. Set everything to maximum in WinRAR on both runs. Obviously used the WinRAR 5 format for WinRAR 5.


Thanks for the report!

Any other changes worth considering? Features missing, GUI differences, licensing?

... Let him who hath understanding reckon the Number Of The Beast ...


#4
-X-

-X-

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,425 posts
  • Joined 08-January 04
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Update, 7-Zip still beats it but WinRAR 5 got better. I left some maximum settings off. I turned them on and redid it.

 

Here shows 7-Zip and the new WinRAR 5 size.

 

rErGRIU.png

 

Old one again...

 

lFsZRPJ.png

 

@CharlotteTheHarlot, here's the changelog. GUI is the same. A lot of people hate it's dated look but I don't mind it.

It just nags you if you haven't purchased it I guess.

                WinRAR - What's new in the latest version


   Version 5.00

   1. New RAR 5.0 archiving format. You can use "RAR 5.0" option
      in archiving dialog or -ma command line switch to create
      RAR 5.0 archives.
      
      Older software including older WinRAR versions is not able to
      decompress RAR 5.0 archives, so if you plan to send an archive
      to other people, it is necessary to take the compatibility issue
      into consideration. You can select "RAR" instead of "RAR5" option
      in archiving dialog to create RAR 4.x archives compatible with
      previous WinRAR versions.

   2. Changes in RAR 5.0 compression algorithm:

      a) maximum compression dictionary size is increased up to 1 GB
         in 64 bit WinRAR. 32 bit WinRAR version can use up to 256 MB
         dictionary when creating an archive. Both 32 bit and 64 bit
         versions can unpack archives with any dictionary size,
         including 1 GB;

      b) default dictionary size for RAR 5.0 is 32 MB, typically resulting
         in higher compression ratio and lower speed than RAR 4.x 4 MB.
         You can use "Dictionary size" archiving dialog option or -md<size>
         switch to change this value;

      c) -md<size> switch syntax is modified to support larger dictionary
         sizes. Append 'k', 'm' and 'g' modifiers to specify the size
         in kilo-, mega- and gigabytes, like -md64m for 64 MB dictionary.
         If modifiers are not present, megabytes are assumed,
         so -md64m is equal to -md64;

      d) RAR 5.0 format includes Intel IA-32 executable and delta
         compression algorithms, but RAR 4.x text, audio, true color
         and Itanium algorithms are not supported. These excluded algorithms
         are not efficient for modern data types and hardware configurations;

      e) RAR 5.0 decompression can utilize several CPU cores.
         Though not to same extent as in compression algorithm,
         it improves the decompression speed on large files
         with poorly compressible data or when using BLAKE2 checksums.

   3. Changes in RAR 5.0 archive format:

      a) file times are stored as Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)
         instead of former local time, making file exchange among
         several time zones more straightforward;

      b) file names and archive comments use UTF-8 encoding.
   
   4. RAR 5.0 recovery record is based on Reed-Solomon error correction
      codes. If recovery record size is large enough, 5% and more,
      the new error correction scheme provides much higher resistance to
      multiple damages comparing to RAR 4.x recovery record.
      Smaller record, such as 1 - 2%, or less random damage type would
      result in less difference between 4.x and 5.0. For single continuous
      damage 4.x and 5.0 efficiency is about the same.

      Additionally to usual data erasures, the new recovery record
      is able to detect deletions and insertions of much larger size
      than in previous RAR versions. Maximum insertion size is several
      megabytes. Maximum deletion size depends on the damage type
      and in some cases can be as large as the recovery record size.
      
      Still, the best recovery performance and efficiency is achieved
      if no deletions and insertions are present, so all data including
      damaged sectors preserve their original positions. Thus, if you use
      some special software to copy an archive from damaged media,
      it is better to choose the mode, when damaged sectors are filled by
      zeroes or any other data instead of cutting them out completely
      from resulting file.

      RAR 5.0 recovery record is more resistant to damage of recovery record
      itself and can utilize a partially corrupt recovery record data.
      Note, though, that "Repair" command does not fix broken blocks
      in recovery record. Only file data are corrected. After successful
      archive repair, you may need to create a new recovery record
      for saved files.

