Comments on: Best archiver, even better than 7zip and UHARC

By: Keshav

Keshav — Tue, 17 May 2011 11:37:50 +0000

Download WinUha, select compression method PPM text optimized and then compare.

By: Kahm N. Since

Kahm N. Since — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:32:19 +0000

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.

By: G

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 08:21:38 +0000

@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… :)

By: Kahm N. Since

Kahm N. Since — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 02:56:11 +0000

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.

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 03:56:59 +0000

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.

By: omegaron

omegaron — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 05:51:11 +0000

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

By: MN

MN — Tue, 26 May 2009 07:50:09 +0000

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/