I'm running 10.4.5 on a 1.25 GHz 20" iMac with 768 MB of RAM. I am looking
for the most effective (and free) way to compress files so I can backup
folders onto one CD.

I tried several methods. Here's what I did: I took 3 folders -- 1 with
mostly JPEGs and other pic formats (369 MB); 1 with mostly Word documents
(though some had JPEGs in them) and PowerPoint docs with JPEGs in them (330
MB); and 1 with mostly PDFs and straight Word docs (442 MB) -- and I put
them into a new folder called "CompressTest" that weighed in at 1,141 MB,
then tried the Archive function in Disk Utility and got almost no
compression (only down to 1,020 MB). So I tried using the Mac OS 10.4.5
Create Archive function under the Finder's File menu, but I got the same
results.

I later tried to use Disk Utility to make that folder into a .dmg disk
image, but twice I got errors (the error read: "Unable to create
"CompressTest" - error 49168").

Then I downloaded the trial version of Stuffit Deluxe and one by one tried
the .sitx, .tar and .zip compression routines, and the best archive size I
got was 982 MB (.sitx). I just read that the latest DropStuff supposedly
can compress JPEGS by up to an additional 30% without any change in quality.
You think that's marketing BS? How does Stuffit Standard or Deluxe compare
to any free solutions? I don't want to spend any money on this because I
will use it so infrequently and pretty much only for doing CD backups, but I
never know what new computer uses I will encounter in the future. I tried a
few freeware solutions, but got the same results.

Is there a better free way to such compress folders so I can backup MORE
than 700 MB of data on a CD-RW? Am I doing something wrong?

Also, when using OS X's Archive function, does it matter (in terms of
compression) whether I select whole folders instead of all the files inside
them? I have maybe 5 folders filled with 200-ish files, and the archive
function only compressed them down to 95% of their original size, which I
did by selecting the 5 folders and then hitting the Archive command in the
Finder. Does it work better if I expand the folders and then click on all
the files inside instead of just the folders' icons?

Thanks.

spat <spat@mchsi.com> wrote:

> I'm running 10.4.5 on a 1.25 GHz 20" iMac with 768 MB of RAM. I am looking
> for the most effective (and free) way to compress files so I can backup
> folders onto one CD.
>
> I tried several methods. Here's what I did: I took 3 folders -- 1 with
> mostly JPEGs and other pic formats (369 MB); 1 with mostly Word documents
> (though some had JPEGs in them) and PowerPoint docs with JPEGs in them (330
> MB); and 1 with mostly PDFs and straight Word docs (442 MB) -- and I put
> them into a new folder called "CompressTest" that weighed in at 1,141 MB,
> then tried the Archive function in Disk Utility and got almost no
> compression (only down to 1,020 MB). So I tried using the Mac OS 10.4.5
> Create Archive function under the Finder's File menu, but I got the same
> results.
>
> I later tried to use Disk Utility to make that folder into a .dmg disk
> image, but twice I got errors (the error read: "Unable to create
> "CompressTest" - error 49168").
>
> Then I downloaded the trial version of Stuffit Deluxe and one by one tried
> the .sitx, .tar and .zip compression routines, and the best archive size I
> got was 982 MB (.sitx). I just read that the latest DropStuff supposedly
> can compress JPEGS by up to an additional 30% without any change in quality.
> You think that's marketing BS? How does Stuffit Standard or Deluxe compare
> to any free solutions? I don't want to spend any money on this because I
> will use it so infrequently and pretty much only for doing CD backups, but I
> never know what new computer uses I will encounter in the future. I tried a
> few freeware solutions, but got the same results.

I don't know about Word and PowerPoint files, but PDF and JPEG files are
already compressed, and applying a second, general-purpose compression
algorithm to them won't usually reduce the size very much. StuffIt can
compress a little tighter than zip, but it's quite slow at it.


> Is there a better free way to such compress folders so I can backup MORE
> than 700 MB of data on a CD-RW? Am I doing something wrong?

