KVR Audio

Teksonik · Post by **Teksonik** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:41 am

Oh no here we go.

Ok I'm going to take the Engineer's advice and have some chamomile tequila.

Teksonik · Post by **Teksonik** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:44 am

Reverse Engineer wrote:
Teksonik wrote:Providing you actually have any.......oh never mind.
Yeah mate, you started ok, but entered unnecessary belittling territory there. I'll forgive you though.

Notice the tounge sticky out guy. Just giving you a hard time.

<- smiley icon

Reverse Engineer · Post by **Reverse Engineer** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:47 am

I much prefer .zips to .rars. There's certain files that .rars handle better, but very few to make it worth the compatability issues some people have (not having an unrar app for example, but everyone on xp has an unzip(per)). anyway, there are far better compressionalgorithms than both rars and zips, so pray tell, what makes it better anyway?

The extra 3kb it'll compress your 10,000 jpegs?

Reverse Engineer · Post by **Reverse Engineer** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:48 am

Teksonik wrote:
Reverse Engineer wrote:
Teksonik wrote:Providing you actually have any.......oh never mind.
Yeah mate, you started ok, but entered unnecessary belittling territory there. I'll forgive you though.
Notice the tounge sticky out guy. Just giving you a hard time. <- smiley icon

BONES · Post by **BONES** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:51 am

hoffy wrote:f**k Zip. RAR archvies are so much better

Why? Because you have to buy separate software to unRAR things? Maybe it was relevant even a couple of years ago but these days everyone has huge HDD's and fast connections, its just one more annoying thing that I shouldn't need.

grymmjack · Post by **grymmjack** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:59 am

Jason Brian Merrill wrote:for instance, what if you have a system crash and you need to reinstall windows? Isnt it a bit smarter to put all of your sample, preset, and project data on other drives, so that you just have to reinstall the associated plugins after you clear out windows??

that's what i do. all my presets, samples, recordings, finished stuff, is on it's own disk, which is also backed up to dvd. incremental backups rule.

it sucks what happened.

The Chase · Post by **The Chase** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 4:03 am

Reverse Engineer wrote:I much prefer .zips to .rars. There's certain files that .rars handle better, but very few to make it worth the compatability issues some people have (not having an unrar app for example, but everyone on xp has an unzip(per)). anyway, there are far better compressionalgorithms than both rars and zips, so pray tell, what makes it better anyway? The extra 3kb it'll compress your 10,000 jpegs?

It's actually considerably more efficient (depending on the content). I wish it was more standard.

hoffy · Post by **hoffy** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 4:08 am

BONES wrote:
hoffy wrote:f**k Zip. RAR archvies are so much better
Why? Because you have to buy separate software to unRAR things? Maybe it was relevant even a couple of years ago but these days everyone has huge HDD's and fast connections, its just one more annoying thing that I shouldn't need.

RAR archives are more effecient, and therefore widely used to distribute files on the internet. And WinRAR's intergration with Windoze is superb, even better than that native .zip implementation in XP.

[edit]

ggoyal2 · Post by **ggoyal2** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:40 am

Jason Brian Merrill wrote:
The Chase wrote:
hoffy wrote:
BONES wrote:I'd much rather just unzio [NOT unrar] a DLL into my plugins folder and a manual [PDF or CHM or whatever] into my help folder.
f**k Zip. RAR archvies are so much better
seconded
thriced.

uh... quaderoo'd.

brambos · Post by **brambos** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:53 am

hoffy wrote:
BONES wrote:
hoffy wrote:f**k Zip. RAR archvies are so much better
Why? Because you have to buy separate software to unRAR things? Maybe it was relevant even a couple of years ago but these days everyone has huge HDD's and fast connections, its just one more annoying thing that I shouldn't need.
RAR archives are more effecient, and therefore widely used to distribute files on the internet. And WinRAR's intergration with Windoze is superb, even better than that native .zip implementation in XP.

[edit]

RAR is the prime example of the proliferation of completely unneccessary "standards" introduced by l337 h4xx0r kidz obfuscating the life of the average Windows user.

But that's imo ofcourse.

Jason Brian Merrill · Post by **Jason Brian Merrill** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 6:29 am

strange, i have even heard from devs, who usually happen not to be l337 h4xx0r kidz, that they prefer rar, esp. for wavs....

brambos · Post by **brambos** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 6:40 am

Jason Brian Merrill wrote:strange, i have even heard from devs, who usually happen not to be l337 h4xx0r kidz, that they prefer rar, esp. for wavs....

For lossless audio compression there are much better alternatives. The difference between RAR and ZIP is not significant enough to warrant the confusion for the majority of internet users who simply don't know what to do with this odd file they've just downloaded.

As a dev I don't consider it professional behavior to expect my end users to be techgeeks following every new alternative to good old common standards. And I certainly don't expect them to try and find an unrar tool somewhere on the interweb (if they figure out what RAR is) when they have a perfectly fine unzipper built into their OS.

Jason Brian Merrill · Post by **Jason Brian Merrill** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 6:54 am

true. most people would be confused with RAR.

The Chase · Post by **The Chase** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:00 am

most people? Most people I know who use computers know rar files.

Jason Brian Merrill · Post by **Jason Brian Merrill** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:02 am

The Chase wrote:most people? Most people I know who use computers know rar files.

perhaps you only know nerds like us

Praise for Image-Line