View Single Post
Old 2005-04-22, 01:17 PM
Re: Why is FLAC supposedly so bad?

Originally Posted by h_vargas
it's also good because - heaven forbid - it guarantees future compatibility with any M$ O/S, i.e. any M$ O/S is sure to be able to run an .EXE file (and hence, it would decompress/unpack the WAV file).

so, assuming the media i archive my transfers to has any decent longevity, in 7 years when Windows 2012 is out, i can still extract my transferred archives regardless of whether or not WavPack or FLAC or SHN were compatible with W2012 or not.
Although I am in 100% agreement with vargas that wavpack is a great format, I disagree that the SFX feature of wavpack will somehow make it more compatible with future operating systems.

When you create an SFX file, a little bit of executable code is added to the file that, when executed, decompresses the file to PCM Wave format. That's all fine and dandy, and very useful for distributing files to people who don't have any wavpack software and can't be bothered to install any. BUT the code attached to the SFX file is basically the same code as found in the wvunpack Windows binary. If you switch to an OS that can't run the wvunpack Windows binary, it won't be able to run the code in the SFX file either. In short, there is no advantage, with respect to archiving and future OS compatibility, in using the SFX feature versus just using the wvunpack binary. If you archive SFX files you are kidding yourself and just wasting bits.
Reply With Quote Reply with Nested Quotes