7-Zip for Windows can now use more than 64 CPU threads for compression

Post by sidewndr46 » Thu, Jul 10, 2025, 4:59 PM UTC

martinald wrote: post #111

sidewndr46 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same thing with "WAV" files. There's at least 3 popular formats for the audio data out there.

More 'useful' one is webp. It has both a lossy and lossless compression algorithm, which have very different strengths and weaknesses. I think nearly every device supports reading both, but so many 'image optimization' libraries and packages don't - often just doing everything as lossy when it could be lossless (icons and what not).

Post by ars » Thu, Jul 10, 2025, 8:50 PM UTC

sltkr wrote: post #209

ars wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was an impressive result, so I tried it on a huge email inbox. uncompressed: 1512662084 xz --extreme -9: 508431572 12:47 zstd --ultra -21: 508432560 12:44 (-22 ran out of memory.) So at least by me zstd was identical to xz almost to the byte and the second.

It does really vary based on the data set. If the email data is mostly text with markup (like HTML/XML), you might want to try bzip3 too. It's also possible that a large part of your email is actually already-compressed binary data (like PDFs and images) possibly encoded in base-64. In that case it's likely that all tools are pretty good at compressing the text and headers, but can do little to compress the attachmen…

    bzip3 -b511: 580771424  8:51

Post by sixothree » Fri, Jul 11, 2025, 12:16 AM UTC

malfist wrote: post #119

Night_Thastus wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

7-zip is the de-facto tool on Windows and has been for a long time. It's more than fast and compressed enough for 99% of peoples use cases. It's not going anywhere anytime soon. The more likely thing to eat into its relevance is now that Windows has built-in basic support for zipping/unzipping EDIT: other formats*, which relegates 7-zip to more niche uses.

Windows has had built in zip/unzip since vista. 7zip is far superior (and the install base proves that)

Post by tobinc » Fri, Jul 11, 2025, 6:10 PM UTC

ltbarcly3 wrote: post #203

tobinc wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 1% speed improvement for 1% of 7zip users is several times more productive than your comment.

This will not deliver your stated threshold.

Post by ltbarcly3 » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 4:39 AM UTC

michaelcampbell wrote: post #218

ltbarcly3 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Betamax wasn't better. This is just a meme. Half the internet is tar.xz. tar.zstd will probably replace that.

Betamax was objectively better in many categories; that it doesn't fit your narrative is now another one. It was smaller, had better picture AND audio quality, and a better head to tape ratio. It was also proprietary and stored less, which were 2 causes of it losing to VHS. .zstd may END UP being a standard, or it may not, but sheer technical merit is not enough to guarantee it.