More and more of the files we use are already compressed using
special-purpose algorithms optimized for particular types of data. That
trend, along with constantly falling storage costs, is pushing
general-purpose compression into the role of creating compact archive
files for transmission across networks. For that purpose, compatibility
matters more than size, and zip is pretty much universal.

What you're looking for is called DVD. Stop wasting time in the quest
for tighter compression and just spend some money on a DVD burner.

spat <spat@mchsi.com> wrote:

> I'm running 10.4.5 on a 1.25 GHz 20" iMac with 768 MB of RAM. I am looking
> for the most effective (and free) way to compress files so I can backup
> folders onto one CD.
>
> I tried several methods. Here's what I did: I took 3 folders -- 1 with
> mostly JPEGs and other pic formats (369 MB); 1 with mostly Word documents
> (though some had JPEGs in them) and PowerPoint docs with JPEGs in them (330
> MB); and 1 with mostly PDFs and straight Word docs (442 MB) -- and I put
> them into a new folder called "CompressTest" that weighed in at 1,141 MB,
> then tried the Archive function in Disk Utility and got almost no
> compression (only down to 1,020 MB). So I tried using the Mac OS 10.4.5
> Create Archive function under the Finder's File menu, but I got the same
> results.
>
> I later tried to use Disk Utility to make that folder into a .dmg disk
> image, but twice I got errors (the error read: "Unable to create
> "CompressTest" - error 49168").
>
> Then I downloaded the trial version of Stuffit Deluxe and one by one tried
> the .sitx, .tar and .zip compression routines, and the best archive size I
> got was 982 MB (.sitx). I just read that the latest DropStuff supposedly
> can compress JPEGS by up to an additional 30% without any change in quality.
> You think that's marketing BS? How does Stuffit Standard or Deluxe compare
> to any free solutions? I don't want to spend any money on this because I
> will use it so infrequently and pretty much only for doing CD backups, but I
> never know what new computer uses I will encounter in the future. I tried a
> few freeware solutions, but got the same results.

I don't know about Word and PowerPoint files, but PDF and JPEG files are
already compressed, and applying a second, general-purpose compression
algorithm to them won't usually reduce the size very much. StuffIt can
compress a little tighter than zip, but it's quite slow at it.


> Is there a better free way to such compress folders so I can backup MORE
> than 700 MB of data on a CD-RW? Am I doing something wrong?

More and more of the files we use are already compressed using
special-purpose algorithms optimized for particular types of data. That
trend, along with constantly falling storage costs, is pushing
general-purpose compression into the role of creating compact archive
files for transmission across networks. For that purpose, compatibility
matters more than size, and zip is pretty much universal.

What you're looking for is called DVD. Stop wasting time in the quest
for tighter compression and just spend some money on a DVD burner.

In article <C025F7D8.1558%spat@mchsi.com>, spat <spat@mchsi.com> wrote:

> I just read that the latest DropStuff supposedly
> can compress JPEGS by up to an additional 30% without any change in quality.
> You think that's marketing BS?

JPEGs are already compressed to some extent depending on the author's
preference. So the ability to compress a JPEG further would depend on
how much that JPEG file was previously compressed. So basically, yeah
it's a bunch of marketing BS. The key phrase is "up to" -- they can get
away legally by saying it that way.

In article <C025F7D8.1558%spat@mchsi.com>, spat <spat@mchsi.com> wrote:

> I just read that the latest DropStuff supposedly
> can compress JPEGS by up to an additional 30% without any change in quality.
> You think that's marketing BS?

JPEGs are already compressed to some extent depending on the author's
preference. So the ability to compress a JPEG further would depend on
how much that JPEG file was previously compressed. So basically, yeah
it's a bunch of marketing BS. The key phrase is "up to" -- they can get
away legally by saying it that way.

I now understand my problem -- can't compress stuff that's already
compressed. Thanks to everyone for their interest.

