Raymond.CC Blog

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

this is a very good program but it need a very good PC :)

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.

http://freearc.org/Maximal-Practical-Compression.aspx

http://corrupteddatarecovery.com/Repair/DURILCA-compressed-file-File-Repair-DUR-Data-Conversion.asp

vi puzza il culo un po a tutti oh si fetate di merda puzzoni di culo merdosi a forma di cacca arrapata

\”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.

StuffIt: mp3 –> up to 80-75 %
jpeg –> 70%

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.

@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.