In a message of , Hans Mangold (1:353/710) writes: 
 HM> Here's a test I made to see how "solid" archivers outshine the standard 
 HM> archivers such as PKZip.
 HM> Files compressed (Registry from WINDOWS folder):
 HM>     SYSTEM   DA0     1,552,956  02-21-97  3:38a
 HM>     SYSTEM   DAT     1,552,956  02-24-97  6:36p
 HM>     SYSTEM   DA1     1,552,956  02-24-97  6:36p (same as *.DAT)
 HM>     SYSTEM   DA2     1,552,956  02-24-97  6:36p (same as *.DAT)
 HM>     SYSTEM   DA3     1,552,956  02-24-97  6:36p (same as *.DAT)
 HM>     SYSTEM   DA4     1,552,956  02-24-97  6:36p (same as *.DAT)
 HM>          6 file(s)      9,317,736 bytes
 HM> File *.DA0 and *.DAT are slightly different, all others are identical 
 HM> copies of *.DAT.  Unscientific Results:
 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 have expected 
 HM> a *much* greater difference between the "solid" archivers (JAR and RAR, 
 HM> both set to max.) and the standard archiver (PKZip -ex).  I wish Robert 
 HM> would explain this one :-)
Hi,
*.DAT files are very compressible in themselves.  The other issue is the size 
of the files.  Both RAR and JAR can see very far back but NOT that far back 
looking for redundancy.  About 1 MB is the limit.
Regards,
Robert
 
--- msged 2.07
---------------