why the fuck do people still use WinRAR?
Why the fuck do people still use WinRAR?
Habit.
Nicer UI than 7zip's.
Why the fuck do people still use shitty third party unarchiving programs that try to force a shitty UI that is way too complex for just unzipping one single item, then asking money for it?
>try to compress a folder with 7-zip
>use the Ultra preset compression
>use all of my 8 cores and 16 threads
>use 10GB of my 16GB ram
>takes many minutes
>same fucking file size as the source folder
oh geez idk
7-zip
right click on zip
extract here
winrar
right click on zip
extract here
extract in folder
extract wherever
etc
i had both installed and naturally came to use winrar
Found the low IQ shitskin.
except it's never the same fucking size you waste of trips
some people actually like their files to compress
>not using bandizip
this desu, its most comfortable archive manager
why do WinRAR users hate being efficient?
i don't archive my documents, and for like 0.1% and 0.5% difference i would prefer winrar's ultimate comfy UI instead of 7-shit
Unrar at least has a general description of the RAR archive format, while 7-Zip is entirely "documented" via its source code (there are text files, but they largely consist of structs copied from the source code).
rarlab.com
If you want to compress data using the LZMA algorithm, you should use lzip or plzip instead.
Recovery Record + better UI
I use both
7zip also does that, you memedip
This.
WinRAR has a more convenient UI but 7z does what WinRAR does, but better.
Kinda like Winamp vs new super mega up to date media player.
Winamp still plays it.
Old doesn't mean it's bad.
Am I the only one who uses 7zip because of the UI?
90% of the time I just want an archive file and don't care about 10% file size difference. But I tried to use winrar once and I simply cannot bear the 90s-style UI (in a bad way, not in a comfy way).
most importantly
>extract each archive into a separate folder
what about rar5?
Because I already paid for WinRar before I knew about 7z.
I use both.
>3.5%
How compact media file with better result?
ITT: People who never bothered to learn anything but WinZip
Basically the tech illiterates people green text about
How often do you actually use the UI?
...
To create .rar archives just to piss people off because those are the hardest to decompress.
>How compact media file with better result?
media files are already compressed. there is no reason to compress them again.
He's asking how they made the media file smaller by compressing it.
.*ar is a more proper archive format extension than .zip
>UI that is way too complex for just unzipping one single item
Then right click the archive? Or just drag it out of the fucking window?
Archive Integrity Checks. 7-Zip does not have this feature.
RAR5 has better compression.
that's nice but still no option to extract each archive into separate folder
I cracked it in 2008, I was very proud of it, so still use this crack.
Explain it to us then
Come on teach us user-senpai
It's not
Alright, what do you want to know?
...
Literally no reason.
tomshardware.com
>tfw brainlet that uses CORE keygen from 2009 that still works with WinRAR 5.x
The same reason there are still people using IE as a browser: because they don't know any better.
why the fuck do people still use gzipped tape archives?
lmao pleb excuses, 7zip UI is actually much better for me
7zip is free, faster, opensource, while winrar you have to pay for inferior slower program, pathetic
>that's nice but still no option to extract each archive into separate folder
But that's exactly what "Extract to " does.
Where gets replaced by the archive name or */* depending on how many you selected in actual use.
Keep justifying your 40$ spent on that shitty meme software.
Recovery record in winrar was literally invented to help shitty downloads for users in third world countries. This shit just encourages idiots to upload broken archives, that's what torrents are for you retard.
by picking values from pi
>pay
> found the guy trying to compress compressed videos
Toast.
Because I can either install a pre-activated WinRAR, or I can very easily register it with a keygen or a .reg entry
Because my stepdad got me a copy for my birthday a couple years ago, and he asks me about it every couple weeks so I'd feel bad to lie to him if I switched
I use peazip instead, the UI is nicer than 7zip and it's also free.
Winrar is actually the fastest unzipper
Also has a much better interface than 7-zip
UI looks fine to me.
tar -j
7z doesn't preserve timestamps
>she thinks mouse clicks are free
[Citation Needed]
Also, doesn't RAR uses a sort of VM for its compression? I remember reading about all sorts of exploits that can pwn you just by opening up a crafted .rar file.
I have yet to encounter a zip program that has a good GUI. 7-Zip is just the best though, in terms of compression and speed at least.
Because 7Zip doesn't have this
<
sourceforge.net
back to the tard ward you imbecile
7-Zip doesn't have an option to remove redundant folders from the extraction path.
