>Now I just tried the [quick start] 172 KB file only on ultra and it took it to 144 KB.
Okay. I did the same. I also archived that .pdf file also. The .zip file was 148 KB, which is 4 KB larger that the .7z file. The author says that 7zX will typically save 2-10% more than conventional zip compression. These number bear out that claim.
>There was no difference in size from ultra to normal 144 KB. It appears that it's >the same no matter what setting.
Those settings DO make a difference with larger files, especially, in my experience, with Excel documents and .tiff files. Your mileage may vary.
So, allow me to tally: the application apparently did not crash on you; you tested it on one file; it did exactly what it claimed to do, which is compress files; and, for this, you gave it 1 star? I am confused.
Existing users, log in. New users, create a free account. Lost password?
Huh? - FSCALC
>Now I just tried the [quick start] 172 KB file only on ultra and it took it to 144 KB.Okay. I did the same. I also archived that .pdf file also. The .zip file was 148 KB, which is 4 KB larger that the .7z file. The author says that 7zX will typically save 2-10% more than conventional zip compression. These number bear out that claim.
>There was no difference in size from ultra to normal 144 KB. It appears that it's >the same no matter what setting.
Those settings DO make a difference with larger files, especially, in my experience, with Excel documents and .tiff files. Your mileage may vary.
So, allow me to tally: the application apparently did not crash on you; you tested it on one file; it did exactly what it claimed to do, which is compress files; and, for this, you gave it 1 star? I am confused.
Reply to This
Friday, March 14 2008 @ 06:03 PM PDT