Re:7-Zip for Windows can now use more than 64 CPU threads fo...
by ltbarcly3 on Thursday July 10, 2025 @05:53AM
(#44519208)
tar.zstd is superior in basically every way, open, and portable
Re:7-Zip for Windows can now use more than 64 CPU threads fo...
by michaelcampbell on Thursday July 10, 2025 @08:53AM
(#44520453)
It's fine that we run in different circles, but I have yet to see one of these in the wild.
Betamax was better, too.
Re:7-Zip for Windows can now use more than 64 CPU threads fo...
by ltbarcly3 on Thursday July 10, 2025 @06:17PM
(#44526296)
Betamax wasn't better. This is just a meme.
Half the internet is tar.xz. tar.zstd will probably replace that.
Re:7-Zip for Windows can now use more than 64 CPU threads fo...
by michaelcampbell on Friday July 11, 2025 @03:29PM
(#44536020)
Betamax was objectively better in many categories; that it doesn't fit your narrative is now another one.
It was smaller, had better picture AND audio quality, and a better head to tape ratio.
It was also proprietary and stored less, which were 2 causes of it losing to VHS.
.zstd may END UP being a standard, or it may not, but sheer technical merit is not enough to guarantee it.
Re:7-Zip for Windows can now use more than 64 CPU threads fo...
by ltbarcly3 on Sunday July 13, 2025 @12:39AM
(#44547570)
Betamax, as released, was not better than VHS. It also had very low recording times of like 1 hour per tape.
Betamax was updated repeatedly, as was VHS. At no point was contemporaneous consumer Betamax able to match VHS for quality with the same recording times.
This is a persistent myth propagated primarily by people who have probably never seen Betamax in use.
Often people compare a professional version of betamax to consumer versions of VHS as well.
The rest of this comment has, though gratuitously snarky, a point, but I don’t think claiming that 7zip is irrelevant as an independent statement is even remotely coherent.