There were different ways to view WinRAR’s options.
#VSDC INSTRUCTION .PDF PLUS#
That section discusses additional WinRAR features (e.g., recovery record) and concludes that, for my purposes, the best results came from a combination of Borg’s lz4 algorithm plus WinRAR’s Fast setting. The last section of this post turns to a study of WinRAR compression of files produced by the Borg deduplicating program. It appeared that WinRAR’s creators should review the program’s calibration – and perhaps boil the six compression levels down to four (e.g., Best, Normal, Fastest, and Store) – so as to establish real and useful differences among the available settings. In short, there were some notable irregularities in the effectiveness of WinRAR compression. Media (i.e., video, audio, image) files generally achieved only 1-2% additional compression from Fast rather than Fastest compression. eml) could benefit from those higher settings to a lesser degree. Files that were mostly but not entirely text (e.g.
Pure text files were the primary exception: higher settings could produce as much as roughly 1% of additional (though potentially very much slower) compression. This post attempts to answer that question.Īs detailed below, my study of a number of common Windows filetypes yielded the conclusion that there was virtually no benefit from using any WinRAR compression setting more intensive than Fast. I had been using WinRAR for some time but aside from one brief prior inquiry, I had not made any serious effort to figure out which WinRAR settings produced the best results for my purposes.
#VSDC INSTRUCTION .PDF WINDOWS 10#
I was using WinRAR 6.11 圆4 on a Windows 10 Pro system with an Intel Core i7-4790 CPU and 32GB DDR3 RAM.
0 kommentar(er)
