Ew, WinRAR.
.tar.xz
Submitted 2 months ago by hmmm@sh.itjust.works to animemes@ani.social
https://i.imgur.com/jCUnqvN.jpeg
Comments
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Pregnenolone@lemmy.world 2 months ago
WinRAR got me through some hard times. She might be filthy, but she did the job
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 2 months ago
She’s proprietary nagware, and 7-Zip is better in every way.
GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I use Windows in-built extract
bruhduh@lemmy.world 2 months ago
hmmm@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
MrLLM@ani.social 2 months ago
OP’s computer
superkret@feddit.org 2 months ago
Is this lossless?
alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
What if it’s on a BTRFS --compress-force=zstd:22 compressed subvolume?
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 2 months 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 2 months ago
Do Windows people often see
.xzs? Does anyone?
abfarid@startrek.website 2 months ago
No way media compressed 5x.
Anafabula@discuss.tchncs.de 2 months ago
Maybe they store images as uncompressed .bmp for some reason
Lichtblitz@discuss.tchncs.de 2 months 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 2 months 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 2 months ago
Because modern media formats are already compressed by default and have very little redundancy in them.
reev@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
Was thinking the same thing