WinRar vs 7zip

I've been using 7-Zip for years. Never had any kind of problems with it. If you get the newest beta, it adds a LMZA2 algorithm that is multi-core aware. It helps with bigger files.

 
7-zip because its free, the GUI is old and doesn’t fit together with windows 7, but it FREE.
if I wanted to pay I’ll pay for PowerArchiver not winrar.
 
7-zip is one of the first apps I install on a new machine. I'm not much of a big archiver since hd space is so abundant these days, but I do use it when making dvd backups. I didn't know the latest beta had the multi-core aware algorithm. I'm going to have to try that out.
 
I have been using WinRar but am getting tired of it. If someone could PM me with a link to 7zip, I would be glad to give it a shot.
 
Spanky93 said:
I have been using WinRar but am getting tired of it. If someone could PM me with a link to 7zip, I would be glad to give it a shot.
Click to expand...
In the time it took you to type this post, you could have googled 7zip and had it halfway downloaded. :rolleyes:
 
DeaconFrost said:
In the time it took you to type this post, you could have googled 7zip and had it halfway downloaded. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
He doesn't really want it, or care.

He's only been a member for 2 days. Check his post history, got 4 pages of terse single line barely contributory replies that either add nothing to the thread or regurgitate what others are saying. Basically covert spamming for the last 2 days. Post count++
 
winrar is basically free, jus after your trial you get a pop up saying buy it, but it still full works.
 
I can tell you guys one very good reason to use WINRAR. IT has the option to include redundancy into its archives, somewhat like PAR files. It uses a recovery record.
 
I used WinRAR but moved to 7Zip a few years ago. What's WinRAR again?

Really though, I know other products have Explorer integration but '7-zip->extract to same folder name', and in seconds it's opened.
 
WinRAR does that "Extract to..." and all the variations of that concept thing just fine too, you know. ;)

It's Ford vs Chevy all over again: people just have their own preferences for their own reasons, nothing wrong with that. I don't think either app is "better" or even "best" overall, but one or the other can be best for me, or someone else, definitely.
 
i use winrar and always have, i tried 7zip about a month ago and it was having all kinds of problems opening files on a old failing hard drive. i thought i was going to lose most of the stuff i had on there but i figured why not try out old reliable instead. winrar didn't even blink. it chugged and extracted every file without a whimper.
 
bigdogchris said:
Yeah, I know ;)

I suppose the advice that it's personal preference does hold water, but I also look at the overwhelming amount of responces for 7-Zip. That holds water too.
Click to expand...

I guess 7-Zip being completely free with no nag anything probably has absolutely nothing to do with it either. ;)

And I did note in that post long ago (2 years 4 days ago, wow) that I got WinRAR "absolutely free" as anyone can.

Bleh... I'm rambling on. ;)
 
It's not just Ford vs Chevy, though, if you value your contents in an archive, that is. WinRAR allows you to add as much redundancy as you wish, and that gives you a much, much safer file and chance of recovering those files. That's something that 7-zip omits.
 
WinRAR sucks. It's like one of the most overrated softwares ever. Every noob uses it and complains why they can't extract everything.

You can't even use WinRAR to extract archive compressed with LZMA method.

7zip is great. Looks a little spartan, but there's PeaZip if you need something more eye candy. It's based on 7zip and does the same things...
 
You can use "recovery records" in WinRAR, and they function like internal PAR files. You can also perform "repair" functions. Those are the only two things that sell me on it. And, they are really important. For critical files, having those two options is necessary. 7Zip does not offer those protections.
 
DougWD said:
You can use "recovery records" in WinRAR, and they function like internal PAR files. You can also perform "repair" functions. Those are the only two things that sell me on it. And, they are really important. For critical files, having those two options is necessary. 7Zip does not offer those protections.
Click to expand...
Because using par2 yourself is very hard
 
Whether or not it is hard is not the point. RAR has it, while 7zip does not. Not only that, but when you compress hundreds of emailed filed a month, having to include par files every time you open and add a file is nonsense.
 
cyb0rg said:
WinRAR sucks. It's like one of the most overrated softwares ever. Every noob uses it and complains why they can't extract everything.

You can't even use WinRAR to extract archive compressed with LZMA method.
Click to expand...

LZMA is the default 7zip format, and WinRAR can extract 7zip files and have for several years. Most of the problems you are complaining about are caused by people using older versions or have long been resolved.
 
Just try it yourself, like I did.

Format Zip, method LZMA, compression ultra - unextractable by WinRAR.
 
cyb0rg said:
Just try it yourself, like I did.

Format Zip, method LZMA, compression ultra - unextractable by WinRAR.
Click to expand...

I just compressed a file with 7zip using the settings you list, and WinRaR had absolutely no problem opening it or extracting it.
 
Same here. Worked just fine.

LZMA2 was added back in 2009, so your problem was probably fixed back then. If the file was Unicode that was added around 2007. I'm mentioning all of this because most of the time I run into people who have a file that WinRAR can't open that it should otherwise support they usually are still using 3.51 which was given away for free something like 7 years ago but can't be upgraded or some version older than 3.8. 4.01 is the latest btw.

Anyhow, use what you want. There's some things 7z destroys rar at and vice versa. use whats better for the job.
 
I just loaded PeaZip and tried it. It's not a bad program. However, it's not as polished as WinRAR either. I couldn't get its context menus to work. There was a listing for PeaZip but no context flyouts. I also couldn't find a way to add a context menu for using the arc format only, which is what I'd be interested in for recovery record purposes. o its benefit, you can use .arc format and you get to choose to add recovery records, but it doesn't allow you to add more or less. It's a static offering.
 
DougWD said:
I just loaded PeaZip and tried it. It's not a bad program. However, it's not as polished as WinRAR either. I couldn't get its context menus to work. There was a listing for PeaZip but no context flyouts. I also couldn't find a way to add a context menu for using the arc format only, which is what I'd be interested in for recovery record purposes. o its benefit, you can use .arc format and you get to choose to add recovery records, but it doesn't allow you to add more or less. It's a static offering.
Click to expand...

I've been using Peazip for the last 2 weeks and really do like it, context menus work for me but haven't tried using the ARC format. I'll have to look into that later
 
I vote for WinRAR.

I have seen .rar archives that when I opened them with 7zip some of the files didn't show. But WinRAR has always worked 100%.
 
DougWD said:
Whether or not it is hard is not the point. RAR has it, while 7zip does not. Not only that, but when you compress hundreds of emailed filed a month, having to include par files every time you open and add a file is nonsense.
Click to expand...

This is very true
That's why you write a cron script :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top