Ew, WinRAR.
.tar.xz
Submitted 4 weeks ago by hmmm@sh.itjust.works to animemes@ani.social
https://i.imgur.com/jCUnqvN.jpeg
Comments
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Pregnenolone@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
WinRAR got me through some hard times. She might be filthy, but she did the job
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
She’s proprietary nagware, and 7-Zip is better in every way.
GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
I use Windows in-built extract
bruhduh@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
hmmm@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
MrLLM@ani.social 4 weeks ago
OP’s computer
superkret@feddit.org 4 weeks ago
Is this lossless?
alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 weeks ago
What if it’s on a BTRFS --compress-force=zstd:22 compressed subvolume?
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 4 weeks 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 4 weeks ago
Do Windows people often see
.xzs? Does anyone?
abfarid@startrek.website 4 weeks ago
No way media compressed 5x.
Anafabula@discuss.tchncs.de 4 weeks ago
Maybe they store images as uncompressed .bmp for some reason
Lichtblitz@discuss.tchncs.de 4 weeks 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 4 weeks 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 4 weeks ago
Because modern media formats are already compressed by default and have very little redundancy in them.
reev@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
Was thinking the same thing