Home > Windows >
Archivers Comparison Tests| Home > Windows >
Archivers Comparison Tests | Sitemap Search |
|
Sections Membership Features
Recent comments
very difficult by alfin Taking the credit for another persons work ? by curious dude. |
Archivers Comparison TestsPosted by martin on 1 Oct 2001. The test results do not represent real life use of the tools, there was almost nothing else running when performing the tests. The utilities used are: WinRAR 2.90 beta 4, Power Archiver 2001 7.02.08, WinAce 2.04, WinZip 8.01 beta and PKZIP 4.50. The test comprises of two parts with different things being compressed, first some binaries and media files i.e. low compressable stuff to test mainly the speed of compression and then to test the maximum compression ratio text files (The PHP manual in HTML format). For the first test I used 362 files in 30 directories with a total size of 22.0MB and for the second one 2259 files a total of 7.74MB. Supported compression types (this is the official information that comes with the products): WinRAR 2.90 beta 4
Power Archiver 2001 7.02.08
WinZip 8.10 beta
WinAce 2.04
PKZIP 4.50
Notes: The second test follows (compressing the PHP manual, HTML) first the Linux utilities and then the Windows which are really far behind.
And finally the second test for the Windows utilities, WinZip and PKZIP haven't been tested because this should have been a waste of time.
Notes: Summary: Fastest windows archiver: WinRAR Best windows archiver: PowerArchiver, this is an excellent choice if you have Linux or you have to manage gzipped or bzipped archives. For all the tests I've used an AMD K6-3D Now at 300MHz with 256MB RAM and a Quantum EX 3.2 GB hard disk, the Windows version is 98 SE and Linux Mandrake 8.1 with a 2.4.8 stock kernel (I'm not quite sure if a specifically precompiled should perform better). CommentsUpdate & retest? by Greg Zeng (gregzeng@yahoo.com) on 15 Sep 2002 12:50pm GMT There are always new "updates". Could you make it easier for anyone to benchtest, expand your tests? eg a large text file might be ... the Bible, in many small files? and a large binary file might be the complete installation files for OPEN DOS. http://www.drdos.net/download.htm table format by Greg Zeng (gregzeng@yahoo.com) on 15 Sep 2002 12:53pm GMT Not sure what your English is like, but it'd be good if there was an easy-to-import data version (CSV: comma separated version) so that we could juggle your figures around. Some terms that you used were/ are for me to understand. Test samples by martin on 16 Sep 2002 12:47pm GMT Well the large number of small files is the PHP manual. Of course, you have to use the same version... On the CSV issue, I just decided to share my observations, the tests may produce different results on different machines/OS version. Overclockers Australia Forums by Greg Zeng (gregzeng@yahoo.com) on 18 Sep 2002 7:55am GMT http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showthread.php?s=&postid=1087441#post1087441 WinAce is SO SLOW. The savings in space are minimal, and not always possible. Check the site for a comparison of RAR, ACE, ZIP, CAB, LHA, TAR, GZIP, & BZIP2 http://martin.f2o.org/windows/archivers It took me long time to decipher the web page above. It's badly presented. RAR is a clear winner, for times to compress & expand the files, & for file sizes. ACE is a loser in nearly everything except in the file sizes of certain types of files, in a few cases. 7Z format was not tested. The other surprizing conclusion that I saw - was that PKZIP or WINZIP was not a winner in almost anything, including it's own ZIP format. WINRAR did better at this format than the specialized ZIP programs. However, the test does need to be repeated, because the older versions of the programs were tested against each other. The final comment about Power Archiver ... I prefer Servant Salamander, with the specialised WINRAR (for RAR files), PICOZIP (for CAB files), and Servant Salamander's internal zip for handling ZIP files. 