Re: 11 data compression programs compared
- From: "michael" <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 27 Dec 2005 06:36:39 -0800
I didn't bother to read too much because the page took too long to load
and,
as you pointed out, the ads were obtrusive. But I have to question the
practicality
of compression methods that take so long to decode that you could just
about
download an uncompressed version of the data from the web via dial up
in the
same amount of time.
- Michael
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.
>
> Tom
.
- References:
- 11 data compression programs compared
- From: Sportman
- Re: 11 data compression programs compared
- From: tomstdenis
- 11 data compression programs compared
- Prev by Date: Re: PAQ7 released
- Next by Date: Re: 11 data compression programs compared
- Previous by thread: Re: 11 data compression programs compared
- Next by thread: Re: 11 data compression programs compared
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|