# 7 Zip or WinRAR?



## xkm1948 (Dec 22, 2015)

Which would you recommend to a new PC user?


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Dec 22, 2015)

who pays for winrar?


----------



## xkm1948 (Dec 22, 2015)

FreedomEclipse said:


> who pays for winrar?



Santa it seems.


----------



## xvi (Dec 22, 2015)

Easily 7-zip. It supports *loads* of formats, it's lightweight, and it just seems to work no matter what. Excellent project.


----------



## Blue-Knight (Dec 22, 2015)

xkm1948 said:


> Which would you recommend to a new PC user?


If you care: http://www.7-zip.org/

If you *don't care*: http://b1.org/


----------



## Static~Charge (Dec 22, 2015)

The only thing that I don't like about 7-Zip is its Windows 95-vintage graphics. Fortunately, there's a solution for that: 7-Zip Theme Manager.


Toolbar themes - change the look of the toolbar in 7-Zip.
Filetype themes - change the Windows icons for archive files.
90 toolbar themes and 22 filetype themes to choose from.
Changing the SFX-icon (self-extracting archive) is now possible.

Be sure to grab the 2.1.1. Hotfix to mod any version of 7-Zip from 9.23 to the present release (15.12 as of the time of this post).


----------



## Blue-Knight (Dec 22, 2015)

Static~Charge said:


> The only thing that I don't like about 7-Zip is its Windows 95-vintage graphics.





Spoiler: off topic



Interesting how windows users value appearance over functionality.

That is why Windows is so "successful", it is beautiful but with crappy code inside.


----------



## GoldenX (Dec 22, 2015)

7-zip all the way. In the fast profile produces smaller files than the slowest one on WinRar, and is obviously faster.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 22, 2015)

I used Windows compression which is PKZIP.  Why?  Because no 3rd party software required.


----------



## Static~Charge (Dec 22, 2015)

Blue-Knight said:


> Interesting how windows users value appearance over functionality.
> 
> That is why Windows is so "successful", it is beautiful but with crappy code inside.



Linux troll; nothing more need be said....


----------



## MT Alex (Dec 22, 2015)

Blue-Knight said:


> Spoiler: off topic
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You would need some fantastic code for that old beater of a PC to run worth a damn.


----------



## xorbe (Dec 22, 2015)

Blue-Knight said:


> If you *don't care*: http://b1.org/



Never even heard of that one.  It's one of those scary looking websites with nice graphics and no real info.  "Next to last place."


----------



## puma99dk| (Dec 22, 2015)

I use WinRAR myself even i got 7zip installed, i rarely uses it.

I got WinRAR for a good deal back in the day and I like their interface so I stick with it ^^


----------



## Octopuss (Dec 22, 2015)

FreedomEclipse said:


> who pays for winrar?


Whoever likes the interface and prefers to use legal software. I've been using it for over ten years and almost bought it out of pure nostalgia, but then I realized I only was using it to create regular zip archives, and on top of that only from the explorer context menus. Thus, I am trying to make the switch to 7-Zip.


----------



## johnspack (Dec 22, 2015)

I actually bought winrar a long time ago.  It paid off.  The newest version is lighting fast,  compresses to stupid levels using aes.  7zip is kind of intrusive in the way it installs and works.  Or I'm just used to winrar after years of use...
It opens almost every arc known to man,  I have used 7zip,  it doesn't do more,  but it does work.  But each to his own.....


----------



## Frick (Dec 22, 2015)

johnspack said:


> Or I'm just used to winrar after years of use...



That was definitely the case for me and the reason I stuck with it for so long. 7zip is customizable, you can change many of the settings.


----------



## lZKoce (Dec 22, 2015)

If money is a factor -> 7-ZIP . It's free of charge and it works great. If cash is no factor, whatever you feel like it. I have used both, but I can't go into details about what engine lies behind them. All I know is I want to be able to open the extensions I need and compress the files I have to. Right now, I have been using 7-ZIP for at least 3-4 years in a row.


----------



## bencrutz (Dec 22, 2015)

i prefer 7zip over winrar, light, support bunch of compression formats, integrate well into win exploere's context menu


----------



## rtwjunkie (Dec 22, 2015)

FreedomEclipse said:


> who pays for winrar?



