 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
There is an old compression utility called PAQ from the MS Dos days and should be mentioned here to disambiguate
--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.253.16.1 (talk) 21:14, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
can sopmeone tell me if upack/mew archivers (pe compressors) use paq like algorithm or lzma algorithm? mew seems to use lzma, but upack??
---
I believe upack uses lzma, too. I believe this is not the right place to have this discussion.
---
Another interesting tidbid is version compability. I ended up here (via google) because I wanted to know if I can depack my Paq-1 archives with a current one.
---
Are the algorithms patent-encumbered in any country?
---
I agree that this is not the best place for discussions... but anway: No, paq has no up/downwards compatibility. But you can download all old versions from http://www.cs.fit.edu/~mmahoney/compression/
About patents: PAQ is mostly original research, and it's always released under the GPL. so it's very unlikely that a big part of it could be patented, but IANAL.
something more on-topic: the article is very outdated. I'll try to at least update the 'current' best compression programs Balou 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The filesize of input files is limited to less than 2 GB. (Not for PAQ9) This should be mentioned somewhere - I am not sure in which section. Unfortunately not even the program description nor the manpages state this limitation. 81.217.108.174 (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The second data set is private. It consists of 316,355,757 bytes in 510 files of various types.
...
PAQ8JD takes 47,558 seconds to compress the data (196'th place) compared to 4 seconds for the fastest program and 70,444 for the slowest.
316,355,757 bytes is 301mb. The best hard disks around now do about 80, 90mb/sec on read. So this much data could be read in about four seconds, but what about the write? the only way you'd get four seconds is to be writing to a second, equally fast hard disk at the same time.
Toby Douglass 10:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article starts ok (could be better, but reasonably clear). What should come next is a brief paragraph describing how the algorithm(s) works in general, in layman's terms if possible.
We've got a new winner!
http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/07/10/0055257.shtml
"KGB is basically PAQ6v2 with a GUI" is not supported by the reference given. I am changing it to "KGB is based on PAQ6". If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert and we can discuss the merits here. Also see my comments on the KGB Archiver talk page. 72.251.90.20 (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the benchmark reviews from the article. Even if the content of the reviews would be accurate, the page should be about the program and not about the benchmarks. For benchmarks and comparison we should refer to the Comparison of file archivers article. Having detailed reviews of benchmarks would suggest all the hundreds of compressors (had they be given a page in Wikipedia) list their latest "rank" in various benchmarks. I leave the LTCB table with ranks removed (ranks matter little because of the way benchmark works and they would change every time it is updated). --Samir000 (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(although at the expense of speed and memory usage)
18 hours to compress 1 GB?. I think the word 'great' should be put before 'expense'.
Grettings
Daniel N.--88.17.43.233 (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is meaining of word PAQ, I have not found it in document. Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.16.123.194 (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on PAQ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on PAQ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Lunasleung.
The introduction of the article has a clear indication of the topic. Respectfully, this is an incomplete article. There are only three references and is not updated page due to the origin of the PAQ being from 1975. There are no images nor outside media references. This was clear and easy to read with the structure well represented due to indications of each paragraph. A strength to this article was its clear indications of each paragraph and the organization itself. Personally, as the reader of this article, I would want to learn more about the PAQ and how it would be beneficial for me to take this questionnaire, what would it prove, and why would the results of taking it be rewarding. But overall, this article needs a lot more information and intel on the questionnaire and the objective of it as a whole.Lunasleung (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
