Talk:Deflate

message: Find out whether ZipForge is a separate implementation.  The ZipForge web page includes the wording:
  "One of the fastest Deflate implementations available today"
but doesn't give further information.  Downloading zf_d4_274.zip, then unzip install.exe gives a files called HISTORY.TXT.  The history (changelog) file contains the wording:
  - version 2.70 (01/31/2006)
  New features added: 
  1. Extraction speed is increased. ZLib library is updated.
  ...
Whether this is the zlib is unknown.  Sladen 17:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not received a reply from the company yet, but having downloaded a copy of Zipforge and attacked the library with 'strings' I'm fairly sure it's plain zlib. Sladen 20:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ZipForge

message: I ended up writing so much after researching the AHA36x that it may be worth moving this section to a separate page rather than risk losing it. Sladen 17:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability? Tomstdenis 17:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Many of the details on the site have nothing to do with DEFLATE itself.  Like benchmarks, and ratios of their product, the PCI device id. Pretty much all of the details after the first paragraph belong in a separate article (if it passes the notability muster test).  Wikipedia is not a place to list products or vendors if they're not truly notable.  There are many vendors of hardware IP, we can't possibly list them all, and even if we could, it wouldn't help the reader.  I suggest we remove everything after the first paragraph of AHA.  Maybe google for other vendors to add to the list.  Tomstdenis 15:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, from Googling, I only found two vendors of hardware DEFLATE solutions.  The AHA36x was the one I found first and the information in the main page is the result of my research;  my conclusion being that it is lacking to the point of non-usefulness.  The second card I managed to turn up later (StorCompress, see below, not yet researched/listed) looks to be a much better solution.  I think a hardware DEFLATE implementation is notable, though certainly not to the degree currently presented.  The second card found should be researched and its capabilities discerned and listed aswell.  Sladen 05:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool edits.  Informational and to the point.  Tomstdenis 13:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AHA36x

message: Indra Networks appear to do the http://www.indranetworks.com/products-StorCompress300.html device, also hardware deflate. Sladen 05:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: StorCompress

message: Well, I feel honoured to be mentioned here on wiki... I stopped developing BJWFlate a few years ago. I picked up DeflOpt again a few months ago. It does not only do .zip files now, but also gzip and PNG. My page on my site: http://www.walbeehm.com/download
:Hello Ben.  What's wonderful to here that you've picked things up again.  BTW, the URL you have is 404'ing;  do you also have a preferred method of contacting you.  I'd like to speak a little more about your experience with some of the other DEFLATE implementations you've come across (eg. Stuffit) as these haven't been written up on the article yet.  Sladen 19:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 404 was due to a server migration and subsequent IP change. You can find how to contact me in the DeflOpt205.7z file on my site. 67.8.85.101 16:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BJWFlate/DeflOpt

message: Why does this article capitalize the word DEFLATE? I'm guessing that this is done because that's the way it's written in the title of RFC 1951. But in fact, except in the title, this RFC writes "deflate" in lowercase (and usually, though not always, in quotes). So unless someone can find a better justification for writing the word in uppercase, I think it should be changed. --Zundark 09:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that this question is thirteen years old, but I agree that it should be changed per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. I'll change it unless someone objects. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

text: . ―JochemvanHees (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization

message: I vaguely remember LZW being based on LZ78 being based on LZ77... So what exactly are those patents, and why don't they apply to Deflate? 82.139.85.220 (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patents 

message: Please feel free to delete this section without my permission!
I noticed that the second sentence of the article is actually NOT a sentence! ;-)
You active editors may want to change it.
The original:
Deflate is widely thought to be free of any subsisting patents, and at a time before the patent on LZW (which is used in the GIF file format) expired, this has led to its use in gzip compressed files and PNG image files, in addition to the ZIP file format for which Katz originally designed it.
My suggestion:
Deflate is widely thought to be free of any subsisting patents. Prior to the time the patent on LZW (which is used in the GIF file format) expired, this patent-free aspect of deflate led to its use in gzip compressed files and PNG image files, in addition to the ZIP file format for which Katz originally designed it.
I am not sure this will maintain the original intent, so I've put it here without changing the article itself.
Thx for letting me intrude in your otherwise technical discussions!
Gloucks (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions - English Edits 

message: "Deflate is widely thought to be free of any subsisting patents, and at a time before the patent on LZW (which is used in the GIF file format) expired, this has led to its use in gzip compressed files and PNG image files, in addition to the ZIP file format for which Katz originally designed it." [Emp. added]
Wordy and confusing.  What exactly happened then?  Could the bold phrase be dropped or moved?
--68.3.198.253 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 05:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing in particular happened afterwards, it's just that there wouldn't have been much motivation for the PNG or gzip formats if the LZW patents hadn't existed (since PNG and gzip were developed as patent-free alternatives to GIF and compress, both of which use LZW). The wording needs to be improved, but I don't think we should drop the mention of LZW entirely, since it's an important factor in the current widespread use of Deflate. --Zundark (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that’s the problem.  No one knows until a court rules on it.  Hence “widely thought”.  2601:9:8080:1140:DD2C:3F2F:737D:4AAE (talk) 10:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary does't make sense 

message: This wording is, I think, not quite correct: "Relative back-references can be made across any number of blocks, as long as the distance appears within the last 32 kB of uncompressed data decoded (termed the sliding window)." The sliding window is usually 32 kB but can be set to some other value. OptiPNG allows you to use a different sliding window value, and I found that sometimes a different value results in a smaller file. I mentioned this to Ken Silverman, though, and he said his own testing showed no advantage significant enough to implement it in PNGOUT. I'm not sure how this might best be explained in the article though. —pfahlstrom (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sliding window 

message: It is not referred anywhere on the article whether zlib supports or not parts compression; that means instead of giving it the full contents, giving it gradually chunks of it and obtaining compressed chunks. Looking to zlib.h code it seems to me that it is not possible.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.139.250.34 (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parts compression 

message: Observation: little is said about the performance of compression algorithms other than speed; this does not help people in deciding which to utilize; while moderate ratios are that is needs between sites located by thousands of kilometers which are linked by broad pipes, it is the ratio that is critical for those at the end of a narrow pipe; if someone can transmit gigabytes in the same time as (formerly) megabytes, that would be a winner for "developing nations" and New York City; despite being of the ten most compacted cities on the planet, we have worse telecomm than any other "developed" (i.e., anybody in the EEC, even France);
Howard nyc (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Compression Ratios

message: As far as I understand it, the patent must be expired? It was filed 1990-08-21 and issued 1991-09-04; 20 years are over for some years now; so the technology should be in the public domain now as far as I understand the patent system ... this should be noted in the article if correct. -- 217.224.224.68 (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  patent expired?