Jay



On 2/25/06 8:51 PM, in article
nick-F7FF3E.18512525022006@comcast.dca.giganews.com, "Nick"
<nick@nospam.com> wrote:

> In article <C025F7D8.1558%spat@mchsi.com>, spat <spat@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>> I just read that the latest DropStuff supposedly
>> can compress JPEGS by up to an additional 30% without any change in quality.
>> You think that's marketing BS?
>
> JPEGs are already compressed to some extent depending on the author's
> preference. So the ability to compress a JPEG further would depend on
> how much that JPEG file was previously compressed. So basically, yeah
> it's a bunch of marketing BS. The key phrase is "up to" -- they can get
> away legally by saying it that way.

I now understand my problem -- can't compress stuff that's already
compressed. Thanks to everyone for their interest.

Jay



On 2/25/06 8:51 PM, in article
nick-F7FF3E.18512525022006@comcast.dca.giganews.com, "Nick"
<nick@nospam.com> wrote:

> In article <C025F7D8.1558%spat@mchsi.com>, spat <spat@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>> I just read that the latest DropStuff supposedly
>> can compress JPEGS by up to an additional 30% without any change in quality.
>> You think that's marketing BS?
>
> JPEGs are already compressed to some extent depending on the author's
> preference. So the ability to compress a JPEG further would depend on
> how much that JPEG file was previously compressed. So basically, yeah
> it's a bunch of marketing BS. The key phrase is "up to" -- they can get
> away legally by saying it that way.

UPDATE: I just tried compressing that same folder using a freeware app
called EZ 7z, which very slowly compressed it into the 7z zip archive
format. It had a good compression rate, beating StuffIt Deluxe (using the
..sitx archive format) by 26.4 MB -- bringing my 1.11 GB folder (filled with
various already-compressed files, as detailed below) down to 955.6 MB. Then
I tried another freeware compression app called MiniDropRar, which
compressed (also slowly) it down to 940.5 MB! Then I tried again using OS
X's Create Archive contextual menu command, and it rather quickly brought it
down to only a 1,013 MB .zip archive. So, it looks like I'll be using
MiniDropRar from now on. Thanks again for everyone's input.



On 2/25/06 6:56 PM, in article
1hbbcby.t7d8ay1bl7ywwN%neillmassello@earthlink.net , "Neill Massello"
<neillmassello@earthlink.net> wrote:

> spat <spat@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm running 10.4.5 on a 1.25 GHz 20" iMac with 768 MB of RAM. I am looking
>> for the most effective (and free) way to compress files so I can backup
>> folders onto one CD.
>>
>> I tried several methods. Here's what I did: I took 3 folders -- 1 with
>> mostly JPEGs and other pic formats (369 MB); 1 with mostly Word documents
>> (though some had JPEGs in them) and PowerPoint docs with JPEGs in them (330
>> MB); and 1 with mostly PDFs and straight Word docs (442 MB) -- and I put
>> them into a new folder called "CompressTest" that weighed in at 1,141 MB,
>> then tried the Archive function in Disk Utility and got almost no
>> compression (only down to 1,020 MB). So I tried using the Mac OS 10.4.5
>> Create Archive function under the Finder's File menu, but I got the same
>> results.
>>
>> I later tried to use Disk Utility to make that folder into a .dmg disk
>> image, but twice I got errors (the error read: "Unable to create
>> "CompressTest" - error 49168").
>>
>> Then I downloaded the trial version of Stuffit Deluxe and one by one tried
>> the .sitx, .tar and .zip compression routines, and the best archive size I
>> got was 982 MB (.sitx). I just read that the latest DropStuff supposedly
>> can compress JPEGS by up to an additional 30% without any change in quality.
>> You think that's marketing BS? How does Stuffit Standard or Deluxe compare
>> to any free solutions? I don't want to spend any money on this because I
>> will use it so infrequently and pretty much only for doing CD backups, but I
>> never know what new computer uses I will encounter in the future. I tried a
>> few freeware solutions, but got the same results.
>
> I don't know about Word and PowerPoint files, but PDF and JPEG files are
> already compressed, and applying a second, general-purpose compression
> algorithm to them won't usually reduce the size very much. StuffIt can
> compress a little tighter than zip, but it's quite slow at it.
>
>
>> Is there a better free way to such compress folders so I can backup MORE
>> than 700 MB of data on a CD-RW? Am I doing something wrong?
>
> More and more of the files we use are already compressed using
> special-purpose algorithms optimized for particular types of data. That
> trend, along with constantly falling storage costs, is pushing
> general-purpose compression into the role of creating compact archive
> files for transmission across networks. For that purpose, compatibility
> matters more than size, and zip is pretty much universal.
>
> What you're looking for is called DVD. Stop wasting time in the quest
> for tighter compression and just spend some money on a DVD burner.
>

