Best archiver, even better than 7zip and UHARC

17 Responses to “Best archiver, even better than 7zip and UHARC”

• Keshav May 17, 2011 at 7:37 pm

  Download WinUha, select compression method PPM text optimized and then compare.
• Kahm N. Since January 13, 2011 at 1:32 am

  @G

  I don’t understand your first question; FreeARC and KGB are both archivers, so yes, they “do the same job.”

  As to your second question, the answer is yes. If you read the thread, you will note that I was replying to a user who related a Google search as though it proved the prevalence of archive corruption. My response was intended to demonstrate PRECISELY the point you’re making.

  I don’t use DURILCA. It takes too long; it is impractical. But KGB is also impractical.

  I will state again that FreeARC is the clear winner.
• G August 23, 2010 at 4:21 pm

  @Kahm N. Since
  I don’t want to take sides or anything, but…
  DURILCA may be faster, but does it do the same job as KGB?

  As for your second point, you do realize that the more famous you are, the more hits you’ll get, don’t you? I don’t mean nothing by it, but I’ve heard of KGB before, but I didn’t heard of DURLICA…
  And also, look at this:
  If I do a search for “zip corrupted archive” I get this
  About 943,000 results (0.25 seconds)
  So… Sh*t will happen to archives… :)
• Kahm N. Since July 24, 2010 at 10:56 am

  FreeARC WINS AGAIN. With version 0.666 it is at *least* twice as fast as previous versions and UTTERLY ANNIHILATES ALL other lossless archivers on compression to efficiency.

  Bottom line: for standard use archiving, FreeARC is the clear winner. For your SPECIFIC use, something else may work better (and be worth your TIME!) but it’s rare that anything I’ve used beats FreeARC, though it has happened. FreeARC wins hands-down in every category overall with Ultra compression.

  KGB sucks. This must have been this blogger’s first experience with anything other than WinZIP.
• Alex September 10, 2009 at 11:56 am

  For general purposes is better to use nanozip, faster than KGB and with better compression ratio, in some cases is not the best compressor (I mean, second or third place), but it compensates with speed.
• omegaron September 3, 2009 at 1:51 pm

  StuffIt: mp3 –> up to 80-75 %
  jpeg –> 70%
• MN May 26, 2009 at 3:50 pm

  KGB Archiver is very slow.
  If you want maximum compression for a reasonable time, it is better to use NanoZip
  My test of modern archivers (update May 2009):
  l1957.ru/freesoft/test-arkhivatorov/archiver-test/
• Kahm N. Since December 11, 2008 at 3:29 am

  \”Here are two typical entries in Google for it.\”

  So \”typical\” you had to scroll down the list of Google hits to find them, eh?

  The first hit you present is from a rival archiver\’s site (!) which says DURILCA is \”unacceptable [sic] slow\” – though KGB takes eight to nine times as long to compress and decompress as DURILCA takes!

  The second site you list mentions corrupted archives. Google says:

  Results 1 – 10 of about 615,000 for kgb corrupt archive. (0.24 seconds)

  Results 1 – 10 of about 23 for durilca corrupt archive. (0.24 seconds)

  Back to FreeARC (the first site you referenced). It stomps KGB into oblivion – unless you think that less than 5% size savings (with KGB) is worth your archiver taking more than FIFTY TIMES as long to compress, and more than TWO HUNDRED THIRTEEN times as long to decompress, your files!

  Back to DURILCA. It beats KGB on compresson to the extent that KGB beats FreeARC, compresses in an eighth of the time as KGB, and decompresses in ninth of the time.

  KGB sucks. Period.
• WinRAR vs 7Zip October 27, 2008 at 2:08 pm

  winzip is rocking……….
• omino di burro October 22, 2008 at 10:12 pm

  vi puzza il culo un po a tutti oh si fetate di merda puzzoni di culo merdosi a forma di cacca arrapata
• NASER October 21, 2008 at 3:44 am

  hi
  my name is naser.can u tell me how to compree any file using KGB Archiver?n can u send me the link of that software plz man.
• Merlin_Magii October 18, 2008 at 6:03 am

  Well, I will go with Raymond – I RARELY can take fault with his advice.
  Out of curiousity I googled Durilca (does it REALLY stand for ‘Dirty Useless Really Illusory Compressor/Archiver’ ?)

  Here are two typical entries in Google for it.

  freearc.org/Maximal-Practical-Compression.aspx

  corrupteddatarecovery.com/Repair/DURILCA-compressed-file-File-Repair-DUR-Data-Conversion.asp
• Kahm N. Since July 16, 2008 at 7:08 am

  KGB is actually one of the worst of the best. It takes forever. If you\’re willing to wait that long to compress / decompress your files, you might as well go with DURILCA; it\’s about ten times faster than KGB and gets better compression.
• vagel July 14, 2008 at 7:26 am

  this is a very good program but it need a very good PC :)
• Dave February 20, 2008 at 7:03 pm

  DJ,

  Don’t know as much about mac programs & how it operates as I do windows, but can you hit the print screen key on your keyboard, then open your image editor, paste the screen shot from the clipboard into your image editor & crop & save it?

  Perhaps you can do it that way.
  Dave
• DJ October 23, 2007 at 10:09 am

  Hello!

  I have old MAX files from a scansoft (Visioneer) scanner (back in 1998-99) that I would like to convert to jpeg files. I have the PaperProt Viewer, which allows me to see the MAX files. However, I am not allowed to right click when a MAX file is opened (and viweable), and when I try to “save” it, I have only two choices of file-type: MAX or anyfiles, and that leads nowhere.

  Please help.

  Thank you,
  DJ
• David February 19, 2007 at 1:57 am

  I got a Mac OSX, and all I can download for KGB archiver is a “.exe”, nothing I can use with a Mac.
  Can you telle me please how I can get a kgb archiver working on a Mac ?
  Thanx

  J’ai un mac OS X, et tout ce que je trouve, pour kgb archiver est en “.exe”, qui ne tourne pas sur Mac.
  Pouvez vous me dire ou je peux trouver un kgb archiver pour Mac ?
  Merci