Re: 11 data compression programs compared


tomstdenis@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Sportman wrote:
> > Some reading fun with Xmass:
> > http://www.rojakpot.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=4&pgno=0
> > http://it.slashdot.org/it/05/12/26/1625225.shtml?tid=185&tid=218
>
> The results [plagued by Ads no less] kinda omit memory requirements and
> are a bit loose on the source used during the compression test.
>
> It's nice to get high ratios but not practical if the memory
> requirements are absurd.

Yes, this is not a benchmark which can impress any data compression
enthusiast.

But it still does a good enough job to educating the masses (or atleast
many more people) about options beyond "zip". Thatz an accomplishment
in itself.

Sachin Garg [India]
http://www.sachingarg.com

ps. Am reposting this msg as my previous postseems to have got lost.
Dont know if that will show up too.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 11 data compression programs compared
    ... > The results [plagued by Ads no less] kinda omit memory requirements and ... > are a bit loose on the source used during the compression test. ...
    (comp.compression)
  • Re: 11 data compression programs compared
    ... > The results [plagued by Ads no less] kinda omit memory requirements and ... > are a bit loose on the source used during the compression test. ...
    (comp.compression)
  • Re: 11 data compression programs compared
    ... as you pointed out, the ads were obtrusive. ... of compression methods that take so long to decode that you could just ... > The results kinda omit memory requirements and ...
    (comp.compression)
  • Re: 11 data compression programs compared
    ... > Some reading fun with Xmass: ... The results [plagued by Ads no less] kinda omit memory requirements and ...
    (comp.compression)