7Zip is still experimental for me - even for ZIP format; not worth using yet, until it is out of BETA. Overclockers forums by martin on 18 Sep 2002 5:59pm GMT Sorry, I can't check the Overclockers forums they don't allow you to view the comments without registering. I haven't heard of 7Zip, thanks for keeping me updated ;-) I know the page is badly presented, I just don't have time to fix it. About PowerArchiver, sorry but this is the only one that I found can actually handle bzip2. Test results by snn47 (snn47@compuserve.de) on 19 Sep 2002 7:29am GMT A copy of my results can be found also at http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?thread_id=729264&forum_id=45797. I would consider registering the forum it's worth the effort. No test results by martin on 19 Sep 2002 1:20pm GMT The page returns a 404 not found. Link by snn47 () on 21 Sep 2002 1:59pm GMT I copied and tried it several times and had no problem to access http://sourceforge.net and the information. The link by martin on 21 Sep 2002 4:14pm GMT It is OK, I just copied a little extra space. Comparison by Joe (j@j.a) on 22 Dec 2002 12:40am GMT 7-zip copmpresses better than any of those formats. On average, it will compress a 20meg file down to 5meg, while RAR would take it down to 8meg. One thing about Winrar by waro (dwara@plasa.com) on 9 Jun 2003 9:14am GMT Although I'm a big fan of winrar, it has a drawback: when you want to view a file in a thousand files of winrar file, it will take a year to view it cause winrar forces to unrar the rar file first into temporary folder before you can view the particular file. 7-Zip rocks... by WarLord () on 9 Jun 2003 1:56pm GMT 7zip and the 7z format is very powerful but slow... And I miss that it dont handle ace-files. Other than that its a winner in compression ratio! winRAR by rorschach () on 2 Jul 2003 5:15am GMT @ waro: are you sure that that problem doesn't only happen with solid archives? another comparison by me () on 23 Aug 2003 12:20pm GMT another comparison here... http://www.rojakpot.com/default.aspx?location=3&var1=4&var2=1 Compression Programs by compressionfan () on 2 Oct 2003 10:09am GMT Power Archiver is an excellent utility, and CAB compression is better than RAR. Maximum Compression by Fulcrum (wbergmns@dse.nl) on 26 Dec 2003 2:54pm GMT There is also a site called Maximum Compression. The goal of Maximum Compression is to show the maximum achievable compression ratio for several filetypes (text, executable etc). The best 80-100 programs for every filetype are shown in a table indicating compression ratio and switches/options used to achieve that compression. Have a look at : http://www.maximumcompression.com/ Ace and UHARC by () on 2 Jan 2004 4:59pm GMT Ace and UHARC are the BEST!, althow they are very, very slow. My test by **Alex** (Alex_g15@acasa.ro) on 2 Jan 2004 10:03pm GMT I made my oun tests and they show that 7-Zip v3.13 is the best, folowed by UHARC GUI v2.0 and WinRar v3.20. WinAce has let me down coming on 4. using slim 0021 by Alex () on 3 Jan 2004 6:52pm GMT Does anyone now how to archive a whole folder using slim? Using slim0021 by Fulcrum (wbergmns@dse.nl) on 6 Jan 2004 8:08pm GMT Just use the -r switch. Just run slim without switches to see all the options. WinUHA a powerful UHARC GUI by salvatore (winuha@winuha.com) on 24 Apr 2004 8:59pm GMT www.winuha.com My recent "obsesion" by Alex (Alex@lo.dft) on 5 Jun 2004 2:21pm GMT Hy there! I have tried for a couple of days to compress mafia to fit on 2 CD's. WinWHA was the closest by 24Mb. Does anyone know a better compressor that doesen't take a whole day to end. 7 Zip was no good either, and WinRH doesen't seem to work with big files. P.S. WinRh is better than WinUHA. PowerArchiver 2003 by Mike (mslandry@hotmail.com) on 7 Sep 2004 7:00pm GMT What is the most reliable and or highest form of compression file to use? RE: (Alex) compress mafia to 2 CD's by THX () on 26 Sep 2004 10:22pm GMT Use Nero to overburn the CDs. You could probably fit that extra 24Mb. Windows Regestry by shyam (shyam_anamika@rediffmail.com) on 20 Dec 2004 7:46am GMT I am a networks administrator and i want to all about the regestry . thanking you UHARC ROCKS!!! by buzz () on 28 Jan 2005 9:04pm GMT I just packed 1.5 GBs down to 239MBs with UHARC 0.4 beta Nothing and I mean nothing even came close. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||