Loseless compression at 99% Check this out.

[Moohooya]

Anyone yet read http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20020108/tc/tech_data_zeosync_dc.html

This could be huge, but there again, they could be wrong.

 

[hevnsnt]

probably just some kid who re-wrote winzip..

...Pretty interesting however

 

[flot]

Anyone ever heard of these guys?? Looks interesting, but like Moo said - could be totally unfounded.

 

[killface]

I don't believe it. They haven't even demonstrated it, just making claims.

 

[Mday]

if there is any loss, that company is going to get sued big time.

 

[GSOYF]

yeah...this definitely sounds like a cold fusion scam. But we will know soon enough, and I hope that it is the truth.

 

[maxoi1]

really cool if true, main problems:
1) Are todays computers powerfull enough to code/decode in real time?
2) If pattented, it will be really difficult to use as a standard (see PNG).

 

Someone needs to learn how to spell


ZeoSync's HTML site will be available January 13, 2002 with costumer service agents providing chat assistance.

 

[Shalmanese]

LOL, looks like a scam, they say they tested it on random numbers yet they claim the main compression comes from long, undifferentiated strings like a blue sky.

Heres a test, print screen right now and paste it into paint, save as a 24 bit BMP and see how much winzip compresses it.

 

[element]

That's odd Roger, only 10 minutes later and i dont see that. Apparently they fixed in in the last 10 minutes.

"The company's claims, which are yet to be demonstrated in any public forum,..."

until they are methinks we have nothing to rave about.

 

[StageLeft]

Yeah yeah yeah. I've been hearing - as we all have - for at least a couple of years now about new marvelous compressions and ways to stick a full DVD movie onto a floppy disk and whatever else. It's all garbage until we see real demonstrations. Mathmatical genius or not the way software is designed there is an absolute limit to the amount that something can be compressed. You can't store a full beautiful picture into, say, 50 bytes. It's simply impossible and I believe many of the claims we've been hearing are equally ridiculous. What did they supposedly compress 100 X? Movie? Audio? Text? Gobledeegook?

 

[EnigmaMachine]

It's called the "I need startup cash" scam.

 

[axelfox]

Is his name Teddy Chen from the movie Anti Trust

 

[Elledan]

So far they've only used this technique on short strings of data. Whether longer strings will work remains a mystery. They don't seem to be able to do so, so far, so I wouldn't hold my breath for the first compression tool based on this technology.

 

[yakko]

Still sounds like a load to me.

 

[Moohooya]

A few years ago I heard of some great reshearch going on for losy image compression. An image would be compressed to just a few hundred bytes. It was going to use complex math, similar to fractals, to find patterns in the image. However, it took many many hours to find compress (find the parameters to the fractal uncompression) and the uncompression was still pretty slow.

Anyone hear what ever happened to this? Did the several hour compression turn into several years, and so no image was ever compressed?

 

[cuteybunny]

loseless?! I think you mean to say lossless
if this is true then we'd already have 1000 gig harddrive by now.
Just someone seeking for attention.

 

[Harvey]

The most relevant quote from the link:

<< Either this research is the next 'Cold Fusion' scam that dies away or it's the foundation for a Nobel Prize. >>

 

[extro]

This isn't a big deal Just wait until I perfect my perpetual motion machine.

 

[thelanx]

wow, sounds awesome. But I'll wait for the evidence.

 

[element]

<< So far they've only used this technique on short strings of data. Whether longer strings will work remains a mystery. They don't seem to be able to do so, so far, so I wouldn't hold my breath for the first compression tool based on this technology. >>



Yeah right, like they didn't try it out with long strings right after short ones. Put yourself in the shoes of the developer with his hands on an algo that could really do it all.....he wouldn't hesitate to tout it could do it all, and it would be hush hush until ready for the market and then wham! One day you woke up and winzip 1.0 was ready for download, remember? I don't remember any speculation on that, was more like one day it just arrived. Course it was just a DOS app back then. But then again I wasn't visiting forums back then either.

Anyone remember how winzip came about?

 

[extro]

Winzip is just a shell for PKZip (named for the late Phil Katz who wrote the algorithm).

Back in the days before the internet, we old farts from the BBS world used to use a different compression called ARC that was written by a company called Sea Systems (I think - memory hazy). Phill Katz came up with a better, faster algorithm and called it PKArc.

Well the company that wrote ARC tried to copyright the file extension. BBS sysops were outraged by this and Katz changed the name of his program to PKZip. I remember how everyone recompressed their files from ARC to ZIP in a very short period of time. It was really amazing how quickly this was done. In the span of just a couple of weeks, virtually every BBS in the US switched to ZIP, and that's why ZIP files are so dominant today.

If you do a Google search for Phil Katz, you'll find plenty of info. He died a couple of years ago from chronic alcoholism.

 

[tweakmm]

<< This isn't a big deal Just wait until I perfect my perpetual motion machine. >>


thats not gonna be as big as my cold fussion reactor

 

[Ameesh]

i believe zip files use huffman encoding which was made by a guy named huffman.

 

[element]

Ah yes PKZip, I remember now, I had used it numerous times way back then. Then there was ARJ too. Then RAR.