[nubbles526]

Why is it that so many members of the FS community prefers to pack files in 7zip format rather than WinRar or Winzip

[Kazan]

better compression algorithm

it doesn't make up for the fact that .7z has a sucky install base

normal old .zip has a much better install base

[karajorma]

Zip is best for widespread use. Pretty much everyone has something that can open it. 7Zip has better compression so if you're going for a limited distribution (i.e a forum post) it's the best choice.

Given that it's proprietary and requires a download/installation I can't see any good reason to use rar unless you have to cut a large archive into chunks (and that's on the assumption that 7Zip can't do this. I haven't actually checked).


@Kazan - WinRar had a sucky install base 4-5 years ago too. I used to see posts all the time asking how to extract .rar files.

[colecampbell666]

7Zip can cut archives. I'd say get 7Zip. It can read most archives, including the ones you listed, and can zip using .ZIP and .7Z. It has better compression when using .ZIP than other other .ZIP utilities and .7Z is superior.

[Jeff Vader]

Yah, 7-Zip is an easy choice. Opens up a lot of archive types (including rar), can compress to Zip and 7z, among other options, and can split archives so that the files end up being ---.zip.001 or ---.7z.001and so forth. Free. Doesn't try to automatically claim all archive types for itself, unlike Winzip and WinRar.

[nubbles526]

I think 7z is less user friendly. And when you say better compression you meant by that it makes the files even smaller than rar or zip?

[CP5670]

Yah, 7-Zip is an easy choice. Opens up a lot of archive types (including rar), can compress to Zip and 7z, among other options, and can split archives so that the files end up being ---.zip.001 or ---.7z.001and so forth. Free. Doesn't try to automatically claim all archive types for itself, unlike Winzip and WinRar.

It's a good program, but the fact is that it's much less common than the other two. The last thing someone wants to do when they download a file is grope around the internet for the right program to open it. It is better to make self-extracting archives with it instead (at least for large files where the self-extractor won't make them much bigger).

[Jeff Vader]

I think 7z is less user friendly. And when you say better compression you meant by that it makes the files even smaller than rar or zip?

I think 7-Zip is user-friendly enough. A simple user interface, all the needed options behind right-click on files, fast performance, no constant nagging about registration. And yes, the compression ratio of 7z is better than that of zip or rar.

It's a good program, but the fact is that it's much less common than the other two. The last thing someone wants to do when they download a file is grope around the internet for the right program to open it. It is better to make self-extracting archives with it instead (at least for large files where the self-extractor won't make them much bigger).

Good point. I try to advertise 7-Zip on several occasions, but it still is quite uncommon and many people are sceptic about new programs. "We don' need 'em Seven-zips, we've got a Win'em Zip right here" seems to be a common case. And why not? With all the information security hustle going on, it's not wise to just start installing programs whenever someone suggests them.

[BloodEagle]

The worst thing (and I don't know why people do this in the first place) is when someone zips up an .exe file.

I mean, what the Hell, man! You aren't making the file that much smaller, and now I have to wait for that $%#$ing 1.5gb file to extract! 

Look at it this way, five less minutes of download time vs. 20 minutes of extraction (depending).

Grrrrrrr. 

[karajorma]

1. if you've got a 1.5GB exe file you're doing something wrong.
2. Download size is important to the server as is the space uncompressed files take up.

It's a good program, but the fact is that it's much less common than the other two. The last thing someone wants to do when they download a file is grope around the internet for the right program to open it. It is better to make self-extracting archives with it instead (at least for large files where the self-extractor won't make them much bigger).

That argument only really applies to 7zip vs zip. The only reason anyone has an extractor for rar is precisely because they groped around looking for a program to extract rars so it's a false comparison to compare how widespread the two are.

Rar became a favourite because it had a better compression ratio than zip. If something comes along that is better than it is and can also extract rar files there is no real good reason to make new archives in that format or download the program on new PCs/reinstalls.

