View Single Post
  #39   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-09-2004, 17:37
Aalfabob's Avatar
Aalfabob Aalfabob is offline
Registered User
#0201 (FEDS)
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Rochester, MI
Posts: 27
Aalfabob is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Aalfabob
Re: New compression method

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fulcrum2000
No, I don't think these times are impossible, but I *know for sure* that you claims about achieved compression are utter <edit>. Please stop spamming the forum with claims which are totally impossible.

I make you a deal. Compress one of the test files on my website (http://www.maximumcompression.com/) and send me the compressed file + compiled decoder. I will then decompress this file on my computer. If after decompressing original file is restored (binary identical to the original) and the size of the decoder + compressed file is less then 95% of the best compressor mentioned for that test you get $10.000 from me!. Deal?

PS Before decompressing I'm allowed to change the name of the compressed file to anything I like.
Ok let me show you how this bet is near impossible...

You said compressor + compressed file ='s less then todays best compiler. Well the .exe tested on that site is only 3,870,784 Bytes. The top scoring compressor recieved a final size of 953785 Bytes. You want me to get that down to a size of 47,689 Bytes (47 Kb @ 95%). Ok so even if my compression could knock it down to 515 bytes, that leaves 47,174 Bytes left for the program. Um I dont really know how you want me to get my program that small with out spending hundreds of hours in assembly just to save the size of the decompressor. Right now with a little over 100 lines im at 626,747 Bytes. Unless im reading your challenge wrong, it seems a little impossible...

Last edited by D.J. Fluck : 08-09-2004 at 18:10. Reason: Language Editing in Quote