They are a German GmbH and must publicly state their financials: <a href="https://www.northdata.de/win%C2%B7rar%20GmbH,%20Berlin/Amtsgericht%20Charlottenburg%20(Berlin)%20HRB%20109885%20B" rel="nofollow">https://www.northdata.de/win%C2%B7rar%20GmbH,%20Berlin/Amtsg...
They're one of the few companies that actually manage to sell "boxed software" (i.e. has not changed much in years but new customers keep buying it)
That said, Windows users should use 7-Zip. Better compression format, unpacks more kinds of archives
By these charts, if I only need 5-10 megabytes per second of compression on a single core, LZMA2 wins significantly on ratio, and still decompresses at well over 100. If I'm doing a backup, or sending/receiving over my internet connection (which only has 2MB/s of upload), LZMA2 easily wins. If I need speed then zstd wins.
On a more realistic note: few years back, I've added zstd compression to our log subsystem (hand written direct buffers, native code, in-process, java). For the same CPU utilization if provides twice dense compression compared to regular [-6] gzip (the topic in the title). Zstd is =much= faster on decompression as well, and it this case - unparalleledly better as it uses twice less disk.
zstd is 'silicon valley' (the tv show) - life imitates fiction, except entirely open source
Culonavirus · · focus · HN ↗
wolfi1 · · focus · HN ↗
shezi · · focus · HN ↗
Looks pretty profitable to me.
amiga386 · · focus · HN ↗
That said, Windows users should use 7-Zip. Better compression format, unpacks more kinds of archives
xxs · · focus · HN ↗
Please no - no native zstd support. NanaZip is the better option (it's a different build of 7-zip) and it's available at windows store.
> Better compression format, unpacks more kinds of archives
winrar has supported zstd for 5 years[0]
In short - Everyone should be using zstd, and 7-zip does not support it.
[0]: <a href="https://www.win-rar.com/singlenewsview.html?&L=0&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=175&cHash=aca38142108c76995eba6c674bfd0e14" rel="nofollow">https://www.win-rar.com/singlenewsview.html?&L=0&tx_ttnews%5...
aleph_minus_one · · focus · HN ↗
Why?
shawabawa3 · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
Dylan16807 · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://github.com/mcmilk/7-Zip-zstd" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/mcmilk/7-Zip-zstd
By these charts, if I only need 5-10 megabytes per second of compression on a single core, LZMA2 wins significantly on ratio, and still decompresses at well over 100. If I'm doing a backup, or sending/receiving over my internet connection (which only has 2MB/s of upload), LZMA2 easily wins. If I need speed then zstd wins.
xxs · · focus · HN ↗
On a more realistic note: few years back, I've added zstd compression to our log subsystem (hand written direct buffers, native code, in-process, java). For the same CPU utilization if provides twice dense compression compared to regular [-6] gzip (the topic in the title). Zstd is =much= faster on decompression as well, and it this case - unparalleledly better as it uses twice less disk.
zstd is 'silicon valley' (the tv show) - life imitates fiction, except entirely open source