I installed both of the most recent stable versions of 7-Zip (v18.01) and WinRAR (v5.5). My goal is to compress files with capability of lossless extraction. Being that 7-Zip and WinRAR are so highly regarded as far as dependability and compression ratio I figured I'd start there.
I'm using 7-Zip at it's default settings but I created a personalized method of compression for WinRAR. The settings for WinRAR are as follows:
How do I enable the option for "RAR5" under "Archive format"? Are there better lossless compression formats than RAR & 7z? Are there better compression settings for 7z that doesn't require a quantum computer? Are there better compression settings for WinRAR?
Sup Forums does not account for tabs. The more you know...
Carson Peterson
RAR5 improved speed, not compression ratio and is actually slightly worse.
zstd is the new shit, but it's not put into a passable format yet.
Henry Hill
You had to post it, didn't you? That image.
Blake Barnes
Reminder to always encrypt your files before you compress them for extra compression ratio.
Julian Walker
Sit down. Be humble. Apologise.
Ian Bennett
You seem to know what's up. Should I use RAR, RAR4, or some new Vulkan madness instead?
Never heard of this. Explain.
Nolan Richardson
I was raped when I was still in diapers.
Hunter Murphy
the truth is... it doesn't matter. the differences are small and bandwidth and storage are cheap. a 1% difference doesn't make a difference. rar is a bit more convenient when it comes to multipart archives, so use that.
newer compression methods aim at being fast while providing a decent compression ratio, so facebook can compress their data before sending it to another server to save a money, while remaining "realtime"
also, don't encrypt your files before compression, they will become high entropy and entropy is hard(or rather impossible) to compress.
Blake Myers
confirmed
Joshua Gutierrez
Appreciate the insight. Sounds like I'll just make a rar4 and a 7z and compare size for each compression being that 7z often (not always) compresses better.
Matthew Miller
All OP /Thread?
Isaiah Barnes
You are so fucking dumb. 7zip isn't a compression scheme.
Leo Howard
you misunderstood my point entirely
Luke Williams
Nice bait.
Camden Barnes
How enlightening. Please tell me how i'm a faggot and how your mother thinks you're cool.
Angel Ramirez
Dumb it down if you could. Explain what exactly I missed.
You faggot, while you are running round trying to find which brand lets you plaster over the flaws in your personality your mother is praising me between the sheets.
Asher Rivera
The point is there's no point in compression nowadays. You'll only be able to compress text anyway.
JUST chose rar. Don't compare compression ratios, etc. It's not worth the time and electricity.
Connor Torres
Why or I can't begin to care. You forgot to tell me how your mother thinks your cool.
Evan Miller
>Why or I can't begin to care. Click the link.
Jaxon Kelly
Bumming electricity at the moment. Not proud of bumming but I am so wattage cost is no concern. On point user. But lossless dependability is a requirement of mine.
Logan Watson
>can't follow links >no reading comprehension Just use the money you earn flipping burgers to buy more storage.
Henry Rogers
>lossless dependability The fuck does that mean?
Jose Wright
>64856098 >lossless dependability is a requirement of mine.
Christopher Richardson
if cost and your time is no concern buy more disks, format them with zfs and - by god - enable the lz4 compression.
Jayden Williams
I've been told that some some archiving formats aren't 1:1 when decompressed. I need my files unscathed. As for dependability I keep toward 7-Zip and Win-RAR because they have a better reputation than other new formats. Correct me if I've been feed shit info. I prefer SSD. Jokes on you, I don't even have a job.
Ayden Gray
What board are you from, Sup Forums?
Landon Nelson
cool, then buy more ssds.
Gabriel Hall
>I've been told that some some archiving formats aren't 1:1 when decompressed Yeah, it's called lossy compression.
John Evans
It's pretty obviously Sup Forums.
Jason Williams
When one lives on Sup Forums so long other boards seem to become races with which to coincide. Just cause you have the money doesn't mean you waste it. Any idea what is or is not lossy?
Lucas Peterson
>Sup Forums
David Myers
but by comparing compression ratios you are wasting electricity = money.
you are just doing it wrong. 7zip and winrar are mostly used to verify integrity for downloaders.
also: creating huge archives is dangerous, because one bitflip can kill your entire data.
just stop... please
Isaac Wilson
>Any idea what is or is not lossy? RAR 4is lossy at medium settings or higher. RAR5 is lossy at the highest setting only, which is why it is superior to RAR. 7-Zip, WinZip, PeaZip and all other varieties of zip are lossy always. Do NOT use them for the important stuff. WinArj and WinAce, on the other hand, are always lossless and WinAce compresses as well as RAR4 at the highest settings. It's old, but you can still get WinAce from filehippo.com/de/download_winace/.
As far as images go, your best option for lossless is JPEG at 100% quality or if you are an oldfag TGA.
Luis Kelly
>RAR5 >lossless for EXEs >lossless for music You're stupid.
Cameron Martinez
>by comparing compression ratios you are wasting electricity = money. Bumming electricity at the moment. Not proud of bumming but I am so wattage cost is no concern. >also: creating huge archives is dangerous, because one bitflip can kill your entire data.
>just stop... please
Who said the files were large? Multiple files, various formats & ranging sizes. These are the facts that you did't care to even skim for. But thanks for participating.
>RAR 4is lossy at medium settings or higher. RAR5 is lossy at the highest setting only
You're stupid.
I dunno this guy's got a good argument.
Owen Nelson
>various formats & ranging sizes What kind? Photos, videos, music, Microsoft Office documents, games, books?
Cooper Cook
I assumed you were this too
Aiden Sanders
>other boards seem to become races with which to coincide Confirmed for /soc/
Luke Rodriguez
RAR5 literally corrupts executables and DLLs, buddy. Use UPX. upx.github.io/
Isaac Hall
Neither zip nor rar nor xz are lossy, ever. Only data type aware encoders like mp3 and JPEG are lossy.
Anthony Turner
I can compress that pic to 0 bytes for you with no value lost
Thomas Adams
More like Sup Forums.
Jayden Taylor
RAR is data type aware if you tell it to be.
Michael Ramirez
>agar.io Fuck off to
Matthew Cox
Any & All. Why does it matter? Am I retarded or are you stroking out on the keyboard? samefag Noted. That was my initial thought. But surprisingly on Sup Forums only these 2: put up any empirical data and from what source I'll never know. What does that mean is retrospect to Auto?
>Why does it matter? You may want to use FLAC for music, for example. It will compress better and prevent content-aware compressors form messing with your data.
Christian Evans
That is a winrar preprocessor, not the rar compression algorithm.
Jacob Perez
I understand music compression. What I'm asking for here is if anyone knows if WinRAR and/or 7-Zip are lossless or lossy and if so is there a more practical aplication.
Ayden Morales
To compress files of all kinds.
Jack Roberts
>on Sup Forums only these 2 put up any empirical data ... Sup Forums is not the place to go for objective comparisons. If you take anything away from this thread you will be back in a few months complaining about how you got memed by Sup Forums.
Jordan Powell
Just disable that specialized shit for safety's sake. It's not like it matters a lot for compression.
Landon Turner
>Am I retarded or are you stroking out on the keyboard? well...
Chase Reyes
Any pointers where to? I don't even know what that it.
Zachary Wright
I'm not sure, user. I think Sup Forums's advice is still better than whatever new total newfag comes up with on his own.
Sebastian Torres
>I don't even know what that it. As said, it's data type aware encoding. It is applied before/instead of compression.