Not me apparently.  If you only use it through context menus, it stays enabled forever!


----------



## GreiverBlade (Dec 22, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> Not me apparently.  If you only use it through context menus, it stays enabled forever!


me too ... technically i hate paying for something when there is a open-source alternative (which always make me laugh when some friends buy soft and say to me, "well at last i paid for it, so it should be better than your open-source freeware", they think "open-source=inferior product")... specially when the "free" version perform majorly better than the paid version.

oh wait you use winrar in shareware mode via context menu, i see i see ... i did like that back in the day, too 

tho 7zip is way better in the end even the outdated graphic have more charm to me than the winrar interface.
i also used Izarc for some time also free, but now the installer try to install some crapware if you don't pay attention or are a bit too fast on clicking "next" 

winrar, that was good ... in the past, now ... not that much : good free alternatives are less RAR(e) nowaday(tm)


----------



## F-Zero (Dec 22, 2015)

WinRar. I use it for a very long time and that's the first program i install when i do a fresh copy of Windows. Can't do anything without it.


----------



## AsRock (Dec 22, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> Not me apparently.  If you only use it through context menus, it stays enabled forever!



The only way i have used it haha.


----------



## Red_Machine (Dec 22, 2015)

I remember back in the day when I first started using it, after a while it would stop extracting .exe files from archives, which I assume was after the trial had expired.  I'd just uninstall it and reinstall it, then it would be fine again.  WinRAR was so easy to exploit.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Dec 22, 2015)

7zip only.

It is FREE... Actually I like the plain UI. The context menu is without stupid icons.

Just as I like foobar, I like 7zip. Plain, slimple and yet very powerfull.


----------



## Mindweaver (Dec 22, 2015)

I prefer WinRAR over 7-Zip, but I was given a paid version years ago and I can use it on Linux and Windows (_7-Zip is Linux friendly as well_)..  Honestly, 7-Zip is just as good and free.. So, if you have the money then buy WinRAR, but if not 7-Zip all the way. WinRAR and WinZip use to be the ones to get for Windows, but all the Windows operating systems starting with Me can open Zip files. Since then WinZip's popularity has declined.. Oh and I like the plain UI with WinRAR and 7zip as well, but you can theme both of them. You really can't go wrong with either of them.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 22, 2015)

7zip because is does everything WinRAR does plus more and you don't have to pay for it. This isn't even a question.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Dec 22, 2015)

GreiverBlade said:


> oh wait you use winrar in shareware mode via context menu, i see i see



Correct.  This way I use what IMO personally is the better program, and use it free.  WINRAR only gets activated if you double-click on a zipped or RAR'ed file.  Right click context menu and pick one of the choices (extract here, extract to..., etc) and it works forever for free.


----------



## P4-630 (Dec 22, 2015)

I use winrar x64, never paid for it, just click ok on the notification and it always worked for me.


----------



## alucasa (Dec 22, 2015)

I paid for WinRar back in... I don't even remember now. But it's been at least 10 years.

The key still works, so I still use WinRar.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Dec 22, 2015)

Never paid for Winrar used it years, as mentioned if you right click your files it just works and even if you double click them you get some notification or other, I just close it and it works all the time. I'ts generally one of the first things I install on a clean install including drivers/AV etc


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Dec 22, 2015)

simson15 said:


> Just like me......



And several others before us....


----------



## RejZoR (Dec 22, 2015)

7-zip

It's free, simple, no bloat or nags and has superb compression. LZMA2 is awesome. It can use as many CPU cores as you can offer to the program, meaning it'll provide amazing output rate. In my case even beyond 20MB/s which is lightning fast. Most other archivers take 50x longer (at rates like few hundred KB/s) and only gain 1-2MB better compression with several gigabytes of data. Just not worth the crazy waiting time for such tiny benefits. LZMA2 is fast and has great results.

Also, as a side note, RAR5 format is now also using a derivate of LZ77 compression (basically LZMA), meaning it'll have roughly the same compression, usually a bit worse than LZMA2 in 7-zip.