WinZip
>She thinks cracks don't exist
Meh. I can delete my own old archives
>failing to factor in the clicks needed to go through the crack
No, fuck that, there is little hassle to implement this.
Maybe you don't need it but many have said they do.
Ever tried to decompress some specific archives in a folder or many?
Or decompressing multipart archives in a folder of many different archives?
>7-Zip is just the best though, in terms of compression and speed at least.
Compression maybe, but not speed.
WinRAR unzips faster.
I don't. I use rar in Bash.
Why are you still on Windows?
It will remove the top level folder if it has a duplicate name. Is there more to it that you want/get elsewhere?
Am i the only that gets One drive spam everyone i open 7z?
Will it remove the top level folder even if the name isn't the same as the folder in it?
>extract wherever
WHAAAT?
>extract .rar using 7zip
>get error at completion
>incomplete exraction
>use winrar instead
>just werks
7zip is great, for zip and 7z archives
grab a file
it's rared
MOREOVER IS RAR5
Can't fucking open that shit. RARJEWS should die.
People ITT comparing UIs. I don't fucking even use the UI. Not once. I always right-click and extract/compress. 7-Zip 100% of the time. Who the fuck uses a UI to extract files? I thought this was Sup Forums.
they're either stupid or use it ironically
They're all garbage until they can implement multi-thread decompression.
Can't wait till 7zip and WinRAR switch to a new gui written in electron
I think there are two tick boxes. One for the duplicate folder and another next to the default folder name which you can disable. I *think* that gets rid of a top folder, but it's not very clear
Hi please purchase winrar after using for the trial for 40 days, thanks!
i use winrar because the secret russian torrent site i use to download very specific things only open with winrar
> extract to
Anyways, not a big deal if you prefer something else.
7zip refuses to add any fucking encoding switcher so anything archived in something like shift_jis turns to garbage. WinRAR is superior for that alone.
i only use 7z when sharing things with windows users
otherwise i use lrzip or squashfs
>7z library: 2.3M
>gui: 130M
good plan
>archive manager with gui
That's a cool thing brau :^)
>2013
Anything higher than the "fast" preset is a waste of resources
>ctr+f peazip
>only one result
wew what a bunch of plebs
You got a corrupted file.
>he fell for Windows 10
Oys almost like the act of examining fuck loads of data to find suitable patterns to generate a reliable file that compresses the dats reliably might use some computing power.
If you horse wankers actually sat down and learned how file compression is performed, you would not make stupid comments like that.
Should you really have to learn compression just to compress a file though? It's nice if you don't have to concern yourself at all with learning how each compression algorithm works.
Most file formats that end users interact with already are compressed
I'll never do that shit again.
Files:
Crash Bash (USA).bin - 178.220.448 bytes
Crash Bash (USA).cue - 82 bytes
>Tests
7zip Default (7z)
Compression: 24.57s - 50.035.443 bytes
Extraction: 3.98s
7zip - Ultra (7z)
Compression: 33.53s - 49.519.437 bytes
Extraction: 3.98s
Winrar - Default (rar)
Compression: 11.31s - 62.514.323 bytes
Extraction: 1.67s
Winrar - Best (rar) [RAR]
Compression: 12.71s - 62.465.605 bytes
Extraction: 1.73s
Winrar - Best (rar) [RAR5]
Compression: 16.93s - 57.339.318 bytes
Extraction: 1.37s
7zip Default (zip)
Compression: 14.43s - 76.422.244 bytes
Extraction: 1.73s
7zip Ultra (zip)
Compression: 98.51s - 75.635.649 bytes
Extraction: 1.91s
Winrar Default (zip)
Compression: 4.58s - 77.478.073 bytes
Extraction: 1.43s
Winrar Best (zip)
Compression: 6.13s - 77.447.878 bytes
Extraction: 1.51s
>Other
7zip - (rar) [Winrar's RAR - Default]
Extraction: 1.83s
7zip - (rar) [Winrar's RAR5 - Default]
Extraction: 1.46s
Winrar - (7z) [7zip's Default]
Extraction: 4.03s
7zip has a beard that's why,
Rars are infinitely more common and WinRAR handles opening them better than 7zip does.
That's about all there is to it. If I packaged more shit myself I would jump to 7zip, but I'd still wind up using WinRAR for opening archives because it's the superior option in reliability and features.
>those compression times
I think I know why people use Winrar now.
How often are archives used for just compression vs packaging multiple files though?