I know for a fact .tar.xz offers the best compression rate for my use case.
Why would you use any of them when zip exists?
pastermil@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
lmaydev@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Then you aren’t an average user.
msage@programming.dev 1 year ago
It also takes forever to pack.
I ran benchmarks for syslog compression/decompression, and ended up using plzip, which used lzma, just because it was the fastest decompression while still having only marginally worse ratio.
But it still takes forever to pack.
Patch@feddit.uk 1 year ago
Zip has a worse compression ratio than 7z, and that’s a disadvantage for the average user (for example, a user with an email attachment size limit that they need to stay under).
If Windows natively supports one of the better alternatives, there’s no reason to keep using zip. It’s a 30 year old format, and it’s something that regular users will happily just go with whatever’s default.
BombOmOm@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Not only does Zip have a worse compression ratio than 7z, but it even takes longer to make the zip due to the fact the windows zip program is single threaded.