PureBasic Forums - English

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!!!

GeoTrail 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!!!

I don't agree with their speed testing. But this is what makes them
slower: AES-256

Not bad actually .. cause AES really bloats things up.

I'll stick with my winrar ..

- np

tarballs for the win =)

But yea... using AES-256 is what increases the size and time, and actually thats a fairly impressive result considering.

Saying that using AES256 is the cause of this slow compression time can't be the reason, i use this algo and can compress a 40 mb file in 10/15 seconds, along with SHA-256 + Zlib compression.
The slowdown seems to come from elsewhere.

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..

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..

Hmmm sounds strange.
Did you change any settings in it? Remember KGB archiver is auto set to max compression I think, and WinRAR isn't.

KGB is set to "good". thats 3 steps from the maximum compression!

Hmm strange.
What can be causing that?
I mean, a text file it the easiest thing to compress.

no idea

i also tested with some very small text files and they all got smaller.

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

Has anyone tried KGB Archiver?

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!

Honestly, it's not worth the hassle...

Fluid Byte wrote:Honestly, it's not worth the hassle...

Did I hear someone mention Hass...elhoff?

Is Hasselhoff impregnating the dog in that picture?

Joakim Christiansen wrote:

Fluid Byte wrote:Honestly, it's not worth the hassle...

Did I hear someone mention Hass...elhoff?

Is Hasselhoff impregnating the dog in that picture?

Oh man, you just had to go there didn't you

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

Yes, WinRAR is great, and 7-ZIP a good freeware alternative.

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.