Not sure what the original point was but curiously I happened to use file on a an Apple .numbers file recently and found that it was a .zip file in disguise with zero compression.
So maybe the point was that it’s used often as a container format more often than it’s used for compression? Just my (unrelated) general computer work would also suggest this.
I see images, audio, or video files distributed in zips far too often. You’re getting maybe a percent of compression if you’re lucky; just distribute the raw files or use a non-compressed bundle format like tar.
AKA “Why zip compression doesn’t reduce things any more”.
?
Not sure what the original point was but curiously I happened to use
fileon a an Apple.numbersfile recently and found that it was a.zipfile in disguise with zero compression.So maybe the point was that it’s used often as a container format more often than it’s used for compression? Just my (unrelated) general computer work would also suggest this.
Zipping a file repeatedly typically doesn’t reduce the size further after the first time.
Yeah duoy you [realistically] can’t compress compressed data…
I see images, audio, or video files distributed in zips far too often. You’re getting maybe a percent of compression if you’re lucky; just distribute the raw files or use a non-compressed bundle format like tar.
My 1.5gb log folders disagrees. But I never tried opening a .txt in 7-zip.