Oh and 7-zip allows you to create higher compression rate standard ZIP archives. Just ramp up the word size parameter and you'll gain quite some better compression rate while keeping the ZIP compatibility.

There is also alternative named *PeaZip*. It has a nice interface, supports tons of archives and it's also free. It is a bit quirky sometimes since it's a front end for various archivers...


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Dec 22, 2015)

I use Winrar.  Most of the files I deal with are a few hundred MB to a couple of GB.  Winrar deals with them without an issue, and even lets me preview them without a problem.  My experience with 7-zip is that any highly compressed archive makes previewing the files impossible, and the decompression itself generally takes longer (I've run Winrar and 7-zip in parallel and 7-zip took 10-30% longer).

The caveat is the testing was done about 3 years ago, using x86 versions of each program.  I've since upgraded to x64 winrar, and haven't seen any problems.  No problems means no reason to switch programs.


As far as paying, I have a paid version on my media server and gaming rig. I keep the latest 30 day trial around for installs.  Once you've done all of the install, most people don't even bring up the winrar program.  Those who do generally just click on the "next" button, and never have to pay for it (but they do have to click through the "please pay" menu).  It was a good investment at the time, and I see no reason to change to a "free" option when paid version is working fine.


----------



## Frick (Dec 22, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> I use Winrar.  Most of the files I deal with are a few hundred MB to a couple of GB.  Winrar deals with them without an issue, and even lets me preview them without a problem.  My experience with 7-zip is that any highly compressed archive makes previewing the files impossible, and the decompression itself generally takes longer (I've run Winrar and 7-zip in parallel and 7-zip took 10-30% longer).



7zip tends to be a bit more touchy on the files as well. Several times (not numerous, but several) I've had zip-files that wouldn't open in 7zip but did in Winrar (generally pretty small files). But I don't really deal with compressed files these days, and it's rare, so whatevs.


----------



## MilkyWay (Dec 22, 2015)

Anyone use peazip? I used to use it but i think it didn't support a certain format this was years ago mind you. Currently use 7zip because it supports a multitude of formats, is free and just work. The right click context menu is extremely handy.


----------



## spectatorx (Dec 22, 2015)

Download and install 7-zip. Even if it comes as beta or alpha it is still more stable than any software available on market. WinRar for regular user and even advanced user has no real advantages over 7-zip.

P.S.
Money which you saved by installing 7-zip instead of buying winrar license you can send to my paypal account, this is address:
@


----------



## RejZoR (Dec 22, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> I use Winrar.  Most of the files I deal with are a few hundred MB to a couple of GB.  Winrar deals with them without an issue, and even lets me preview them without a problem.  My experience with 7-zip is that any highly compressed archive makes previewing the files impossible, and the decompression itself generally takes longer (I've run Winrar and 7-zip in parallel and 7-zip took 10-30% longer).
> 
> The caveat is the testing was done about 3 years ago, using x86 versions of each program.  I've since upgraded to x64 winrar, and haven't seen any problems.  No problems means no reason to switch programs.
> 
> ...



That's because you don't understand how things work.

*Solid compression* option improves compression at expense of extracting individual files from the archive. Disable solid compression and you'll be able to quickly view any file inside archive. With solid compression, you have to extract entire archive every time even though you only need one tiny file from it.

Use solid compression for single big files or lots of small files that will always be entirely extract. Disable solid compression if you plan on regularly extract individual files. RAR format also has solid compression but afaik it's defaulting to disabled where in 7zip it's defaulting to enabled especially at higher compression presets (like Ultra).


----------



## rtwjunkie (Dec 22, 2015)

spectatorx said:


> Money which you saved by installing 7-zip instead of buying winrar license



Or you can read various people's posts above about how to not buy WinRAR and keep using it.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 22, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> That's because you don't understand how things work.
> 
> *Solid compression* option improves compression at expense of extracting individual files from the archive. Disable solid compression and you'll be able to quickly view any file inside archive. With solid compression, you have to extract entire archive every time even though you only need one tiny file from it.
> 
> Use solid compression for single big files or lots of small files that will always be entirely extract. Disable solid compression if you plan on regularly extract individual files. RAR format also has solid compression but afaik it's defaulting to disabled where in 7zip it's defaulting to enabled especially at higher compression presets (like Ultra).


