Obviously you are right, as Blink is not intended to compress in ratio,
as in contrary, it is designed in speed.
Probably, the speed is not very important for people (they prefer good
compression), but for me it is, so, Blink is optimized for speed. If it were
designed for compression, the table, will compare it with RAR, Quantum, ...
and other archives; but in speed terms, I intended to compare them with
archivers which has a good speed.
>These results are bogus, because they do not compare the same settings on
>all the archivers. You optimized some of the archivers for speed, and
>some of them for space. Not a very fair comparison. For instance, arj
>should have had a -jm instead of -jm4 (4 is fastest, but not tightest)
>Pkzip should have used an -ex for tightest compression, not a -es. These
>are the two that jumped out at me right away. I've not checked thoroughly
>the rest of the results, but I'd wager that similar foobars were done with
>the other archivers. In my opinion, time of packing/unpacking is not an
>issue, since processors get faster all the time, if it takes a couple
>extra seconds to compress a file, I'm happy, as long as I get the best
>possible compression out of the program. Perhaps you should perform these
>tests again, except this time try using comparable switches on each
>archiver. After that, I'll take your results as something useful. Until
>then, it's just a bunch of useless numbers.
>
>To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
>unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
>Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
>
>
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