[CP5670]

That argument only really applies to 7zip vs zip. The only reason anyone has an extractor for rar is precisely because they groped around looking for a program to extract rars so it's a false comparison to compare how widespread the two are.

Rar became a favourite because it had a better compression ratio than zip. If something comes along that is better than it is and can also extract rar files there is no real good reason to make new archives in that format or download the program on new PCs/reinstalls.

Yeah, I was mainly referring to zips, although your comments also applied to those at one point. Still, I think at the present moment, a lot more people have Winrar already installed (for whatever reason) than 7zip. The popularity of these things is self-perpetuating in a sense.

What is the compression/extraction speed like with 7z and 7zip? One thing I don't like about rar is that its extraction speed is quite slow with big files. I often use zips instead of it for this reason, even if the rar archive is a little smaller (usually not by a whole lot in my experience).

[Nuke]

i like 7zip but i use rar or zip instead.

i typically just use zip because its more common and everyone knows how to work with them. i have received flak for using self-extractors before. people who are afraid of viruses or spyware. so i tend to release in zip. i backup and archive old versions of things in 7zip and rar.

[castor]

The worst thing (and I don't know why people do this in the first place) is when someone zips up an .exe file.

One more reason to not use self extractors -- people won't try and zip them again (at least most of them won't)
Also, self extracting thingies are always a bit annoying for those of us not using Windows.

[nubbles526]

i like 7zip but i use rar or zip instead.

i typically just use zip because its more common and everyone knows how to work with them. i have received flak for using self-extractors before. people who are afraid of viruses or spyware. so i tend to release in zip. i backup and archive old versions of things in 7zip and rar.

Indeed. I only heard of 7zip when I first made my first step into HLP.

The only annoying thing about 7zips are that you have to get the original program to open. I am a traveler, and I tend to use other people's computer quite often. And then you always have to ask them if you could download them, and if they say no, you will have to do tons explaining to do etc. etc.

7zip does too less advertising.

[karajorma]

Yeah, I was mainly referring to zips, although your comments also applied to those at one point.

True but zip is natively supported by Windows now. So pretty much everyone can unzip. Rar and 7Zip are not supported by Windows natively which means when you install the OS the first thing you have to do is go out and download winRar. So it's not really any different in terms of how annoying it is than 7Zip, it's simply that more people have already been annoyed by having to get winRar.

[Polpolion]

I use the .7z program because it can open way more compression types than winrar. Plus it's free. I haven't used winrar in a very long time, actually.

Usually when I have to compress something, I always do it in .zip anyway, because I know .7z pisses people off. On the other hand, if I'm doing it for my own sake, ie to save HD space while keeping something, I'll use 7z.

[perihelion]

Unless I remember incorrectly, the .7z program can handle .rar files anyway, so you only need one program once you've got it.  Yes, the trouble is getting people to install .7z, but honestly, is this group catering to the masses?  We're a mod community for a game that was released last millennium.  Anyone who cares enough to be interested in what this community is producing can surely be prodded that extra little step to upgrading to some decent [cough]free![/cough] compression software, right?

[IceFire]

ZIP for widely distributed files since almost anything will open a ZIP file these days.  7ZIP seems to be the best overall but limited distribution.  I'm of the opinion that you should cater to the larger group and use ZIP but if there is a need for 7 then use it.

[WMCoolmon]

I've always found that any actual difference in compression is totally arbitrary for the majority of the stuff that I use them for. I don't really support using 7-zip or rar for anything; they're poorly supported compared to zip.

I don't really recommend using compressed files for a backup, at least not any more, if you can afford it. It's great for storage, but if you ever have to do any data recovery, you could get pretty screwed.

The only situation where I see it being acceptable is if you're intentionally trying to limit your audience (eg Linux source distribution packages) or if you have no other choice (using Linux and can't get the zip utility to work properly).

[jr2]

Heh... the latest WinRAR can do .7z files... WinZip shouldn't be too far behind.  Then we'll be set.  The masses can use the lovely nagware like they want to anyways.  XD