I did several tests comparing many popular compression formats to try to decide which was the best. Although I wasn't able to show any as being definitly better than the others, my results of the few tests I did were conclusive enough that they might be useful for others as well, so I posted them in a forum and someone suggested that I should also post them here as well. Basically the conclusion I came to is that WinRAR and WinACE are extremely close in compression with WinACE being generally less than 1% better (though sometimes WinRAR did better instead) but that RAR has more ports, options, etc, so is, overall, the better choice of the two. The entire test is pretty thorougly described in this text file, though I do worry that I may have made some minor errors in adding some of the values.
Mostly I did this to show to someone in an attempt to show them that I was right and they were wrong about ZIP, which they insist on using even though it's nearly 10 years old and no real updates have been made to it (excluding long filenames, which is really more a matter of the os that the software natively runs in.) Also, I wanted to know for certain whether or not I should be using ACE over RAR. Maybe someone else will find this useful though.
Oh yeah, I did forget to add that part in why I liked it so much. WinRAR 3.00 supports RAR (of course), ZIP, CAB, ARJ, LZH, TAR, GZip, UUE, BZ2, JAR, and even ISO files. It also supports ACE, but that's only the ACE files that weren't compressed with the new ACE compression algorithm.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Nazo on 11/08/02 09:41 AM.</EM></FONT></P>