Re: 11 data compression programs compared
- From: "d70user" <d70fanclub@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Dec 2005 10:17:12 -0800
Phil Carmody wrote:
> "Sportman" <sportman@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > 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 datasets are a bit weird. Almost everything was stuff that
> was already compressed to some extent.
>
> The compression efficiency rating is also a bit bogus. The speed
> of the medium over which you want to transmit the data, the
> decompression speed and the number of times you expect to transmit
> the data should all be factored into such efficiency measuraments.
>
> The choice of compression options for each compressor was again a
> bit bizarre. gzip -1 really isn't the best way to show off gzip.
>
>
> Phil
> --
> What is it: is man only a blunder of God, or God only a blunder of man?
> -- Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), The Twilight of the Gods
I'm not sure if you guys acutally RTFA... cos it's so darn clear that
the article is split to multiple parts for easy digestion. And the
current 'version' is the dataset where all the compressors are set to
their fastest mode!
There has to be a way to try and attempt to benchmark (so to speak) all
of them on an equal terms... and this way, it would be the
fastest/best/default settings....
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 11 data compression programs compared
- From: Willem
- Re: 11 data compression programs compared
- From: Phil Carmody
- Re: 11 data compression programs compared
- References:
- 11 data compression programs compared
- From: Sportman
- Re: 11 data compression programs compared
- From: Phil Carmody
- 11 data compression programs compared
- Prev by Date: Re: Zipping files to Mac
- Next by Date: Method of finding a minimal string giving a range of substrings
- Previous by thread: Re: 11 data compression programs compared
- Next by thread: Re: 11 data compression programs compared
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|