Problem with WinRAR 3.71 Beta 1

[rahulkhajuria]

Whenever I try to compress files & make an Archive of them using WinRar , I am presented with 6 Compression method choices - Store , Fastest , Fast , Normal , Good & Best . Regardless of whichever Option I choose , the file or collection of files is only compressed to 98 or 99% of the original size . This is as Good as No Compression .! Could this be because I am not using a legitimately purchased copy of Winrar or is it that I don't know how to use it . (By the way the files I was trying to compress were Photo & Video files ).

I later have to email these files to someone . The problem is that since there is practically no compression , the .rar files attach very quickly to the email , but the email takes a long time to "send" ( a lot many minutes !) Similarly , it would be taking those same many minutes at the receiver's end to download (because each file is anywhere between 1 to 20 MB) ! .

What do I do ?

 

[dE_logics]

Verdict: Closed source software is crap...like the platform you're running MS windows. Speaking of which my Linux box is running continuously for 48 hrs (running KDE which is considered the most unstable (and actually is) desktop environment), a goal which will never be accomplished by desktop versions of windows. You either need to restart or reinstall.

If you compress a precompressed file, it won't get compressed much. For e.g. if the thing is an MP3 file or JPEG file, the compression will be negligible. Thus all depends on the data.

If you increase the compression rate to double the time of compression, don't expect the file sized to be halfed. The difference will be less.

Debatabally, the best compression algorithms are PAQ and WinRK. WinRK is proprietary and PAQ is opensource. WinRK (under my experience), as a result of being closed source, is very unreliable and ultimately a waste of money, what the author wanted to. PAQ is opensource and is simply the best. The lighter version of PAQ is called LPAQ which I use.

An e.g -

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_FBlhhjjfQMQ/SxpWwLizqOI/AAAAAAAAGms/pXzb-JexFNc/s912/bill_gates-nq8.png

 

[pantaz]

...(By the way the files I was trying to compress were Photo & Video files ).

The nature of photo and video files prevents compression by ZIP, RAR, and other lossless formats.

File sizes for photos can be reduced by resizing, and/or saving in alternative formats. JPG and PNG formats allow you to change the amount of compression. (more compression = lower image quality).

Video file size can be reduced by editing the file (deleting unnecessary portions of the video), and/or by encoding the video with a different CODEC.

Another suggestion: Rather than e-mailing large files, upload your photos and videos to a hosting service, such as Photobucket.com and just e-mail the links. Better for both the sender and receiver.

 

[Borek]

Verdict: Closed source software is crap...

If you compress a precompressed file, it won't get compressed much. For e.g. if the thing is an MP3 file or JPEG file, the compression will be negligible. Thus all depends on the data.

I have a hard time trying to find connection between these two facts.

Oh wait, first one is not a fact, it is just a personal opinion.

Hm, it just struck me that personal opinion is in a way siilar to closed source software - you see the result, but you can't check what brought you there