Ew, WinRAR.
.tar.xz
Submitted 1 year ago by hmmm@sh.itjust.works to animemes@ani.social
https://i.imgur.com/jCUnqvN.jpeg
Comments
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Pregnenolone@lemmy.world 1 year ago
WinRAR got me through some hard times. She might be filthy, but she did the job
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 1 year ago
She’s proprietary nagware, and 7-Zip is better in every way.
GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I use Windows in-built extract
bruhduh@lemmy.world 1 year ago
hmmm@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
MrLLM@ani.social 1 year ago
OP’s computer
superkret@feddit.org 1 year ago
Is this lossless?
alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
What if it’s on a BTRFS --compress-force=zstd:22 compressed subvolume?
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
you can’t compress most media files again, they don’t get smaller that way as they’re already compressed. you can’t compress files again, that’s against Shannon Information theory.
lars@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
Do Windows people often see
.xzs? Does anyone?
abfarid@startrek.website 1 year ago
No way media compressed 5x.
Anafabula@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
Maybe they store images as uncompressed .bmp for some reason
Lichtblitz@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
bmp should not compress more than other media files. jpeg, png, etc. can compress so much because they are lossy
hmmm@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Why are you surpried? It’s actually possible. You just need so much computing power like around 64 GB ram and High End CPU to Pack and Unpack both.
abfarid@startrek.website 1 year ago
Because modern media formats are already compressed by default and have very little redundancy in them.
reev@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Was thinking the same thing