This. I also feel that 7zip gives you more flexibility with respect to how it gets compressed, at least for .7z using LZMA2. Big dictionaries can help too but, you're limited by system memory. 7zip offers a lot of "trade-off" settings which is something I like.

7zip has block-sized segmentation instead of doing solid as well as individual files, once again as you said, at the expense of compression.


----------



## silentbogo (Dec 22, 2015)

7-zip since 2006. Never looked back.
Out of all shareware on Windows I ditched WinRAR first.

At one point I tried KGB archiver, but that did not work well (too slow for a little compression benefit).


----------



## c2DDragon (Dec 22, 2015)

WinZip in the past, WinRar for now. I'm happy with it. It does the job, why changing ?


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Dec 23, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> That's because you don't understand how things work.
> 
> *Solid compression* option improves compression at expense of extracting individual files from the archive. Disable solid compression and you'll be able to quickly view any file inside archive. With solid compression, you have to extract entire archive every time even though you only need one tiny file from it.
> 
> Use solid compression for single big files or lots of small files that will always be entirely extract. Disable solid compression if you plan on regularly extract individual files. RAR format also has solid compression but afaik it's defaulting to disabled where in 7zip it's defaulting to enabled especially at higher compression presets (like Ultra).



I do believe that you're barking up the wrong tree here.

I say so, because you seem to assume that I'm the one creating the archived files without the ability to preview.  I don't, but often some ancient files need dug up, and they've often been compressed by somebody who didn't give a crap about ease of access, only the amount of space taken up on the drive.

Additionally, you seem to be unaware of the features of winrar.  There are quite a few ways to change the compression in the paid version of the software. They're buried in menus, but they are there.  Perhaps the free version lacks them.  I cannot speak to that, as I have the paid for version.


----------



## Toothless (Dec 23, 2015)

why not both


----------



## xkm1948 (Dec 23, 2015)

Installed 7zip on my work PC. It is OK but the interface surely is, well, plain. Guess I will recommend WinRAR then.


----------



## rooivalk (Dec 23, 2015)

If I recall correctly 7z is also slightly smaller than RAR at their best option but it took longer time to compress - could be twice as long compared to WinRAR. I heard the newer 7zip is faster but can't find the comparison.
So far WinRAR is snappier to use and fortunately shareware status doesn't bother me.

I once use WinACE just for the sake it's not WinZip and WinRAR


----------



## m0nt3 (Dec 23, 2015)

Mindweaver said:


> I prefer WinRAR over 7-Zip, but I was given a paid version years ago and I can use it on Linux and Windows (_7-Zip is Linux friendly as well_)..  Honestly, 7-Zip is just as good and free.. So, if you have the money then buy WinRAR, but if not 7-Zip all the way. WinRAR and WinZip use to be the ones to get for Windows, but all the Windows operating systems starting with Me can open Zip files. Since then WinZip's popularity has declined.. Oh and I like the plain UI with WinRAR and 7zip as well, but you can theme both of them. You really can't go wrong with either of them.



This Windows feature was introduced with Windows 98 Plus Addition


----------



## RejZoR (Dec 23, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> I do believe that you're barking up the wrong tree here.
> 
> I say so, because you seem to assume that I'm the one creating the archived files without the ability to preview.  I don't, but often some ancient files need dug up, and they've often been compressed by somebody who didn't give a crap about ease of access, only the amount of space taken up on the drive.
> 
> Additionally, you seem to be unaware of the features of winrar.  There are quite a few ways to change the compression in the paid version of the software. They're buried in menus, but they are there.  Perhaps the free version lacks them.  I cannot speak to that, as I have the paid for version.



I'm barking at the right tree. It's solid compression that forces decompressor to unpack entire archive when you need just one file, resulting in VERY lenghty decompression. Without it, any file will open up instantly. Not direct preview within archiver, but frankly in more than decade, I've never needed it so much that regular decompression wouldn't be enough.


----------



## Devon68 (Dec 23, 2015)

7 zip is my choice. Winrar is not bad either but for little I use it for 7 zip does the job.


