Review of Windows Archivers
Stephen last edited by
I found this while browsing OSNEWS
PowerArchiver doesn’t seem to do so well, but according to the chart they tested PA using Seven zip compression. I imagine it would have been better if zip were used. Later on in the review it says that even at zip compresion PA is slow. I find this hard to understand. I find PA quite speedy and I don’t have a top end computer. Mind you I rarely have files over a gig in size to archive so unless one is archiving 1gb+ files 24/7 I can’t imagine many people would find PowerArchiver slow.
heh, interesting… Only thing I dont understand was why would PA have larger 7zip file? Also, why would 7zip create same size file as WR? Whenever I tested, there was quite an nice difference towards 7zip… Maybe files tested could not have been compressed a whole lot more (already compressed files), which would explain a lot…
I briefly tested PA’s zip and it was fine… when files were not cached slightly faster than WR, when they were cached (after 5-6 compressions) slightly slower. All in all, differences were minimal both ways.
I would suppose they could have tried Deflate64 option in PA, which is certainly slower… but then again WR doesnt have that option at all, as well as pretty basic total zip support.
Obviously author slightly favored his favorite app :-), but PA review was pretty decent, I wish more was explained on what and how was tested as I am pretty sure that PA’s zip engine is darn nice.
p.s. lets not turn this into argument over who has this or that, or thread will be closed. I always hated PA vs the world arguments because they attracted casual visitors with no interest in PA. Thanks!
klumy last edited by
the review is OK I think. The only thing which I am missing, is that there are no infos about the version numbers and how they make the comrpession test
old and closed.