      New recovery record is not based on 512 byte sectors anymore 
      and incorporates more complicated data structures. So it is impossible
      to specify its size in sectors. For RAR 5.0 archives the parameter of
      -rr[N] switch and rr[N] command is always treated as a percent of
      archive size regardless of presence of % character. Typically N%
      recovery record can repair up to N% of continuously damaged data
      and increases the archive size by only slightly more than N%.
      Ability to fix multiple damages is proportional to N.

      We used "Screaming Fast Galois Field Arithmetic Using Intel
      SIMD Instructions" paper by James S. Plank, Kevin M. Greenan
      and Ethan L. Miller to improve Reed-Solomon coding performance.
      Also we are grateful to Artem Drobanov and Bulat Ziganshin
      for samples and ideas allowed to make Reed-Solomon coding
      more efficient.

   5. "Test" command verifies validity of RAR 5.0 recovery record.
      Recovery record is tested after processing all archived files.

      If corrupt archive contains the recovery record, it might be possible
      to repair it even if recovery record validity test is failed.
      "Repair" command attempts to utilize even a partially damaged
      recovery record. So treat the negative recovery record test result
      as a reason to re-create the archive if original files are still
      available, but not as a reason to avoid "Repair" command.

   6. Changes in RAR 5.0 encryption algorithm:

      a) encryption algorithm is changed from AES-128 to AES-256 in CBC mode.
         Key derivation function is based on PBKDF2 using HMAC-SHA256;

      b) special password verification value allows to detect most of
         wrong passwords without necessity to unpack the entire file;

      c) if archive headers are not encrypted ("Encrypt file names" option
         is off), file checksums for encrypted RAR 5.0 files are modified
         using a special password dependent algorithm, to make impossible
         guessing file contents based on checksums. Do not expect such
         encrypted file checksums to match usual CRC32 and BLAKE2 values.
   
   7. RAR 5.0 archives allow to utilize 256 bit length BLAKE2sp hash
      ( https://blake2.net ) instead of 32 bit CRC32 as a file checksum.
      Enable "Use BLAKE2 file checksum" option in "Options" page of
      archiving dialog or specify -htb command line switch to use BLAKE2
      checksums.

      While producing slightly larger archives, BLAKE2 can be used
      for file contents identification. If two files have the same
      BLAKE2 value, it practically guarantees that file contents
      is the same. BLAKE2 error detection property is also stronger
      than in much shorter CRC32.

   8. Features removed:

      a) authenticity verification feature did not provide the required
         level of reliability and was removed;
      
      b) switch -en (do not add "end of archive" block) is not supported
         by RAR 5.0 archives, which always have the end of archive block.
         This block helps WinRAR to safely skip external data like
         digital signatures appended to archive;

      c) old style extension based arcname.rNN volume names are not
         supported by RAR 5.0 archives, which use only arcname.partN.rar
         volume names;
      
      d) file comments are not supported anymore both in RAR 4.x
         and RAR 5.0 archives. Console RAR 'cf' command is removed.
         It does not affect the archive comment support, which is present
         in both versions of archive format and is not planned for removal.

   9. "Set password" command and "Dictionary size" option are moved to
      "General" page of archiving dialog.
   
  10. You can use "Save symbolic links as links" option on "Advanced" page
      of archiving dialog to save and restore NTFS symbolic links
      and reparse points as links, so their contents is not archived.
      Command line equivalent of this option is -ol switch.

      Similar option for NTFS hard links is "Save hard links as links".
      Its command line equivalent is -oh switch.

      Both options are available only for RAR 5.0 archive format.
   
  11. Added extraction only support for XZ archive format.
   
  12. Changes in recovery volume processing in RAR 5.0 archive format:

      a) maximum number of RAR+REV volumes in RAR 5.0 format is 65535
         instead of 255;

      b) recovery volume operations are faster than in RAR 4.x;

      c) additionally to recovery data, RAR 5.0 REV files also store
         service information such as checksums of protected RAR files.
         So they are slightly larger than RAR volumes which they protect.
         If you plan to copy individual RAR and REV files to some removable
         media, you need to take it into account and specify RAR volume
         size by a few kilobytes smaller than media size.
  