----------



## MustSeeMelons (Dec 23, 2015)

I use both. Have a habit of peeking in the archive with 7zip, unzipping with winrar. I think it's because of how the context menus worked for each program. Obviously haven't paid for winrar as I haven't paid even for Windows, got mine from ninite.com and is still running.


----------



## Mindweaver (Dec 23, 2015)

m0nt3 said:


> This Windows feature was introduced with Windows 98 Plus Addition


Oh yea, I completely forgot about Plus.. Thanks! It's sucks getting old.. lol I think Dell gave me a copy of that back then.. I was order around 30 desktops /w PIII 933Mhz and 256Ram with a 40gb HD at a time with 98 pro /w WinRAR apart of the install along with the rest of the software I needed all on the OS CD. The company I worked for only let me buy Dell and we had gold support.


----------



## Solidstate89 (Dec 23, 2015)

I used to use 7zip but now I I use Bandizip. Has full functionality for those rare occurrences where I still have to deal with some jack ass who decided to split a file into about 100 separate .rar files, but I don't have to use WinRAR which I just despise as a program.

If it's between WinRAR and 7zip, I'd choose 7zip all day every day. But my actual vote goes to Bandizip.


----------



## Ahhzz (Dec 23, 2015)

Mindweaver said:


> I prefer WinRAR over 7-Zip, but I was given a paid version years ago and I can use it on Linux and Windows (_7-Zip is Linux friendly as well_)..  Honestly, 7-Zip is just as good and free.. So, if you have the money then buy WinRAR, but if not 7-Zip all the way. WinRAR and WinZip use to be the ones to get for Windows, but all the Windows operating systems starting with Me can open Zip files. Since then WinZip's popularity has declined.. Oh and I like the plain UI with WinRAR and 7zip as well, but you can theme both of them. You really can't go wrong with either of them.


I can't believe someone would still pay for Winzip... I found it installed on a client's PC a few weeks ago: made sure they hadn't paid for it, and uninstalled it.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 23, 2015)

winrar... but maybe i should give 7-zip a try again. the 'please buy me' popups annoy family, and nag me for 'something better'


----------



## Mindweaver (Dec 23, 2015)

Ahhzz said:


> I can't believe someone would still pay for Winzip... I found it installed on a client's PC a few weeks ago: made sure they hadn't paid for it, and uninstalled it.


Yea, same thing happened to me a few months ago.. Hell I haven't even given WinZip a thought since windows started opening zip files.



Mussels said:


> winrar... but maybe i should give 7-zip a try again. the 'please buy me' popups annoy family, and nag me for 'something better'


I gave it a go a few months ago, but I still prefer WinRAR over it. But I don't get the popups either.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Dec 23, 2015)

Red_Machine said:


> I remember back in the day when I first started using it, after a while it would stop extracting .exe files from archives, which I assume was after the trial had expired.  I'd just uninstall it and reinstall it, then it would be fine again.  WinRAR was so easy to exploit.


Still is.


----------



## INSTG8R (Dec 23, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> Not me apparently.  If you only use it through context menus, it stays enabled forever!



LOL I paid for it years ago now. I only ever used it that way anyway, that is why I like it.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Dec 23, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> I'm barking at the right tree. It's solid compression that forces decompressor to unpack entire archive when you need just one file, resulting in VERY lenghty decompression. Without it, any file will open up instantly. Not direct preview within archiver, but frankly in more than decade, I've never needed it so much that regular decompression wouldn't be enough.


 
I'll ask you one last time nicely, to read.  I know what I am doing, which is why you are barking up the wrong tree.  I said that the files I am accessing, not those I've created, don't properly preview in 7-zip.  Winrar gets around this by decompressing everything up until the desired file, and deleting the rest of the uncompressed files as junk.  This is a convenience feature that 7-Zip doesn't share.


As politely as I can say it, perhaps a little more reading is in order before you call someone ignorant.


----------



## RejZoR (Dec 23, 2015)

Sorry but I just don't even understand what you're talking about anymore. What decompression till that file and deleting the rest!? What are you talking about?!

Solid compression always requires extraction of whole archive because it treats data as solid block of data (that's why it's called "solid"). Without it, it just decompresses the file in question directly. No partial extraction till that point or anything like that.

