Can you include .3MF to the list of re-compressible formats?

[TBGBe]

And what about the BH (blackhole) and LHA support.

Those have been supported since very early days - I hope you are not suggesting that they are removed.

By the way - there is something wrong with the poll, not veryone can vote on it.
I do use BH occasionally e.g. it is excellent for packing multiple jpegs (introduces less overhead than the other formats except CAB, but is faster than CAB).

[plouf]

not none

i use lha (lzh) a lot and people involved with amigaos use it heavily (i know a lot ppl using PA in windows for compatibility)
just don’t forget that not aevery user uses the forum

[niol]

Hi you all,

The 1st time I learnt about UHA was when I got a download which was packed in “.ace” format… Then after I decompressed it, I saw a file extension ended with “.UHA” feeling puzzled wondering what type of file that was. Afterwards, I clicked on a setup-like exe, and it started to decompress out a folder. & I was shocked N amazed as I checked out the folder size… I realised that it was the “.UHA” format that really compressed the files with such a high compressibility…! So, here I searched and went across this forum and thanks to you all I learnt the homepage of the programme winUHA…

:)

I’m gonna compare it with those formats I’ve been using…

Have a nice day…!

[niol]

Since I learnt a bout many other compression formats, usage of “zip” or “winzip” had become only one possibility in which I only dcompress zip and recompress the contents into other formats… Why? Say, a 1000 similar graphix filters can be compressed up to several Mb in “zip” format while less than 700 kb for most other formats like ace, rar, cab, 7z… Isn’t it kinda waste of time to download for everyone while it doesn’t save too much time on the compression (well, yeap cab is kinda slow, but I prefer to wait for that to use “zip” when it does make a big change in size)?

Oh, no, reading on… :eek: I’m feeling kinda sad… hope the bad situation is just temporary…

May those nice formats last long… well at least among experienced users… :o

[SqueezeTheFun]

This post is deleted!

[TBGBe]

Well, there may be a difficulty support UHA format in PA.
The compression format is based on UHARC.

1. It is still beta
2. the license for (UHARC 0.4) states
   " The current beta version may be used FOR TESTING AND EVALUATION ONLY. "

So I guess support cannot be included in a commercial product, which PA is.

[deipotent]

While it may have high compression, what’s the speed of compression like ?

[TBGBe]

According to the (French) link in sig of SqueezeTheFun
http://geeksasylum.free.fr/articles/logiciels/comparatif_7zip_winace_winrar_winuha/part01.htm

UHA format is VERY slow (at least double the time for 7z format).

[SqueezeTheFun]

@TBGBe:

According to the (French) link in sig of SqueezeTheFun
http://geeksasylum.free.fr/articles/logiciels/comparatif_7zip_winace_winrar_winuha/part01.htm

UHA format is VERY slow (at least double the time for 7z format).

yeah I’m going to be removing that from my sig as the compression times are comparable on a P4 3.0GHz HT machine. silly french.

[niol]

Hi all,
Huh, I just lost my previous typing the window was torn down automatically.
Ok back to the points I want to say.
1. it’s not that slow in my case, probably the settings are different. :cool: Contrastly, it’s just about that slow as 7z when compared to winrar, winace, and zip. :rolleyes: My settings are:
i. Pt 4 3.0GHz E
ii. 1 Gb DDR 400
iiii. Gigabyte GT 2004 mainboard
iv. olde HD like 20Gb seagate / Western Digital (around year 2000)
v. winUHA 2 (v Dec 2003 with uharc 0.4) [compression setting = /= idle, but high]
vi. OS = winXP SP2 (fully updated)
In my case, winUHA 2 (v Dec 2003) runs well even with the setting “real time”, the only drawback of winUHA 2 is that it only supports subdirectory up to 1 only, so for more directory support, I use UHARC GUI v2.0. ;)
I’ve tried these programmes with uharc 0.6, they work well with this newer version of UHA so far in my instances. But, as some pages have said, the compression rate of uharc 0.6 is just only “slightly” improved. In my instances, only about a few hundred bytes smaller… for an approximately 10mb file resulted. Nevertheless, don’t expect uharc 0.4 engined GUIs can decompress UHA files done by uharc 0.6 engine. It failed in my experiences so far. :confused:

2. I think PA can try to make some free beta trial version with UHA though, or even supports its development if the conditions are good. On the other hand, I hope UHA v1 will emerge soon before its potential time vanishes. PA 7z is better in compression rate than that in the freeware 7-Zip File Manager, but still obviously less (in a general sense) than uharc 0.4 engined GUIs. Winrar is clever enough to add decompression support to 7z in its latest versions… ;)

3. The following is just my own personal preference. Presently, almost half of my new files are stored as UHA files, some in 7z, ace, rar, rk and cab, a few in zip or else. Among these format, the real time-killer is rk with max compression. About 2-3 mins for about 1 Mb! 25-30 mins for 7-8 Mb! Sometimes, I wonder why I had patience to test that out by myself! :o & :confused:

4. WinUHA 2 has a nice shell extension for right-click but does’t support subdirectory more than than 1! UHARC GUI v2.0 does support multi directories but has no shell extension for right-click. Honestly, I do wish both authors work together to get the best out of their uharc GUIs. There’re other GUIs, but I don’t know even a littlle to say a thing here. :rolleyes:

[TBGBe]

I think PA can try to make some free beta trial version with UHA though

As I said earlier, unless a license to use the UHA format (the compression / decompression “engine”) can be obtained then I don’t think it can be incorporated into PA.

This may mean waiting for the end of the UHA “Beta”, which has been going on for some years already.

Also, as you said - the support of different versions (backward compatibility) is a big problem.

Spywolf/Ivan tend not to comment either way on this type of wish (of course). I remember a similar thread about including 7zip format (also beta) - so we’ll have to wait and see.

[niol]

Hi all,

1. I don’t mean to be rude. :o But, I feel like to clarify something. Actually, the previous example is a “forward compatibility” problem , but it’s also true that “backward compatibility” is also a problem for the uharc-engined GUI winUHA 2 Dec 2003 (when uharc 0.6 replacing uharc 0.4 in a copy of winUHA). (I’ve not found a GUI for uharc 0.6 yet.) I definitely have no idea where the problem might have arised from. It was just a small test only. Don’t take it too seriously. It doesn’t prove too much. All that it means is that I can use such replacements to compress and decompress UHA files according to their corresponding engines used.
2. So, let’s C if uharc can get to non-beta v. 1 while proven exerting backward compatibility! Anyway, wish plugins only for decompression wouldn’t be a big problem. :rolleyes:

It was a nice discussion. :)

Nice days…

Respects,

Niol

[TBGBe]

Disclaimer : I have not tried any of the UHA utilities.

I’ve not found a GUI for uharc 0.6 yet.) I definitely have no idea where the problem might have arised from. It was just a small test only.

My understanding is that an archive compressed with UHA 0.4(beta) cannot be decompressed with UHA(0.6). This is what I meant by backward compatility.

So if PA were to incorporate UHA 0.6 (beta) they would have “bug reports” relating to UHA 0.4(beta). This is not acceptable for a commercial program.

wish plugins only for decompression wouldn’t be a big problem.

But it would be a problem as I mentioned before (0.4 <=>0.6).
PowerArchiver is a commercial product they cannot say “use at your own risk”.