Willy@sh.itjust.works to Showerthoughts@lemmy.worldEnglish · 4 months agoRemember when it was a big deal if you chose .zip, .rar, or 7z, etc? Now we all have so much bandwidth it doesn't matter.message-squaremessage-square60fedilinkarrow-up11arrow-down10
arrow-up11arrow-down1message-squareRemember when it was a big deal if you chose .zip, .rar, or 7z, etc? Now we all have so much bandwidth it doesn't matter.Willy@sh.itjust.works to Showerthoughts@lemmy.worldEnglish · 4 months agomessage-square60fedilink
minus-squareAwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·4 months agoWhat a strange take. Rar is the OG for better compression in Windows.
minus-squareNoxy@yiffit.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·4 months agoThat claim is so vague as to be useless. Better how? Ratio? Speed? Better than what competing formats, and how?
minus-squareAwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·edit-24 months agoI explained it in another comment on this thread. https://lemmy.world/comment/10467937
minus-squareBazebara@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·4 months ago7z has way better (ultra) compression
What a strange take. Rar is the OG for better compression in Windows.
That claim is so vague as to be useless.
Better how? Ratio? Speed?
Better than what competing formats, and how?
I explained it in another comment on this thread.
https://lemmy.world/comment/10467937
7z has way better (ultra) compression