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 benchmark ofcourse cannot impress any data compression
enthusiast.

But it did served the purpose of educating the masses (or atleast many
people) about options other than "zip". Thatz an accomplishment in
itself.

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

.

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)