KGB Archiver, A flop?
KGB Archiver, A flop?
Has anyone tried KGB Archiver?
I tried it and was extremely dissapointed.
With a text file at 3.1 MB it took 4 minutes and 4 seconds to compress, the result was a 357.2 KB file.
I compared the result with WinRar, it took.... well, not sure, less then a second I think, went too fast to time. Result was a 212 KB file.
Website is here http://kgbarchiver.sourceforge.net/
It says on the site it is the best ultimate archiver in the world.
Ohh please!!!
I tried it and was extremely dissapointed.
With a text file at 3.1 MB it took 4 minutes and 4 seconds to compress, the result was a 357.2 KB file.
I compared the result with WinRar, it took.... well, not sure, less then a second I think, went too fast to time. Result was a 212 KB file.
Website is here http://kgbarchiver.sourceforge.net/
It says on the site it is the best ultimate archiver in the world.
Ohh please!!!
I Stepped On A Cornflake!!! Now I'm A Cereal Killer!
- NoahPhense
- Addict

- Posts: 1999
- Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2003 8:30 pm
- Location: North Florida
Re: KGB Archiver, A flop?
I don't agree with their speed testing. But this is what makes themGeoTrail wrote:Has anyone tried KGB Archiver?
I tried it and was extremely dissapointed.
With a text file at 3.1 MB it took 4 minutes and 4 seconds to compress, the result was a 357.2 KB file.
I compared the result with WinRar, it took.... well, not sure, less then a second I think, went too fast to time. Result was a 212 KB file.
Website is here http://kgbarchiver.sourceforge.net/
It says on the site it is the best ultimate archiver in the world.
Ohh please!!!
slower: AES-256
Not bad actually .. cause AES really bloats things up.
I'll stick with my winrar ..
- np
-
dracflamloc
- Addict

- Posts: 1648
- Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2004 3:52 pm
- Contact:
Hmmm sounds strange.thefool wrote:Geotrail; i tested this with a few different files. A MP3 file, a text file and an exe file.
KGB won over winrar maximum all the time; but it wasnt worth for the time..
Did you change any settings in it? Remember KGB archiver is auto set to max compression I think, and WinRAR isn't.
I Stepped On A Cornflake!!! Now I'm A Cereal Killer!
I just tried an mpg file at 1.3 MB. WinRAR resulted in 1.06 MB and KGS archiver ended at 1.02 MB. Not a big difference, but it's strange, text files are easier to compress.
But still, in my mind, WinRAR beats it flat, even though it doesn't compress as well on some files, it is SOOOO muucchhhh faster
But still, in my mind, WinRAR beats it flat, even though it doesn't compress as well on some files, it is SOOOO muucchhhh faster
I Stepped On A Cornflake!!! Now I'm A Cereal Killer!
- Fluid Byte
- Addict

- Posts: 2336
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:41 am
- Location: Berlin, Germany
Yes! It's really a flop compared to WinRAR wich is my personal non+ultra. Sure, KGB gets higher compression rates most of the time but what price for? Right! Time!Has anyone tried KGB Archiver?
Honestly, it's not worth the hassle...
Windows 10 Pro, 64-Bit / Whose Hoff is it anyway?
- Joakim Christiansen
- Addict

- Posts: 2452
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 4:12 pm
- Location: Norway
- Contact:
-
gnozal
- PureBasic Expert

- Posts: 4229
- Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 8:27 am
- Location: Strasbourg / France
- Contact:
Yes, WinRAR is great, and 7-ZIP a good freeware alternative.GeoTrail wrote:But still, in my mind, WinRAR beats it flat, even though it doesn't compress as well on some files, it is SOOOO muucchhhh faster
For free libraries and tools, visit my web site (also home of jaPBe V3 and PureFORM).
Nothing beats tar and companions^^ And you can use tar to write to tape^^(Thats what it actually was made for). And the best thing of all you can use it modular, you can for example pipe output directly through gunzip that means everything happens on the fly. You can for example calculate a very large PI and while calculating compress it using only a pipe and gunzip.
Visit www.sceneproject.org


