<![CDATA[Support for RK and PAQ archives.]]>read this for paq
link for winrk archiver
archiver/compression test and comparison

someone recommended these formats for compression and from teh tests i can see why. i would find it very useful if PA could support them, sorry i dont have more info about the formats tho.

]]>https://forums.powerarchiver.com/topic/1104/support-for-rk-and-paq-archivesRSS for NodeSun, 09 Aug 2026 00:30:22 GMTThu, 18 Aug 2005 03:56:32 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to Support for RK and PAQ archives. on Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:20:14 GMT]]>if we are on about formats how about par

and not forgetting uha which in tests is better than 7zip

]]>https://forums.powerarchiver.com/post/9585https://forums.powerarchiver.com/post/9585Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:20:14 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Support for RK and PAQ archives. on Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:07:11 GMT]]>@Malcolm:

… we do not yet provide a way for others to implement RK archive support. :)
…
The PAQ algorithms have great potential, but need more speed, format stability and usability.

Malcolm

I am not saying they are “bad” only that, as far as the original question is concerned (support within PowerArchiver) the answer is that neither is possible at present.

]]>https://forums.powerarchiver.com/post/9567https://forums.powerarchiver.com/post/9567Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:07:11 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Support for RK and PAQ archives. on Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:06:09 GMT]]>@TBGBe:

regarding WinRk - according to their forum, they do not even allow uncompressing by other utilities (never mind compressing)!

A more accurate way of saying that is that we do not yet provide a way for others to implement RK archive support. :)
This may change in the future, however our main focus at present is on providing the best archiver we can. (As a hint, WinRK 3 should provide some interesting developments in this regard…)

@TBGBe:

regarding PAQ - so many variants (optimisations) which are incompatible, this is really a format just for experimentation.

This is part of the reason we developed PWCM (and are currently developing the FPW family of codecs). The PAQ algorithms have great potential, but need more speed, format stability and usability.

Malcolm

]]>https://forums.powerarchiver.com/post/9564https://forums.powerarchiver.com/post/9564Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:06:09 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Support for RK and PAQ archives. on Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:31:13 GMT]]>My thoughts:
Neither format is “free” for inclusion in other compression utilities. There is a license required for implementation (even though PAQ source is GPL).

Note:
regarding WinRk - according to their forum, they do not even allow uncompressing by other utilities (never mind compressing)!

regarding PAQ - so many variants (optimisations) which are incompatible, this is really a format just for experimentation.

]]>https://forums.powerarchiver.com/post/9540https://forums.powerarchiver.com/post/9540Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:31:13 GMT