  13. Maximum path length for files in RAR and ZIP archives is increased
      up to 2048 characters.
  
  14. Command line RAR returns the exit code 11 if it can detect that
      user entered a wrong password. This code can be returned only
      for RAR 5.0 archives. It is impossible to distinguish a wrong
      password and data damage for RAR 4.x archives.

  15. 'v' and 'l' commands display archived file names in the end of line,
      not in that beginning as before. Also some fields previously
      available in 'l' and 'v' output are now shown only by 'lt' and 'vt'.
      
      'vt' and 'lt' commands provide the detailed multiline information
      for every archived file.

      'vta' and 'lta' also include service headers into list.

   16. Now the default charset for filelists in commands like
       'rar a arcname @filelist' is ANSI for both WinRAR and console RAR.
       In previous versions it was ANSI for WinRAR and OEM for console RAR.
       You can use -sc<charset>l switch to override this default.

   17. Internal WinRAR viewer can detect and display files in UTF-8
       and UTF-16 little endian encodings.

   18. UTF-16 little endian encoding is used in RAR and WinRAR log file
       rar.log, so Unicode file names are stored in the log correctly.
       WinRAR automatically truncates the old rar.log file in non-Unicode
       format to avoid mixing different encoding in the same log file.
       In case of console RAR you need to delete the old rar.log manually,
       otherwide RAR will append UTF-16 messages to existing rar.log.

       You can use -sc<charset>g switch to change the default log file
       encoding, such as -scag for ANSI encoding.

   19. Command line 'r' (repair) command can include an optional destpath\
       parameter defining the destination folder for repaired archive:

       rar r archive.rar destpath\

[ Download all Windows XP Post SP3 High-Priority Updates with a simple double click @ xdot.tk Posted Image ]
If someone helps you fix a problem, please report back so they and others can benefit from the solution. Thanks!

#5
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 15,306 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
Hmmm.
If you are looking for "tight" compression, try a few "tight" compressors (command line only), like those PAQ8 based or Nanozip.
http://dhost.info/paq8/
http://www.nanozip.net/
Or, if you *need* the GUI the (Commercial) WinRK is still the tighter compression available:
http://www.msoftware.../products/winrk

Comparison:
http://www.maximumco.../summary_mf.php

but do check also compression and decompression times, overall I do use 7-zip because it is Free and it doubles as an (almost) orthodox dual pane file manager, but if I had to make a choice today it would probably be FreeArc:
http://freearc.org/Default.aspx
http://www.maximumco...summary_mf2.php

We will need to wait some time for those comparisons to take into account WinRAR5, but since it has some better compression, I doubt that it has become also faster. :unsure:

jaclaz

#6
Octopuss

Octopuss

    I am the walrus

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,118 posts
  • Joined 31-January 07
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

These exotic programs might compress better, but I would say they are only good if you need to compress something as much as possible for your own needs. Good luck using them outside of that. WinRAR is very popular, and yet vast majority of people would still be clueless how to open such files :D



#7
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 15,306 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

These exotic programs might compress better, but I would say they are only good if you need to compress something as much as possible for your own needs. Good luck using them outside of that. WinRAR is very popular, and yet vast majority of people would still be clueless how to open such files :D

Sure, if you want to "share" a compressed file with the "rest of the world", the most popular format is still ZIP, which is much less tight.
Second comes 7-zip, who got a lot of popularity being Free and Open Source and cross-OS, as it is available - in command line form - for *nixes and it is compatible (can decompress) WinRar files (up to the previous version, but probably will be updated soon to take care of the newish release too).
WinRAR has the limits of being Commercial (but a Free command line UNrar exists for almost any OS on Earth):
http://www.rarlab.com/rar_add.htm

The not-so-trifling difference is that a number of organizations/people that do respect intellectual property and Commercial licensing schemes won't use WinRAR, because you have to get a license for it (the fact that most people consider the use of the trial after it's expiration as just a "nag" is another thing).

As said, besides Unrar, you can use 7-zip to decompress a .rar file, but if you want to make one you need the "full" Winrar or rar.exe (licensed).

It seems to me like the "more relevant" News about the new format is not the tighter compression, but rather some other of the nice new features, like preserving hard links, added solidity about the file structure and password protection.

-X-, can you try checking what happens when you open a WinRar 5.x file with a previous version?
Which error/message/warning does it come out with?

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz, 27 September 2013 - 02:56 AM.


