# Winrar-->increase Compression



## UnD3R0aTh (Apr 25, 2007)

how can i increase compression ratio in winrar?
is there a good alternative to winrar that can achieve more compression ?
my friend told me about KGB archiver but it takes a very very long and it eats my RAM
and really im not lookin for that kinda compression "700mb in 2mb" u know what they say..im looking for a good compression ratio to compress ISO images and other files

thanx in dvance​


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

If you use maximum compression in WinRAR, that's about as good as it gets. You may find another product that will compress a couple of percent more, but the difference will not be significant.

Many files, including many ISO images, are already compressed binary data, and simply won't compress any more.


----------



## UnD3R0aTh (Apr 25, 2007)

JohnWill said:


> If you use maximum compression in WinRAR, that's about as good as it gets. You may find another product that will compress a couple of percent more, but the difference will not be significant.
> 
> Many files, including many ISO images, are already compressed binary data, and simply won't compress any more.


oh yeah? so pls tell me why some archives have 93% compression ratio and others have only 23% compression ratio "u can find that when u right click an archive---> Archive tab"

and why i have an ISO image compressed in 70mb archive and decompressed to 250MB

?????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????????????​


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

Oh Yeah? What is this, a challenge?  

The plain fact is that some files compress more than others. For instance, Excel data files compress a great deal, and text files compress pretty well too. OTOH, JPG, GIF, or MP3 files are already compressed, and no further compression will be possible, or at least it'll be in the 1-2% range.

Since you don't seem to believe my explanation, feel free to solicit other reasons. When the smoke clears, you'll doubtless see the light.


----------



## UnD3R0aTh (Apr 25, 2007)

JohnWill said:


> Oh Yeah? What is this, a challenge?
> 
> The plain fact is that some files compress more than others. For instance, Excel data files compress a great deal, and text files compress pretty well too. OTOH, JPG, GIF, or MP3 files are already compressed, and no further compression will be possible, or at least it'll be in the 1-2% range.
> 
> Since you don't seem to believe my explanation, feel free to solicit other reasons. When the smoke clears, you'll doubtless see the light.


first of all, this is not what i meant.. im sorry . secondly, have u ever heard about KGB archiver or soundslimmer? those 2 can compress what u said already compressed about 
thou i know there already compressed formats but the thing ur missing is that the world is evolving . what couldnt be compressd in the past now could. For instance, soundslimmer compresses mp3s "already compressed" with 15-30% compression ratio, no manipulating in the bitrate or anything "they call it on their website the coming revolution in mp3s world"
u might be saying now..hmm wtf so if u know all that why did u make that post? well the answer is im asking about WINRAR coz some certain ppl can archive mp3's ISO images or anything with a very good compression ratio using this damned thing. certainly, those guyz didnt come from mars. thanx anyway ​


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

There are really none better than RAR. As mentioned, you may get a couple percentage points more with 7-zip, GCA, KGB, PEA, IMP, or SQX ("Squeez", which is what I use), but the differences are small. It really depends what you are compressing and what algorithms are used. Text files, for example, can be compressed to a surprizing degree. And ISO's containing text files and uncompressed media can also be compressed a lot more than ones containing already compressed items like mp3's or other archives.

And it depends to some degree how much RAM you have available.

www.7zip.org
http://www.speedproject.de/enu/squeez/index.html


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

It's easy to write glowing reviews of your own product on your website, it's much harder to back them up with performance.


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

I did look at SoundSlimmer, but they're descriptions are a bit short on facts and long on claimed compression.  I'm not willing to spend the time to figure out if they're full of it.


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

I'm currently compressing 200mb of MP3 files randomly selected using WinRAR and KGB Archiver, both at their maximum settings.

One thing is CLEAR! KGB Archiver is SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW! :down: WinRAR finished in about a minute, and the current completion estimate for KGB is 3:25:00!  No way I'm going to wait for that, that's not what I call a practical solution to a problem in these days of terabyte disks and broadband Internet access. It's compressing at less than a megabyte a minute, that's absurd! BTW, this is an AMD dual-core system with 2gigs of memory, so it's not because of the hardware limitations... 

So far, the projected archive size of the KGB archive is 196mb, the same as the size I got for the WinRAR compression. Put that one in the LOSS column.


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

Time has been the problem with any compressors I've tried that claim extravagant results. For a few percent, it's not worth waiting all day.


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

I gave up here, it appears that it might be able to compress 200mb about 1% more than WinRAR if I was REALLY patient.


----------



## UnD3R0aTh (Apr 25, 2007)

JohnWill said:


> It's easy to write glowing reviews of your own product on your website, it's much harder to back them up with performance.


well i spent that time for ya and 100% the application does what they say :up: its not a scam or anything ..works with VBR and everything..wanna see for yourself? compress those 200mb with it and you'll doubtless see the light ​


----------



## UnD3R0aTh (Apr 25, 2007)

Elvandil said:


> There are really none better than RAR. As mentioned, you may get a couple percentage points more with 7-zip, GCA, KGB, PEA, IMP, or SQX ("Squeez", which is what I use), but the differences are small. It really depends what you are compressing and what algorithms are used. Text files, for example, can be compressed to a surprizing degree. And ISO's containing text files and uncompressed media can also be compressed a lot more than ones containing already compressed items like mp3's or other archives.
> 
> And it depends to some degree how much RAM you have available.
> 
> ...


thanx for squeez ill give it a shot


----------