Solid chunks could theoretically allow that, but they are usually way larger (1GB and more) which would only benefit with archives that are like 4GB and more in size.


----------



## Schmuckley (Dec 23, 2015)

Both! 
Stay away from Winzip..it comes with a RAT.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Dec 23, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Sorry but I just don't even understand what you're talking about anymore. What decompression till that file and deleting the rest!? What are you talking about?!
> 
> Solid compression always requires extraction of whole archive because it treats data as solid block of data (that's why it's called "solid"). Without it, it just decompresses the file in question directly. No partial extraction till that point or anything like that.
> 
> Solid chunks could theoretically allow that, but they are usually way larger (1GB and more) which would only benefit with archives that are like 4GB and more in size.



You look at an archive with winrar, and need to extract something in the middle of it.  I only want file 10011 of 23043.  If I want to preview that one file winrar allows me to preview only that one file.  I don't have to extract all 23043 files, and more importantly I don't have to deal with extraction, search, and then deletion.  

You seem to have an entirely different usage case in mind, where you've got big files but only a few of them.  I deal with backup files.  A word document, or spreadsheet that's at most a couple dozen MB.  Even then, you've got a few dozen copies backed up of that one file, so unzipping all of them becomes a mess.


Here's the problem though, rather than trying to understand someone else you brand them ignorant.  That's an asshole move, when the point of this thread is "which program do you use" and not "why is x superior to y."  Maybe, just maybe, a little thought should be provided before a snarky response.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 23, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> You look at an archive with winrar, and need to extract something in the middle of it.  I only want file 10011 of 23043.  If I want to preview that one file winrar allows me to preview only that one file.  I don't have to extract all 23043 files, and more importantly I don't have to deal with extraction, search, and then deletion.
> 
> You seem to have an entirely different usage case in mind, where you've got big files but only a few of them.  I deal with backup files.  A word document, or spreadsheet that's at most a couple dozen MB.  Even then, you've got a few dozen copies backed up of that one file, so unzipping all of them becomes a mess.
> 
> ...


The point that @RejZoR is making is that 7-zip gives you the flexibility to do that. As always, there is a compression hit to do so. Bigger cohesive chunks basically translates into better compression depending on the data.

When you're compressing to .7z using LZMA2, you have the option of selecting if you want the chunks to be non-solid (the size of each file, as you describe,) a predefined size, or completely solid. Whatever you choose, the dictionary will be created for and if there are similarities between blocks, you get a benefit for larger blocks or being completely solid.

So the question comes down to, are you archiving or are you storing for later use? If it's storing for later use, non-solid or a small block size is a no-brainer. If you're trying to send stuff over the internet or you want to do long term storage of data you're not going to look at for a while (if ever,) then solid makes more sense because you get more for the space you have since compression will be higher.

I claim 7-zip is superior because it gives you the option and has good compression ratios.


----------



## RejZoR (Dec 24, 2015)

You don't have to extract files to view them. Just double click them. Though I admit, 7-zip had few bugs with taht in the past where images refused to display in Windows Previewer. But I think that got fixed as it's most likely just access rights issue.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 24, 2015)

Side note, I would like to add that I like any tool that I can use in both Windows and Linux is a plus. When I backup data to my gatway/nas/vm monstrosity server, it's nice to be able to decompress and compress and have the archives/data readable on both platforms. For me, that's a bonus.


----------



## jsalpha2 (Dec 24, 2015)

I bought WinZip when it came in the mail on a floppy disk.  I was promised free lifetime upgrades.  Then they said no more upgrades. So I moved to WinRar.  Got a free copy from a giveaway, (magazine? can't remember).  Never really liked 7zip, but keep a copy just in case.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Dec 24, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> The point that @RejZoR is making is that 7-zip gives you the flexibility to do that. As always, there is a compression hit to do so. Bigger cohesive chunks basically translates into better compression depending on the data.
> 
> When you're compressing to .7z using LZMA2, you have the option of selecting if you want the chunks to be non-solid (the size of each file, as you describe,) a predefined size, or completely solid. Whatever you choose, the dictionary will be created for and if there are similarities between blocks, you get a benefit for larger blocks or being completely solid.
> 
> ...