#8
-X-

-X-

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,425 posts
  • Joined 08-January 04
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

jaclaz, just saw the last line of your post. Maybe you added it in your edit.
Don't have a copy of pre-WinRAR 5 laying around to try.
 
Anyways, I came back to this thread because I discovered something interesting that I'm sure is old news to some of you.
 
I was doing my daily backups and my 2 x 1 TB drives are to the brim. My one dump partition is like 900 GB and have about 1/2 to 1 GB free. So I've been running into copy issues lately when working with big files like my VM drives. I decided to make some space by re-compressing a gazillion ZIP and RAR archives to RAR 5 format and packing all my never used folders and files to same.

During my backup / drive contents comparison,  I discovered that some files I had re-compressed where actually larger.

Turns out UPX compressed files are best compress with plain ZIP. Nothing in my arsenal beats ZIP.
 
Check it out...
 
UPX.png
 
Notice also that RAR 5 does worse than regular RAR.


Edited by -X-, 26 February 2014 - 01:17 AM.

[ Download all Windows XP Post SP3 High-Priority Updates with a simple double click @ xdot.tk Posted Image ]
If someone helps you fix a problem, please report back so they and others can benefit from the solution. Thanks!

#9
NixFix

NixFix
  • Member
  • 7 posts
  • Joined 26-February 14
  • OS:Windows 8 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

RAR5 compression is great and I regret that it's not that popular (yet). So far not that many users actually know about RAR5 let alone its benefits. And, unfortunately, there are so little tools that can actually unpack RAR5 files - WinRar itself and B1 Free Archiver (at least that's what I've found).



#10
-X-

-X-

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,425 posts
  • Joined 08-January 04
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

I never hardly distribute files to anyone so I have no issues using the RAR 5 format. I just pack things for storage.
 
EDIT: Well that's not entirely true. I do serve up my UDC script on my site xdot.tk and sometimes send people to my dropbox for some other thing.


[ Download all Windows XP Post SP3 High-Priority Updates with a simple double click @ xdot.tk Posted Image ]
If someone helps you fix a problem, please report back so they and others can benefit from the solution. Thanks!

#11
Octopuss

Octopuss

    I am the walrus

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,118 posts
  • Joined 31-January 07
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

I really like WinRAR, but truth be told, even with the new format, it's still nothing awesome (but then again, it's not a problem for me). I use it solely because of the interface. If you absolutely need better compression, 7-Zip is the winner hands down.



#12
-X-

-X-

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,425 posts
  • Joined 08-January 04
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Definitely not hands down. I was packing some setup files I have on my D drive before I backed up two days ago.

 

7-Zip did better with the Flash installers and WinRAR did better with the Java installer.

Win_RAR5.png


[ Download all Windows XP Post SP3 High-Priority Updates with a simple double click @ xdot.tk Posted Image ]
If someone helps you fix a problem, please report back so they and others can benefit from the solution. Thanks!

#13
submix8c

submix8c

    Inconceivable!

  • Patrons
  • 4,481 posts
  • Joined 14-September 05
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

...bearing in mind the Uncompressed Source may (will in any Installer Source) have some form of compression that, to further compress, could require a different Compression Program to get better, as demonstrated in the last post. You could randomly insert n-Characters into a TXT file then do the same number of n-Characters into another TXT file, compress the two with the exact same Compressor and get different sizes. IOW, "it all depends on the source". ;)


Someday the tyrants will be unthroned... Jason "Jay" Chasteen; RIP, bro!

Posted Image


#14
-X-

-X-

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,425 posts
  • Joined 08-January 04
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Yep, the source is the key. 7-Zip beats WinRAR 5 by not that big a margin but it's definetly no where near being always the case.

Just look at my previous post with UPX packed files. ZIP beat them all!

There were some ZIP settings I didn't try so I might have been able to shave a few bytes but don't know.


[ Download all Windows XP Post SP3 High-Priority Updates with a simple double click @ xdot.tk Posted Image ]
If someone helps you fix a problem, please report back so they and others can benefit from the solution. Thanks!

#15
ROTS

ROTS

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 249 posts
  • Joined 22-September 12
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
What I really care about is recovery options. i have a load of damage Winrar files.

#16
submix8c

submix8c

    Inconceivable!

