-=> Quoting Hans Mangold to Mark Madronio <=-
HM> Here's a test I made to see how "solid" archivers outshine
HM> the standard archivers such as PKZip.
HM> Files compressed (Registry from WINDOWS folder):
HM> 95SYSTEM JAR 1,802,788 02-24-97 6:36p
HM> 95SYSTEM RAR 1,865,201 02-24-97 6:36p
HM> 95SYSTEM ZIP 2,013,215 02-24-97 6:36p
HM> Since there is so much redundancy in this example, I would
HM> have expected a *much* greater difference between the
HM> "solid" archivers (JAR and RAR, both set to max.) and the
HM> standard archiver (PKZip -ex). I wish Robert would explain
HM> this one :-)
Well, I don't have JAR yet but since its beta period is about to end, I'll
just wait for the full release. I tested ARJ, ZIP and RAR on the BBS door
game ArrowBridge II directory and here is what I got (using max settings).
AB ARJ 419,867
AB ZIP 392,143
AB RAR 391,895
Uncompressed: 96 files 3,312,216 bytes
I tried it out on my Durango mail reader directory since it's reasonably
large and is typical of most shareware stuff (i.e. Windows based). And my
MIDI collection (which had a couple of ZIPs inside)
DURANGO ARJ 1,217,146
DURANGO ZIP 1,209,030
DURANGO RAR 1,005,362
Uncompressed: 16 file(s) 2,589,303 bytes
MIDI ARJ 5,395,755
MIDI ZIP 5,432,558
MIDI RAR 5,054,325
Uncompressed: 491 file(s) 15,354,626 bytes
ZIP seems to compress better than ARJ except with lots of small files (MIDI).
Or maybe my ARJ config isn't that good (-m1 -jm -i2 -jt2 -jk -a1). Except
with RAR, ZIP and ARJ weren't compressing the files sorted by extension name
which would have contributed to their larger archives. I'll try this again
once I get JAR.
The extra savings in RAR aren't that impressive compared to the normal
archivers (especially after waiting 16min for the MIDI stuff which took less
than 5min with ZIP and ARJ on a Pentium60).
HM> Cheers, Hans
Mark
markmad@netspace.net.au
mmadroni@st.nepean.uws.edu.au
... Behavioural psychology -- pulling habits out of rats.
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------
* Origin: AlphaMed Link: The Medical MAX (3:711/413)
|