@Aquinus, I'd be happy to admit that point.  Please, be wary of how I was responded to though:


RejZoR said:


> That's because you don't understand how things work.
> 
> *Solid compression* option improves compression at expense of extracting individual files from the archive. Disable solid compression and you'll be able to quickly view any file inside archive. With solid compression, you have to extract entire archive every time even though you only need one tiny file from it.
> 
> Use solid compression for single big files or lots of small files that will always be entirely extract. Disable solid compression if you plan on regularly extract individual files. RAR format also has solid compression but afaik it's defaulting to disabled where in 7zip it's defaulting to enabled especially at higher compression presets (like Ultra).




If you start off with a one finger salute, you traditionally get one back.  I didn't start the snarky responses, or even deny the point being made.  I was told I was ignorant, and insulted.  Tell me, have I yet responded in kind?  I'd hazard not.


----------



## Solaris17 (Dec 24, 2015)

I actually used winrar for YEARS but within the last 2 switched to 7zip. Life changed really. I actually dont use the GUI at all. not anymore anyway. space isnt expensive drives are a dime a dozen and I have no reason to explore archives really anymore. just right click extract here extract to folder or create archive. I'm all about that context menu now I dont have time to press buttons and shit. Just give me the god damn files.


----------



## RejZoR (Dec 24, 2015)

How is saying "Because you don't understand how things work" insulting? If you consider this as one finger salute, then tough luck, you'll see a lot of it online then. People sho "one finger salute" usually don't go the lenghts of explaining how things actually work you know... It's what I did. Explained to you what causes that behavior (solid compression).

I do have to admit though that 7-zip still has direct image viewing bugged. Hm. All other files work by double click within archive, but images won't display with photos app in Windows 10 (and same applied for older WIndows). I don't know why it only affects images...


----------



## Ahhzz (Dec 24, 2015)

*sigh* I don't suppose we could just stick to the original topic, and let personal attacks, real or imagined, just go away?


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Dec 24, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> How is saying "Because you don't understand how things work" insulting? If you consider this as one finger salute, then tough luck, you'll see a lot of it online then. People sho "one finger salute" usually don't go the lenghts of explaining how things actually work you know... It's what I did. Explained to you what causes that behavior (solid compression)
> 
> I do have to admit though that 7-zip still has direct image viewing bugged. Hm. All other files work by double click within archive, but images won't display with photos app in Windows 10 (and same applied for older WIndows). I don't know why it only affects images...



My comment was that previews did not work.  You immediately respond with "that's because you don't know how things work."  It couldn't be that usage scenarios differ, it had to be my incompetence.  That's an insult, or a display of your own ignorance.  Which do you prefer?


I thought giving you the benefit of doubt, and responding to snark with snark was reasonable.  Instead, I get a long form explanation that eventually becomes "well, I was wrong, picture previews are still bugged."  What you've just spent time arguing, and then disprooven your own point on, is what I said in the first place.  Tell me, ignorance or insult?  I can't determine which, so maybe you should fill in the blanks.


----------



## RejZoR (Dec 24, 2015)

I don't often extract images from archives, deal with it. Or do you know every and all bugs that exist or have ever existed in all programs? Yeah, snarky snarky...


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 24, 2015)

Now now, ladies.


----------



## m&m's (Dec 24, 2015)

We got two kids in here. 

- Nah mama, he started it! I didn't do nothing! 
- That's not true! He said I was a Powerpuff Girl! 
- No I didn't! You liar! 





I use 7-Zip.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Dec 25, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> I don't often extract images from archives, deal with it. Or do you know every and all bugs that exist or have ever existed in all programs? Yeah, snarky snarky...



I'm going to be blunt here, my response was 33.  At least 6 people before me backed Winrar, but you somehow avoided responding to them.  Either you're looking to be a troll, you're being an ass, or you've got something against me.  Given that you said my points were valid, only after calling me incompetent, I'd suggest that it's either you having a bone to pick with me or being a troll.  I'm too tired to play the conjecturing game, so I'll assume you're being an ass until I get an apology.  Whenever I make mistakes I issue them, so it isn't a high bar to ask for a modicum of humanity.