  • Patrons
  • 4,481 posts
  • Joined 14-September 05
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

??? Damaged is damaged, no other way around it.

 

And that has nothing to do with the compression. :no:

 

Thanks for playing, though. :yes:


Someday the tyrants will be unthroned... Jason "Jay" Chasteen; RIP, bro!

Posted Image


#17
j7n

j7n

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 302 posts
  • Joined 18-December 06
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag
I am glad that the developers chose to present the new packer as a distinct "RAR5" format, and allow for creation of RAR3 archives within the same program. I will replace my installations of version 3 soon. When RAR3 appeared, the upgrade went silently, and I had to keep 2 copies around.

The "ZIP" format of today is a version hell. Several different standard compression methods, WavPack for sound, different ways to store Unicode names, different encryption. Whoever is in charge over ZIP seems desperate to cash in on the brand.

I am still a user of RAR2, because I like its Self-Extractor. The new self extractors don't run under Win9x, which is important to me, and they include a freaking Internet Explorer control to display the archive comment with formatting. This causes SFX's to open slower than they could, and I am alarmed seeing Internet Explorer anywhere. It's unnecessary for the formatting that an archive comment includes. I wish Rar-Lab remade their SFX with the old GUI.

For applications like archiving on DVD or sending files over the Internet, ratio isn't as important as file grouping with any ratio, to overcome seek times and latency. For that application stadard ZIP often works well enough.

If I need to archive large number of small files or to store special characters (which should ideally be kept out of filenames), I use 7-Zip, which has quick indexing and Unicode in the Standard.

I find the following three changes in WinRAR to be the most important:

Version 5.01

1. RAR 5.0 archives can include an optional quick open information
controlled with -qo[-|+] switch or "Quick open information" options
group in archiving dialog. It allows to open the archive contents
in WinRAR faster.

RAR archives store every file header containing information such as file name, time, size and attributes immediately before data of described file. This approach is more damage resistant than storing all file headers in a single continuous block, which if broken or truncated would destroy the entire archive contents. But while being more reliable, such file headers scattered around the entire archive are slower to access if we need to quickly open the archive contents in a shell like WinRAR graphical interface.

Version 5.0

a') maximum compression dictionary size is increased up to 1 GB

b') file names and archive comments use UTF-8 encoding.


Incidentally, all of these features are implemented in 7-Zip already. WinRAR, on the other hand, for several years, converted and stored file names and comments in OEM/DOS encoding, which led to it being impossible to reliably use any special punctuation or national symbols at all. It was even worse than working with normal ansi windows-125x encodings.

The quick open index block is stored at the end of the archive. By default RAR 5.01 adds the index only for larger files, presumably because small files are easy to seek over anyway. Unlike 7-Zip, the index block isn't compressed, presumably to protect it from damage.

Opening RAR2 and RAR3 archives with large number of files used to be terribly slow, which is why I opted to attach a SFX to all of the large ones. The SFX can start immediately and read files as it seeks over them without building a list beforehand.

I performed a small Test this weekend. I originally set out to prove the efficiency of multimedia compression, which has been removed. But I failed to do so. The sound and image compression wasn't very efficient to begin with (compared to FLAC and PNG), it hurt solid compression of identical parts of multimedia files, and dictionary based compression in the latest WinRAR has achieved better efficiency if a larger dictionary is used. Multimedia compression did result in shorter compression times on single core (accurate results not recorded), but decompression time increased.

I used games which include uncompressed audio and textures. Decompression speed was tested on a relatievely slow "Yonah" single core CPU. Archives were tested in their native application twice, and the shorter time (second) was recorded. Archive Listing was performed through a SMB share over Fast Ethernet. The host computer was rebooted before the test. CD/DVD would be much slower still.

PPMD increased both compression and decompression time considerably, and didn't yield an increase in ratio on mixed data. I never use Text Compression. Here I tested it on the 'unreal' sample.

Increased compression Dictionary is when a change in ratio is observed, in cases where similar files cannot fit within a smaller Dictionary. This all is new content. I can see an application for RAR5 when compressing Drivers. For example, let's say we have (unpacked) Drivers for different OS versions and CPUs. They have some identical, and some similar files in them. If the similar files fit in the Dictionary, they can be stored for free. I failed to find really large drivers in my collection, because I don't deal with new stuff. But files are getting larger and larger. You can see an improvement in compression of ATI Catalyst.

