WINRAR no longer free

shadowdragon

yeah thats sounds a fantastic piece of kit, now i wanna know how it does it!!!!!

Cat695

shadowdragon wrote: »

yeah thats sounds a fantastic piece of kit, now i wanna know how it does it!!!!!

well next week i'll be working along side the guys that designed it so trust me i will be picking their brains over it


just think you could pretty much email anything with it

TorrestheGreat

These technologies have been around for years, there are hundreds of ways you can theoretically compress files by 98% or more. Loads and loads of them have been patented, not sure why you're getting so excited by it.

Cat695

TorrestheGreat wrote: »

These technologies have been around for years, there are hundreds of ways you can theoretically compress files by 98% or more. Loads and loads of them have been patented, not sure why you're getting so excited by it.

well would you care to point me to a free one?? or even a paid one thats does it by 98% with NO data loss

shadowdragon

TorrestheGreat wrote: »

These technologies have been around for years, there are hundreds of ways you can theoretically compress files by 98% or more. Loads and loads of them have been patented, not sure why you're getting so excited by it.

pfft your just not geeky enough.

fwor

Cat695 wrote: »

well next week i'll be working along side the guys that designed it so trust me i will be picking their brains over it.

Try giving the guys that designed it a file that is full of completely random data and get them to compress ~that~ losslessly by 98%, and then decompress it to get your file back.

They won't be able to do it.

Cat695

fwor wrote: »

Try giving the guys that designed it a file that is full of completely random data and get them to compress ~that~ losslessly by 98%, and then decompress it to get your file back.

They won't be able to do it.

ok i will see if i can make them sweat....when you say random data are we talking about a page that is just full of letters and numbers here???

Let me know as i'm sure this is costing the MOD a fortune so i would like to make sure it works completely (compressing open office docs and video has worked fine so far) but always good to find a weakness

fwor

Load the output from a real random (not pseudo-random) number generator into a file and give them that.

They won't be able to compress it losslessly because every bit of information in it is unique and essential to the file. They may be able to compress it slightly, but not by 98%.

Another test you might try is giving them an encrypted file and see how they get on trying to compress that by 98%...

Edit: Another one to try: take a high-resolution photo on your digital camera, rename the resulting jpeg file to something like "shoppinglist.doc" so they don't know what's in it, and give them that to compress losslessly by 98%.

Cat695

fwor wrote: »

Load the output from a real random (not pseudo-random) number generator into a file and give them that.

They won't be able to compress it losslessly because every bit of information in it is unique and essential to the file. They may be able to compress it slightly, but not by 98%.

Another test you might try is giving them an encrypted file and see how they get on trying to compress that by 98%...

ref your first bit I'll do just that

ref the encryption bit.....its not part of the deal as whatever is sent (after compression) is then encrypted by the radio prior to TX so they will just say its not needed....but its worth a try

fwor

Cat695 wrote: »

ref the encryption bit.....its not part of the deal as whatever is sent (after compression) is then encrypted by the radio prior to TX so they will just say its not needed

That won't be any use to the MOD will it? They're bound to have loads of situations where the radio user won't have the clearance to view the contents of an encrypted file being sent or received?

[Edit: If you value your job, I don't think you should answer that question on a public forum!]