Barring the slightest effort on your part, I'd be well within my rights to call you an inept fool that doesn't even understand the limitations of their own programs.  It's impossible to trust anyone who calls someone else ignorant, when their own ignorance is demonstrated the second they test their statements.  The reason I didn't initially call people incompetent for supporting 7-zip, because it doesn't support the features I want, is because not everybody is me.  You turned around, and did exactly that.


@Aquinus, you backed the wrong horse.  I was told that I was incompetent, despite after doing the barest research I was proven correct.  You attempt the high ground by calling us ladies and "breaking up a fight."  I'll give you the simple way to do so.  As with all past discourses, a simple "I was wrong" would have stopped this three replies ago.  I don't bear a grudge when another human being admits to being wrong, but being called incompetent, proven correct, then further insulted is colloquially called a dick move.  


@m&m's, the difference here is that it's a forum.  Read the responses, and everything is easily quantifiable.  If I told you that you are somehow uniquely an idiot because you use 7-zip and you didn't respond I'd be reasonable in either assuming you've acquiesced to your idiocy, or that 7-zip was inferior.  I have enough decorum not to do so.


----------



## uuuaaaaaa (Dec 25, 2015)

7-zip everyday


----------



## RejZoR (Dec 25, 2015)

@lilhasselhoffer
Jesus, you're making drama out of nothing. Use WinRAR if you want it jeeez. No one said you're not allowed to use it. Compression wise, like I said it's similar now since RAR5 format is using similar compression as 7-zip.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 25, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> @Aquinus, you backed the wrong horse. I was told that I was incompetent, despite after doing the barest research I was proven correct. You attempt the high ground by calling us ladies and "breaking up a fight." I'll give you the simple way to do so. As with all past discourses, a simple "I was wrong" would have stopped this three replies ago. I don't bear a grudge when another human being admits to being wrong, but being called incompetent, proven correct, then further insulted is colloquially called a dick move.


Sure, he was being a dick but, the point he was making was the same as mine. I'm not saying he was being nice, I'm saying that his point was correct.


Aquinus said:


> Now now, ladies.


Would you rather a moderator ask instead? 

My point is stop discussing attitudes and focus on the topic. I think everyone got the point the first time you posted a reply because, at this point you're just repeating yourself and so is @RejZoR.


----------



## Devon68 (Dec 25, 2015)

Why is everyone trying to fight one another. The thread is not about which one is better, but which one you use and recommend for others.
I feel like this thread should have had a poll and let the votes decide which one people use and recommend more..


----------



## RejZoR (Dec 25, 2015)

Who's fighting with anyone? I just stated what causes huge delay when extracting individual files from solid archives (which is a fact, not an attack). And then still got shitstorm brought on me because I somehow offended someone with a fact. Well ladida.


----------



## Static~Charge (Dec 25, 2015)

Enough with the pissing contest; back on topic.



xkm1948 said:


> Installed 7zip on my work PC. It is OK but the interface surely is, well, plain. Guess I will recommend WinRAR then.



Read post #6 to learn how to spice up 7-Zip's bland interface.


----------



## dorsetknob (Dec 25, 2015)

None of them will compress this thread containing a bitching pissing contest 

Hey a mod can

lets promote ModRarZip


----------



## RejZoR (Dec 26, 2015)

NanoZip and FreeArc are also worth checking out. They are sort of experimental and aren't updated as often as others, but they provide pretty decent compression.


----------



## 64K (Dec 26, 2015)

@Aquinus a nice lady imo


----------



## monim1 (Dec 26, 2015)

I have been using 7 Zip for last one and half year. Once tried WinRAR but didn't find efficient. So I am still using 7 Zip.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Dec 26, 2015)

i have 'em both, I prefer 7 , but winrar works sometimes when 7 doesnt, and Vice versa , but rarely @ best.


----------



## RejZoR (Dec 26, 2015)

PeaZip is pretty decent in current form. ZPAQ is now working correctly, utilizing all my 12 CPU threads. And it's not canceling compression half way through without error like it used to few months ago. I think I'll be keeping it. I'm just such a sucker for ZPAQ even though not many archivers support it.


----------