Results as a screenshot
                PACKER  OPTIONS                 DICT            COMPRESSED
                                                                  LENGTH
Atheros WLAN Driver 10.0.0.255 / WinXP WinSeven WinEight -- 22,250,273 bytes -- 18 files

atheros         lzma    max                     4mb             4,252,944
atheros         lzma    max     ns              4mb             4,590,295
atheros         lzma    max                     8mb             4,096,904
atheros         lzma    max                     16mb            3,982,217
atheros         rar3x   maxall                  4mb             4,740,675
atheros         rar3x   notext                  4mb             4,771,745
atheros         rar3x   notext  nodelta         4mb             4,816,685
atheros         rar3x   notext  noexe           4mb             5,070,474
atheros         rar4x   maxall                  4mb             4,752,707
atheros         rar5x   maxall                  4mb             4,788,097
atheros         rar5x   maxall                  8mb             4,627,789
atheros         rar5x   maxall                  16mb            4,526,290

ATI Catalyst 9.12 / WinXP WinSeven -- 69,496,709 bytes -- 65 files

aticatalyst912xpseven   lzma    max             4mb             17,254,712
aticatalyst912xpseven   lzma    max             8mb             15,947,371
aticatalyst912xpseven   lzma    max             16mb            14,032,279
aticatalyst912xpseven   lzma    max             32mb            13,515,576
aticatalyst912xpseven   lzma    max             64mb            13,363,658
aticatalyst912xpseven   rar3x   notext          4mb             19,277,822
aticatalyst912xpseven   rar5x   maxall          4mb             19,041,884
aticatalyst912xpseven   rar5x   maxall          8mb             17,702,180
aticatalyst912xpseven   rar5x   maxall          16mb            15,508,766
aticatalyst912xpseven   rar5x   maxall          32mb            14,934,948
aticatalyst912xpseven   rar5x   maxall          64mb            14,779,674

                PACKER  OPTIONS         DICT    DECMPR  LISTING   COMPRESSED
                                                 TIME     TIME      LENGTH

Half-Life 2: Episode One -- 3,896,993,070 bytes -- 37,908 files

hl2ep1          lzma2   max             32mb    236s       1s    1,684,890,163
hl2ep1          lzma    max             4mb     245s       1s    1,723,419,343
hl2ep1          lzma    max             32mb    240s       1s    1,685,022,015
hl2ep1          lzma    max             64mb    240s       1s    1,681,614,846
hl2ep1          rar2x   ss              1mb     88s       51s    2,011,542,075
hl2ep1          rar2x   ss      mm      1mb     149s      56s    1,769,765,498
hl2ep1          rar3x   maxall  notext  4mb     96s       52s    1,716,586,386
hl2ep1          rar5x   maxall          4mb     92s       11s    1,749,727,822
hl2ep1          rar5x   maxall  qopen   32mb    96s        1s    1,725,203,855
hl2ep1          rar5x   maxall  qopen   64mb    98s        1s    1,718,582,822

Settlers 5: Heritage of Kings w/ Expansion Disks -- 2,005,230,335 bytes -- 135 files

siedler5        lzma2   max             32mb    156s            1,209,635,997
siedler5        lzma    max             32mb    162s            1,209,902,318
siedler5        rar3x   notext          4mb     50s             1,317,324,564
siedler5        rar5x   maxall          4mb     51s             1,312,645,150
siedler5        rar5x   maxall          32mb    48s             1,246,831,706
siedler5        rar5x   maxall          64mb    47s             1,206,098,638

                PACKER  OPTIONS                         DICT    DECMPR  LISTING  COMPRESSED
                                                                 TIME    TIME      LENGTH

