submix8c Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 ??? Damaged is damaged, no other way around it.And that has nothing to do with the compression. Thanks for playing, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j7n Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 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 5.011. RAR 5.0 archives can include an optional quick open informationcontrolled with -qo[-|+] switch or "Quick open information" optionsgroup in archiving dialog. It allows to open the archive contentsin 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 5.0a') maximum compression dictionary size is increased up to 1 GBb') 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 LENGTHAtheros WLAN Driver 10.0.0.255 / WinXP WinSeven WinEight -- 22,250,273 bytes -- 18 filesatheros lzma max 4mb 4,252,944atheros lzma max ns 4mb 4,590,295atheros lzma max 8mb 4,096,904atheros lzma max 16mb 3,982,217atheros rar3x maxall 4mb 4,740,675atheros rar3x notext 4mb 4,771,745atheros rar3x notext nodelta 4mb 4,816,685atheros rar3x notext noexe 4mb 5,070,474atheros rar4x maxall 4mb 4,752,707atheros rar5x maxall 4mb 4,788,097atheros rar5x maxall 8mb 4,627,789atheros rar5x maxall 16mb 4,526,290ATI Catalyst 9.12 / WinXP WinSeven -- 69,496,709 bytes -- 65 filesaticatalyst912xpseven lzma max 4mb 17,254,712aticatalyst912xpseven lzma max 8mb 15,947,371aticatalyst912xpseven lzma max 16mb 14,032,279aticatalyst912xpseven lzma max 32mb 13,515,576aticatalyst912xpseven lzma max 64mb 13,363,658aticatalyst912xpseven rar3x notext 4mb 19,277,822aticatalyst912xpseven rar5x maxall 4mb 19,041,884aticatalyst912xpseven rar5x maxall 8mb 17,702,180aticatalyst912xpseven rar5x maxall 16mb 15,508,766aticatalyst912xpseven rar5x maxall 32mb 14,934,948aticatalyst912xpseven rar5x maxall 64mb 14,779,674 PACKER OPTIONS DICT DECMPR LISTING COMPRESSED TIME TIME LENGTHHalf-Life 2: Episode One -- 3,896,993,070 bytes -- 37,908 fileshl2ep1 lzma2 max 32mb 236s 1s 1,684,890,163hl2ep1 lzma max 4mb 245s 1s 1,723,419,343hl2ep1 lzma max 32mb 240s 1s 1,685,022,015hl2ep1 lzma max 64mb 240s 1s 1,681,614,846hl2ep1 rar2x ss 1mb 88s 51s 2,011,542,075hl2ep1 rar2x ss mm 1mb 149s 56s 1,769,765,498hl2ep1 rar3x maxall notext 4mb 96s 52s 1,716,586,386hl2ep1 rar5x maxall 4mb 92s 11s 1,749,727,822hl2ep1 rar5x maxall qopen 32mb 96s 1s 1,725,203,855hl2ep1 rar5x maxall qopen 64mb 98s 1s 1,718,582,822Settlers 5: Heritage of Kings w/ Expansion Disks -- 2,005,230,335 bytes -- 135 filessiedler5 lzma2 max 32mb 156s 1,209,635,997siedler5 lzma max 32mb 162s 1,209,902,318siedler5 rar3x notext 4mb 50s 1,317,324,564siedler5 rar5x maxall 4mb 51s 1,312,645,150siedler5 rar5x maxall 32mb 48s 1,246,831,706siedler5 rar5x maxall 64mb 47s 1,206,098,638 PACKER OPTIONS DICT DECMPR LISTING COMPRESSED TIME TIME LENGTHSingles: Triple Trouble -- 801,187,235 bytes -- 8681 filessingles2 lzma2 max 64mb 41s 1s 328,751,417singles2 lzma max 4mb 46s 1s 340,098,439singles2 lzma max 16mb 45s 1s 334,293,232singles2 lzma max 32mb 45s 1s 333,224,408singles2 lzma max 64mb 45s 1s 328,785,576singles2 rar2x best 1mb 15s 8s 391,705,776singles2 rar2x best mm 1mb 17s 8s 403,288,187singles2 rar3x best notext 4mb 15s 374,386,225singles2 rar3x best notext-nomm 4mb 14s 374,341,529singles2 rar3x best notext-nomm-nodelta 4mb 14s 7s 369,773,626singles2 rar5x maxall 4mb 15s 3s 373,120,045singles2 rar5x maxall 16mb 15s 3s 366,637,675singles2 rar5x maxall 32mb 16s 3s 365,459,931singles2 rar5x maxall qopen 32mb 16s 1s 365,752,288singles2 rar5x maxall qopen 64mb 20s 1s 361,411,799singles2 rar5x maxall qopen 128mb 20s 1s 351,586,561Unreal, Unreal: Return to Na Pali (Gold) -- 571,297,683 bytes -- 314 filesunreal lzma max 16mb 31s 205,169,987unreal lzma max 32mb 30s 203,490,639unreal rar2x best ss 1mb 9s 243,741,148unreal rar2x best ss-mm 1mb 16s 231,704,104unreal rar3x maxall 4mb 30s 227,054,915unreal rar3x notext-nodelta 4mb 11s 227,252,921unreal rar3x notext-noexe 4mb 11s 226,806,347unreal rar5x maxall 4mb 10s 226,072,070unreal rar5x maxall 32mb 10s 219,120,062GUI 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!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flasche Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 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 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bphlpt Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flasche Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) 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 RegardsI 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.nano compare.bmp Edited March 11, 2014 by Flasche Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now