Why do people rar videos?

This is a discussion on Why do people rar videos? within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; Originally Posted by abachler 2% may not seem like much, but its enough to save on the upload time which ...

  1. #46
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,438
    Quote Originally Posted by abachler View Post
    2% may not seem like much, but its enough to save on the upload time which is realyl what most distributers are worried about.
    Squeezing 2% of the file size seems like an argument. But it isn't. They rar the thing and split the rar because that's how they do it. Period.

    It's the stupid habit idea. Nothing wrong with it. Files were being RARed and split long before video files had such an high rate of compression. They just do it this way because that's what they have been doing for years.

    The 2% used to be important. Not anymore on non centralized p2p networks. So yeah, again, it's an habit. Sheesh!
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  2. #47
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    You seem to think that p2p == infinite bandwidth, it does not. The file is still going over finite connection speeds and the smaller the overall file, the faster it will transfer. Perhaps 2% doesnt matter on a 1MB file where the difference woudl mean only a second or two, but particularly on large files, 2% of a 4 hour download means it finishes several minutes earlier.

    You have taken the stance that 'oh its stupid they have no reason to do it' and simply refuse to accept any of the reasons presented because they disagree with your notion that they do it because they are stupid.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  3. #48
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,546
    Should we take into the account the power it takes to unrar that crap then (and the time; of gods, the time it takes, especially on a slow machine!)? It can probably cost just as much as the bandwidth providers for that little extra MB or two.
    Hehehe... I'm trolling, but I don't see the need for compressing to save a MB or two when it's just 2-3&#37; save.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  4. #49
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,438
    Quote Originally Posted by abachler View Post
    You have taken the stance that 'oh its stupid they have no reason to do it' and simply refuse to accept any of the reasons presented because they disagree with your notion that they do it because they are stupid.
    Yes. I think it's (today) a stupid and annoying habit that got popular probably from the earlier days of usenet sharing.

    I presented my reasons, too. 2% of a 4GB file is ~80Mb. This is nothing on today's broadband networks. You get that much from just surfing the web. On my ADSL 12Mbps, 80Mb takes me 5 minutes on a bad day.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  5. #50
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    Should we take into the account the power it takes to unrar that crap then (and the time; of gods, the time it takes, especially on a slow machine!)? It can probably cost just as much as the bandwidth providers for that little extra MB or two.
    Hehehe... I'm trolling, but I don't see the need for compressing to save a MB or two when it's just 2-3&#37; save.
    And as Ive shown, its not alwasy 2% which necessitates the process of compressing first, then comparing the results, then using the smaller file.

    If it takes you more than 5 minutes to decompress a 4GB RAR then you need to get rid of your 386SX and find somehting newer. Belly-aching because you have a modern connection and an antiquated system is not a plausable reason to expect everyone else to spend more time downlaoding files.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  6. #51
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,438
    Quote Originally Posted by abachler View Post
    And as Ive shown, its not alwasy 2&#37; which necessitates the process of compressing first, then comparing the results, then using the smaller file.

    I seriously doubt they compress first to compare results, abachler. Compression ratios are pretty much well known these days. Don't buy that argument too, sorry.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  7. #52
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    I seriously doubt they compress first to compare results, abachler. Compression ratios are pretty much well known these days. Don't buy that argument too, sorry.
    Sorry, but as demonstrated, compression ratios even for a given media type are not fixed. Therefor most people compress. If you dont like it then dont download compressed files (lolz).
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  8. #53
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,438
    Ok. I got it. Sorry. You are right. Silly me.

    So, fine then. I think this is it.... fine. Right.... yes. Ok.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  9. #54
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,129
    Also, MPEG-4 is lossy and RAR is not lossy.

  10. #55
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    That argument doesn't hold when you're RAR-compressing an MPEG-4-compressed movie.
    All the buzzt!
    CornedBee

    "There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
    - Flon's Law

  11. #56
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Ok. I got it. Sorry. You are right. Silly me.

    So, fine then. I think this is it.... fine. Right.... yes. Ok.
    Respect_For_Mario++;
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  12. #57
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,129
    Quote Originally Posted by CornedBee View Post
    That argument doesn't hold when you're RAR-compressing an MPEG-4-compressed movie.
    Why not?

    It's lossless compression of RAR vs more compression of MPEG-4.

  13. #58
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    You already have the losses of MPEG-4. So you won't save your quality by then RARing the thing.

    But I guess you meant something else.
    All the buzzt!
    CornedBee

    "There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
    - Flon's Law

  14. #59
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,438
    Quote Originally Posted by abachler View Post
    Respect_For_Mario++;
    I was actually giving up on the discussion. You can decrement that again.

    You see, your sample wasn't representative. Not only because it was mostly a still image (as it was mentioned), but also because (and this was mentioned too) you would need to do it for a lot more files to be able to do draw conclusions as you are trying to.

    And it is exactly because millions of video streams have been compressed before that the compress ratios are more or less well known. And they, statistically contradict your sample.

    The original question was exactly about that. Files that get RARed and yet don't benefit from it.

    All this was mentioned by others, but you seem to have ignored it. So.. yeah, I gave up.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  15. #60
    S Sang-drax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Posts
    2,072
    Quote Originally Posted by abachler View Post
    except again, you are choosing specific examples, whereas I have also shown examples that show excellent compression adn are also Mpeg4.
    Your video was practically a still image and you accuse someone else of choosing specific examples?
    Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Some people
    By Cgawd in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-27-2002, 04:15 PM
  2. I'm worried about some of the people wanting to program...
    By damonbrinkley in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-23-2002, 06:38 AM
  3. Dos Rar Extractor
    By (TNT) in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-11-2002, 10:50 AM
  4. Religious Bull****
    By Witch_King in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 119
    Last Post: 10-23-2001, 07:14 AM
  5. IT people - weird genius or simply narrow-minded, antisocial, lazy people
    By Carlos in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-11-2001, 05:00 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21