yepOriginally Posted by nsane
LZMA beat PPMD
yepOriginally Posted by nsane
LZMA beat PPMD
1.2 gigs to 126 megs...I doubt it. You sure it wasn't a rip?Originally Posted by Peerzy
The Simpsons Hit And Run was about 150mb and extracted to just over 1.3 gb. It was a rip as the full game was 1.6gb. So they ripped out 400mb and used ultra compression. Same with command and conqure Generals. That was 100mb and extracted to over 1gb.Originally Posted by Tifosi
Ah, right. I got the ISOs so I didn't hear about the ripOriginally Posted by Peerzy
Originally Posted by Peerzy
yea it confused me for the first time too,i downloaded the rip and it was working fine!i think they used uharc 4 it!
even i have compressed 1gb to 100-150mb using winrar.
Note:i have noticed this high compression in save games only....Testedoom 3,half-life 2,sw:kotor,and many more......
i save the game every few seconds and this games have a small screen stored which takes some space,its compressed i thik so and the main thing is the save file if u see its properties(in xp,2000)u'll see the original disc space and the size on disc thing(its always more).here winrar takes the lead it atleast compress the files and bring its size somewhat to the original size.and sometimes less the we even expect it![]()
uharc is one hell of a media compressor. i compressed 3gigs of wav files down to 250MB one time, was testing it with some CDrips just for the hell of it
i think it proved itself tho![]()
i remember good old uharc
i remember unpacking C&C:RA2 with it back in the days
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Compres...y-Brhack.shtml
nice GUI version is availible now
i tested with my files i pressed be4
12,342,839
it came 2nd place
altho as nsane spoke about, its better for media orientated data
that's actually what it was specificly devoloped for
i guess the algorithms would make an ok data compressor, but i never tried it. i've found RAR, LZMA, & ZIP to be the better data compressors right now. LZMA & RAR are good for raw data, but suck if the data's packed due to the fact the algorithms cause them to expand the packed data rather than compress it further. ZIP is better to use if the data is already packed, because it won't expand the packed data, but rather just leaves it alone because it's already packed/compressed. so really, it comes down to what your trying to compress when you choose an algorithm, as there's different algorithms designed specificly to compress certain types of data
i actually read an article on CNet once about a guy that's designing an algorithm, if you call it that, that looks at the binary value, 100111011, of a file (or groups of files, such as a folder) and determines a mathmaticle equation that will produce the sum of the binary value. basicly, when he's done, you'll be able to 'compress' gigs down to BYTES. imagin what that technology would do for file sharers. hell if you used a similar technology for streaming media, there would be no need for broadband and dsl. hell, you wouldn't even need a 56K for that matter, you'd download a mathmaticle equation that produces a 40gig blu-ray image in seconds on an old 34K modem![]()
really? wow...interesting
u still know where the article is?
gildan2020
Please be kind to the noobs...we were once them after all
sounds too good to be true
imagin it!
forget CDs i got DOOM3 on a floppy disc
any way im gonna do a test to find out what the best compressor is for what file formats
like
.wav
.roms (yea rom files)
.jpg
.blah blah blah
Bookmarks