Singles: Triple Trouble -- 801,187,235 bytes -- 8681 files

singles2        lzma2   max                             64mb    41s      1s     328,751,417
singles2        lzma    max                             4mb     46s      1s     340,098,439
singles2        lzma    max                             16mb    45s      1s     334,293,232
singles2        lzma    max                             32mb    45s      1s     333,224,408
singles2        lzma    max                             64mb    45s      1s     328,785,576
singles2        rar2x   best                            1mb     15s      8s     391,705,776
singles2        rar2x   best    mm                      1mb     17s      8s     403,288,187
singles2        rar3x   best    notext                  4mb     15s             374,386,225
singles2        rar3x   best    notext-nomm             4mb     14s             374,341,529
singles2        rar3x   best    notext-nomm-nodelta     4mb     14s      7s     369,773,626
singles2        rar5x   maxall                          4mb     15s      3s     373,120,045
singles2        rar5x   maxall                          16mb    15s      3s     366,637,675
singles2        rar5x   maxall                          32mb    16s      3s     365,459,931
singles2        rar5x   maxall  qopen                   32mb    16s      1s     365,752,288
singles2        rar5x   maxall  qopen                   64mb    20s      1s     361,411,799
singles2        rar5x   maxall  qopen                   128mb   20s      1s     351,586,561

Unreal, Unreal: Return to Na Pali (Gold) -- 571,297,683 bytes -- 314 files

unreal          lzma    max             16mb    31s             205,169,987
unreal          lzma    max             32mb    30s             203,490,639
unreal          rar2x   best    ss      1mb      9s             243,741,148
unreal          rar2x   best    ss-mm   1mb     16s             231,704,104
unreal          rar3x   maxall          4mb     30s             227,054,915
unreal          rar3x   notext-nodelta  4mb     11s             227,252,921
unreal          rar3x   notext-noexe    4mb     11s             226,806,347
unreal          rar5x   maxall          4mb     10s             226,072,070
unreal          rar5x   maxall          32mb    10s             219,120,062

GUI is the same. A lot of people hate it's dated look but I don't mind it.

Those people who hate the GUI must be why Microsoft is trying so hard to make functions difficult to find in every major version. I switched to WinRAR from WinZip v7, and found it better organized. Perhaps I would like to see an optional Tree-View showing only the inside of the archive (not aiming to become a file manager). In general the only changes to the GUI that are needed are filling gaps and reorganizing the layout in case of obsolete and removed functionality.

No Ribbons, please!


Overall, I am pleaed with the great job on the current Version 5!!

#18
Flasche

Flasche

    A bottled message!!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 584 posts
  • Joined 20-January 14
  • OS:ME
  • Country: Country Flag

Hmmm.
If you are looking for "tight" compression, try a few "tight" compressors (command line only), like those PAQ8 based or Nanozip.
http://dhost.info/paq8/
http://www.nanozip.net/
 

 

Thanks jaclaz PAQ8 will come in much use for me and my site :thumbup .


Seeker Of Truth by E. E. Cummings                                                                                           Quote (Me)

  • seeker of truth                                                 "If you want to reach and discover the true meaning of order; You must go through chaos first."            344d0f9.jpg
  • follow no path                                 
  • all paths lead where
  • truth is here
 

#19
bphlpt

bphlpt

    MSFN Addict

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,928 posts
  • Joined 12-May 07
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

But be aware that smallest compressed size is not always the best.  For example, according to this particular example of a mix of files, decompressing the files using PAQ8px took over SIX HOURS, while it took 7-Zip less than 8 seconds.  (I was quite amazed)

 

Cheers and Regards


Posted Image


#20
Flasche

Flasche

    A bottled message!!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 584 posts
  • Joined 20-January 14
  • OS:ME
  • Country: Country Flag

But be aware that smallest compressed size is not always the best.  For example, according to this particular example of a mix of files, decompressing the files using PAQ8px took over SIX HOURS, while it took 7-Zip less than 8 seconds.  (I was quite amazed)

 

Cheers and Regards

 

I know. I'm curently testing PAQ8 vs nanozip for file size, and unzipping. I need a small compression for I have a 1500 mb size limit for my site.

 

EDIT: after looking at the size difference between Nano and PAQ8. I decided to go with nano due to little differences in size and a much faster decompression.

Attached File  nano compare.bmp   86.75KB   6 downloads

 

 

 


Edited by Flasche, 11 March 2014 - 10:57 AM.

Seeker Of Truth by E. E. Cummings                                                                                           Quote (Me)

  • seeker of truth                                                 "If you want to reach and discover the true meaning of order; You must go through chaos first."            344d0f9.jpg
  • follow no path                                 
  • all paths lead where
  • truth is here
 




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users