RAR vs ZIP

[Kyudos]

Why not just get ZipGenius[^]? It handles all your favourite compression algorithms. And it's free. You can stop arguing now.

[James Brown]

RAR has Unicode file support, AFAIK WinZip does not, or at least didn't in the past. That's probably why alot of non-English countries use RAR over ZIP.

http://www.catch22.net

[Hofver]

Following this[^] discussion in the lounge a week ago I downloaded a couple different zip utitilites - including UltimateZip and 7-zip, but I stuck with IZArc[^]. I have hardly noticed it since I installed it, it just works. /Simon

This is not a signature.

[Sceptic Mole]

Johann Gerell wrote:

In all my recent XP installs, I've stopped installing WinZip, since the builtin ZIP-support of XP is enough as I see it.

You expectations are very low!

[Sceptic Mole]

Simon Hofverberg wrote:

I stuck with IZArc[^]. I have hardly noticed it since I installed it, it just works.

The best one can say about a tool. It's also my installed (Un-)Zipper.

[dr TyGER Konstantin]

Rar is the best quality archiving software!!! And it will definitely be most popular than ZIP... I use only WinRAR because it can work with zip-archives... For historical note: RAR initially was made by Eugene Roshal in Russia in South Ural State University...

[NutSoft]

Whilst I agree that WinZIP has the better user interface, you can't escape from the fact that there's a lot of RAR archives out there, so you need to at least be able to read them. I also use WinRAR to extract from ISO files - can you do that with WinZIP?

[Abu Mami]

7-zip is able to decompress anything that Winzip compresses (at least as far as I've encountered so far). However, Winzip isn't able to decompress the 7-zip format from what I know.

[Don Miguel]

The possibility to repair a damaged rar archive make it better than zip ones. I was few times put in situation to repair a damaged rar archive and, to my surprise, reapiring works!!! So, IMHO, with this capability rar take over the zip.

[Abu Mami]

I was using ZipGenius for a while but I had some serious speed problems with it. It would take forever to start up. I was lazy and went back to WinZip - I then discovered 7-zip and have been too lazy to pursue the issue further.

[destynova]

Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:

I hate the WinRar interface.

I liked it until it started asking me for money all the time... Then I got 7Zip. Now that I'm using linux most of the time, I just use the commandline versions (rar -x... etc) or Ark/File Roller or something.

Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:

Besides, Rar is not as ubiquitous as Zip.

Well, at one time black and white TVs were more ubiquitous than colour TVs. Aren't you glad that didn't stop colour TV?

[pjrf]

WinZip was very popular, until WinRar appear! Since there I only use WinRar. Of couse some persons froze in time... and it still is installed on corporate windows machines. Not that I tried other like 7zip but the result was always the same, WinRar can compress very good at great performance (Just see the memory signature to realize what is the best compress tool for Windows users...)

PJ

[Lost User]

I must come out of the closet for the fact that I, too, am a WinRAR fan. Unlike some others here, I far prefer the interface over WinZip (which never fails to make me feel like I should be on the floor with Duplo-blocks), and the integrated XP-zip? That just doesn't do it for me. Aside from that another factor is compatibility, I seem to hang out with RAR-types (someone pointed out that in "Europe" RAR was more popular, which I'd never thought about), so I work with that format most anyway. Now excuse me, I need to grow my hair further and smoke some weed.

Paul

Where are you?[^]
How much time is left?[^]

[rabryst]

I use a free program called IZarc. It does everything, for free. "If you break a crumb in half, you have two crumbs." - George Carlin

[adudley256]

How many times have you hit extract twice? its just rubbish

[Sarath C]

Michael Dunn wrote:

I've always found WinRAR to give better compression than WinZip 9

You said it... I had a release to the offshore team members and I compresses the source files and binaries. It was nearly 52 MB or something when I used zip but in RAR which compressed the files 3 - 4MB lesser in size. Actually the size of the file really very costly while transfer data through FTP or some other slow medium.

-Sarath_._ "Great hopes make everything great possible" - Benjamin Franklin

My blog - Sharing My Thoughts, An Article - Understanding Statepattern

[ednrgc]

Zip for work, RAR for personal......and I don't know why :wtf: Actually, I like it because it can handle multiple formats, rendering Winzip useless.

[Johann Gerell]

adudley256 wrote:

How many times have you hit extract twice?

Not once. Never.

adudley256 wrote:

its just rubbish

Nope, it's good enough[^]

-- The Blog: Bits and Pieces

[Adriaan Davel]

I'm not too sure about the newer Winzip versions, but the one I tested (not sure what version that was either as I have been using WinRar) could not compress files over 4 GB or something like that. Also when compressing database backups WinRar archives ended up to be about 10 - 50 % of Winzip archive sizes, so that sold WinRar to me (most of our backups are over 4Gb as well...) Not sure if WinZip has caught up, but I'm so happy with WinRar, I'm not moving. (Also WinRar actually put me in contact with their developers about features I needed, could get any support from WinZip...)

[Lost User]

RAR has better compression than ZIP and better spanning support, so it only makes sense that it's used more. However it seems to be a bit slower on the extraction side. I know nothing of 7Z, but if its compression is better then I'm all for it. Another note is that WinZip can't extract some RAR archives, not even in v11.