the best Archiving file extension?
 

I am planning to do some backup of my personal stuff. I have a load of pictures, music (mostly mp3 files), games (:amused:), docs etc....
I have already done backups in the past but never tried compressing them.
So here are my questions, please enlighten me:cheesy:,

What is the best file extension to do this? I read 7zip is the best for compressing. but what about .zip, .rar, etc?
should i separate types of files and make three or four different files (I mean one for only pictures, one with only documents, etc?
Is there a limit for compressing info in one file (limit of megs or number of files?
Is there any risk of loosing some info on the compression process and after decompressing not finding some data? (urban legend?)

Is this useful? or just if you have the means to burn a bunch of dvds with uncompressed data it is far better.

Well, it also depends on how strong your system is.

If you have a REALLY powerful one,then KGB archiver might be interesting.
(not to be mistaken with the spy/ad ware KGB)

if you don't have the requirements for KGB, then 7zip would be a good second.
Still needs a good machine, but not as much as KGB.

Also need compatibility with a huge amount of other file compression techniques?
Then you should go for WinRAR. Supports ALMOST all extensions.
(.KGB isn't one of them....)
This is the best one of the Very Well Known Compressors.

As a last suggestion I would advise you to take a look @ WinZIP.
OK, I know. It not even closely as good as any of the above archivers, but it DOES have the BEST windows integration.
(as in, windows XP and above can open .zip files as if they are just folders)

Hope this will help you in making YOUR decision.
I just consider this as just hints and tips.

i'd bet 10 bucks that you wouldn't notice the difference

it doesn't matter, get any free 7zip and there you go

but about mp3s and jpg images, they are already compressed files in the best way the kind of file can be compressed, so don't expect much less size from those

I knew the KGB was watching.... preparing.....

WinRar is fine for most things I do.
If I really need a better compression, I stick to 7Zip. It's memory requirements are ungodly, though - at least 1 GB of RAM is recommended, preferably even more.

Well KGB Archiver claims to have much superior compression over WinRar or 7zip or any others of them, but when I ran a test by compressing a CD ISO with KGB and WinRar, the latter one actually left KGB too far behind, so go figure.
I would recommend just WinRar, it is easy to use, can compress very good, and can put a recovery record of up to 10% of the archive space into the archive, to restore data if the archive was damaged. But if you really need every squeezed inch of saved space, then WinRar is not the optimum yet.

The compression efficiency varies between the archivers depending on what exactly is being packed.
On rare occasions, RAR may be better than 7Zip or ZIP may be better than RAR.

you all people are silly, different kinds of files will have different kinds of results on different kinds of packers, depending on what is their packing method

ok guys,
I have WinRar and just dowloaded 7zip.
I have an Intel core2duo and 2gb of Ram.

I must admit i have used Win Rar mostly to decompress files (works pretty good and very fast). and to compress few things but nothing big (and alos works fine).

I got the message about pictures from russ. thanks:)
What about the amount of megs or files that is recomended to compress in one file? any number or it has nothing to do?

Is it true or just a legend that you may loose your data on the process to compress and decompress?

like i said, the more, the more effective compression, so if you don't mind, stick everything into one file

and you won't lose any data when you decompress things with properly coded archiver.. which yours are