|
|
Post by Pliskin on Oct 2, 2005 9:39:11 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by -={DOGG}=- on Oct 2, 2005 19:41:37 GMT 10
Excellent thanks heaps for letting me know  I'm 95% done with WinRK so i'll check it out after the next update. |
|
|
|
Post by Pliskin on Oct 6, 2005 9:32:28 GMT 10
What do you think of WinRK now that we are at version 2.1.6?
Do you find it to be 100% stable now?
|
|
|
|
Post by -={DOGG}=- on Oct 6, 2005 15:25:50 GMT 10
What do you think of WinRK now that we are at version 2.1.6? Do you find it to be 100% stable now? Yep, check the website i've updated with both WinRK and BeeGUI. WinRK was very stable. It ran for almost a week on just 1 algorithm. Check the MZsoftware forums for my thread titled "2.1.6 Diagnosis" |
|
|
|
Post by Werner Bergmans on Oct 6, 2005 21:08:14 GMT 10
Good update!. And indeed WinRK is slow, but the in PWCM-mode it's simply the best. What kind of computer do you use as you had to let it run for a whole week?.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pliskin on Oct 7, 2005 5:11:17 GMT 10
Interesting results!
WinRK defeated by UHARC in the TXT (F) test and by both Squeez and SBC in the WAV test. WinUDA still doing really well in the rankings.
TXT (F)
WinRK (PWCM) 1,185,975
UHARC (PPM) 1,164,663
WAV
WinRK (PWCM) 633,317,776
Squeez 627,685,387
SBC 587,283,745 ***
|
|
|
|
Post by -={DOGG}=- on Oct 7, 2005 9:35:34 GMT 10
Good update!. And indeed WinRK is slow, but the in PWCM-mode it's simply the best. What kind of computer do you use as you had to let it run for a whole week?. That particular test was compressing roms (1.76 gigs)under PWCM. I did pause it from time to time. I have an Athlon XP 2600+ (Thoroughbred B core). It's default is 166x12.5 (2083mhz) but i run it at 202x11 (2222mhz). Interesting results! WinRK defeated by UHARC in the TXT (F) test and by both Squeez and SBC in the WAV test. WinUDA still doing really well in the rankings. TXT (F) WinRK (PWCM) 1,185,975 UHARC (PPM) 1,164,663 WAV WinRK (PWCM) 633,317,776 Squeez 627,685,387 SBC 587,283,745 *** I just done a test with the text dictionary off in PWCM on txtf. 1,180,448 bytes. As for the wav, perhaps those algorithms can detect a .wav and compress it in a special way whereas winrk treats it normally? |
|
|
|
Post by Pliskin on Oct 7, 2005 11:06:30 GMT 10
That may well be true, because WinRK is useless at compressing SCRIBBLE.wav.
|
|
|
|
Post by -={DOGG}=- on Oct 7, 2005 12:30:54 GMT 10
I've basically just confirmed this. I'm testing the new Squeez 5. Decided to test the old SQX 1.1 before i do 2.0. I just compressed my wav test at a rate of 5-8 megs/sec. I set it to the max dictionary size of 4 megs but squeez tells me the archive has a dictionary size of 32K.
So yeah i think it compresses using a specialised algorithm and then stores it in the archive in 32K chunks.
BTW old Squeeze = 627,685,387
new Squeez (still 1.1 not 2.0 algorithm) = 627,703,400
|
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm on Oct 21, 2005 16:02:59 GMT 10
As for the wav, perhaps those algorithms can detect a .wav and compress it in a special way whereas winrk treats it normally? WinRK has an audio specific codec (which is why all the modes get almost identical results). One thing you may want to try is increasing the audio model order to 255 or similar to get the max compression from WinRK. Malcolm |
|
|
|
Post by -={DOGG}=- on Oct 22, 2005 21:41:42 GMT 10
As for the wav, perhaps those algorithms can detect a .wav and compress it in a special way whereas winrk treats it normally? WinRK has an audio specific codec (which is why all the modes get almost identical results). One thing you may want to try is increasing the audio model order to 255 or similar to get the max compression from WinRK. Malcolm Thanks for the suggestion. I'll give it a go in the next version. |
|
|
|
Post by Pliskin on Jan 10, 2006 23:49:27 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by -={DOGG}=- on Jan 11, 2006 11:13:29 GMT 10
thanks
|
|
