Ew, WinRAR.
.tar.xz
Submitted 1 month ago by hmmm@sh.itjust.works to animemes@ani.social
https://i.imgur.com/jCUnqvN.jpeg
Comments
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Pregnenolone@lemmy.world 1 month ago
WinRAR got me through some hard times. She might be filthy, but she did the job
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 1 month ago
She’s proprietary nagware, and 7-Zip is better in every way.
GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I use Windows in-built extract
bruhduh@lemmy.world 1 month ago
hmmm@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
MrLLM@ani.social 1 month ago
OP’s computer
superkret@feddit.org 1 month ago
Is this lossless?
alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
What if it’s on a BTRFS --compress-force=zstd:22 compressed subvolume?
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 month 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 month ago
Do Windows people often see
.xzs? Does anyone?
abfarid@startrek.website 1 month ago
No way media compressed 5x.
Anafabula@discuss.tchncs.de 1 month ago
Maybe they store images as uncompressed .bmp for some reason
Lichtblitz@discuss.tchncs.de 1 month 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 month 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 month ago
Because modern media formats are already compressed by default and have very little redundancy in them.
reev@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Was thinking the same thing