UPDATE: I just tried compressing that same folder using a freeware app
called EZ 7z, which very slowly compressed it into the 7z zip archive
format. It had a good compression rate, beating StuffIt Deluxe (using the
..sitx archive format) by 26.4 MB -- bringing my 1.11 GB folder (filled with
various already-compressed files, as detailed below) down to 955.6 MB. Then
I tried another freeware compression app called MiniDropRar, which
compressed (also slowly) it down to 940.5 MB! Then I tried again using OS
X's Create Archive contextual menu command, and it rather quickly brought it
down to only a 1,013 MB .zip archive. So, it looks like I'll be using
MiniDropRar from now on. Thanks again for everyone's input.



On 2/25/06 6:56 PM, in article
1hbbcby.t7d8ay1bl7ywwN%neillmassello@earthlink.net , "Neill Massello"
<neillmassello@earthlink.net> wrote:

> spat <spat@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm running 10.4.5 on a 1.25 GHz 20" iMac with 768 MB of RAM. I am looking
>> for the most effective (and free) way to compress files so I can backup
>> folders onto one CD.
>>
>> I tried several methods. Here's what I did: I took 3 folders -- 1 with
>> mostly JPEGs and other pic formats (369 MB); 1 with mostly Word documents
>> (though some had JPEGs in them) and PowerPoint docs with JPEGs in them (330
>> MB); and 1 with mostly PDFs and straight Word docs (442 MB) -- and I put
>> them into a new folder called "CompressTest" that weighed in at 1,141 MB,
>> then tried the Archive function in Disk Utility and got almost no
>> compression (only down to 1,020 MB). So I tried using the Mac OS 10.4.5
>> Create Archive function under the Finder's File menu, but I got the same
>> results.
>>
>> I later tried to use Disk Utility to make that folder into a .dmg disk
>> image, but twice I got errors (the error read: "Unable to create
>> "CompressTest" - error 49168").
>>
>> Then I downloaded the trial version of Stuffit Deluxe and one by one tried
>> the .sitx, .tar and .zip compression routines, and the best archive size I
>> got was 982 MB (.sitx). I just read that the latest DropStuff supposedly
>> can compress JPEGS by up to an additional 30% without any change in quality.
>> You think that's marketing BS? How does Stuffit Standard or Deluxe compare
>> to any free solutions? I don't want to spend any money on this because I
>> will use it so infrequently and pretty much only for doing CD backups, but I
>> never know what new computer uses I will encounter in the future. I tried a
>> few freeware solutions, but got the same results.
>
> I don't know about Word and PowerPoint files, but PDF and JPEG files are
> already compressed, and applying a second, general-purpose compression
> algorithm to them won't usually reduce the size very much. StuffIt can
> compress a little tighter than zip, but it's quite slow at it.
>
>
>> Is there a better free way to such compress folders so I can backup MORE
>> than 700 MB of data on a CD-RW? Am I doing something wrong?
>
> More and more of the files we use are already compressed using
> special-purpose algorithms optimized for particular types of data. That
> trend, along with constantly falling storage costs, is pushing
> general-purpose compression into the role of creating compact archive
> files for transmission across networks. For that purpose, compatibility
> matters more than size, and zip is pretty much universal.
>
> What you're looking for is called DVD. Stop wasting time in the quest
> for tighter compression and just spend some money on a DVD burner.
>