Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • December 10, 2016, 10:13:07 PM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Last post Author Topic: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?  (Read 19795 times)

Deozaan

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Points: 1
  • Posts: 7,725
    • View Profile
    • The Blog of Deozaan
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #25 on: August 10, 2010, 06:16:38 PM »
I use 7-Zip. Mostly because it does everything I ever needed WinRAR for (and more) and doesn't nag me to buy it.

I've also found that the .7z format gets better compression than what I get using RAR, so that's a plus.


Lashiec

  • Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 2,374
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #26 on: August 10, 2010, 06:39:46 PM »
My main tool is WinRAR because it is the only archiver that goes beyond simple file compression (creating different archives per file or folder, and deleting the source files after compression are invaluable features). I also use 7-Zip when working with .7z and .zip archives, because it handles .7z better than WinRAR and its ZIP compression ratio is slightly better.

I keep Universal Extractor around to handle the most obscure formats and peeking into software installers.

zridling

  • Friend of the Site
  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,292
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #27 on: August 10, 2010, 08:22:55 PM »
tomos, the WinRAR license is a [true] Lifetime license. It's also cross-platform, meaning, that my old Windows license key also gives me a license to use their Linux version.

Surprised no one has said PeaZip yet.

I've been using KDE's built-in Ark with openSUSE Linux for a while now. It's by no means sexy, but it provides a great set of right-click options in any file manager.

J-Mac

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 2,913
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #28 on: August 10, 2010, 09:40:45 PM »
WinRAR here also. I'm another earlier purchaser and it has never disappointed me in all these years.

Jim

nosh

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 1,426
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #29 on: August 11, 2010, 12:03:00 AM »
I dim the room lights and walk around the PC a few times chanting, trying to get a "feel" for the archive's contents so I can mentally decompress them. If that doesn't work out, I use Winrar.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 12:04:48 AM by nosh »

MrCrispy

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2006
  • *
  • Posts: 331
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #30 on: August 11, 2010, 01:21:19 AM »
Tried all the free ones, WinRar is still the best. I'm a cheap bastard and I use the free one, I don't mind the nag screen  ;)

Jibz

  • Developer
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,128
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #31 on: August 11, 2010, 02:44:17 AM »
WinRAR. It's one of the few applications that has managed to stay lean and efficient through all these years where others got bloated and annoying :Thmbsup:.

Curt

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 7,092
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #32 on: August 11, 2010, 03:04:27 AM »
I don't understand how any un/zipper can be faster or easier to use (or less bloated) than 7Zip, but the number of DC members using WinRAR, makes me wonder if maybe I should have a closer look at my 3.80. But it would be interesting to know if I am missing any features or something. So my two or three questions for all you WinRAR users are: How many of 'you' are using an old giveaway version (like mine 3.80), versus the newest payware version (3.93). Should I update/upgrade?
 :tellme:


I never knew (or, have long forgotten) about WinRAR EXTRAS. Are 'you' using some extras? If, yes, give us a (micro-)review, please!

http://www.win-rar.com/rarextras.html
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 04:50:20 AM by Curt »

Jibz

  • Developer
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,128
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #33 on: August 11, 2010, 03:38:24 AM »
I don't understand how any un/zipper can be faster or easier to use (or less bloated) than 7Zip

I think it's more that 7-Zip feels like .. well .. an open source project :-[. It looks like something from Win3.11 and (the last time I tried it) feels a bit 'unpolished'. WinRAR just bestows more confidence that you're gonna see your data again I think.

tomos

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,341
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #34 on: August 11, 2010, 04:33:43 AM »
But why they have different content or why one doesn't redirect to the other - I don't know.  I assume that some marketing person (or people) think they need to keep rarlab.com for the geekier customers, and have win-rar.com cater more to your everyday average computer user.

they certainly look like that!
Tom

4wd

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 4,477
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #35 on: August 11, 2010, 04:47:54 AM »
WinRAR for rar archives for really only one reason - the ability to keep broken files.  Something no other archiver I've tried seems to be able to do, is it really that hard to not have the program delete temporary files?

Otherwise, I use IZArc2Go because it can handle some archives that WinRAR can't and I generally create zip archives using DOpus, (or IZArcCC from a button in DOpus).

Carol Haynes

  • Waffles for England (patent pending)
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,986
    • View Profile
    • Dales Computer Services
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #36 on: August 11, 2010, 04:53:27 AM »
rarlabs has other bits and pieces on it to whereas win-rar is just winrar

Curt

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 7,092
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #37 on: August 11, 2010, 05:03:56 AM »
I don't understand how any un/zipper can be faster or easier to use (or less bloated) than 7Zip

I think it's more that 7-Zip feels like .. well .. an open source project :-[.

-spot on!:

Quote
7z.gif

The download links above redirect you to download pages on SourceForge.net
;)
http://www.7-zip.org/  In my setup 9.15 Beta is stable, and LOOKS OKAY.

---

WinRAR for rar archives for really only one reason - the ability to keep broken files.  Something no other archiver I've tried seems to be able to do, is it really that hard to not have the program delete temporary files?

-you're right. This should be a common feature  :up:

f0dder

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,029
  • [Well, THAT escalated quickly!]
    • View Profile
    • f0dder's place
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #38 on: August 11, 2010, 10:00:50 AM »
There's one thing I miss in WinRAR, though - the ability to NOT have icons on the toolbar buttons, but keep them as plain text. The included icons are plain old butt-ugly, and I prefer text anyway. (I've just removed the toolbar + "up one level" because I never really use them anyway, which makes it more aesthetically pleasing to me - at the expense of looking a bit too much like my explorer2 setup :)).

Considering this is the only thing that bothers me about WinRAR, I'd call it quite a fine piece of software :-*
- carpe noctem

superboyac

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,070
  • Is your software in my list?
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #39 on: August 11, 2010, 12:16:26 PM »
rarlabs has other bits and pieces on it to whereas win-rar is just winrar
Well...that's partially true.  win-rar has the unplugged version which rarlabs doesn't have.  The whole thing seems weird to me.

Shades

  • Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 2,100
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #40 on: August 11, 2010, 08:23:44 PM »
7-zip here. I regularly have to download database dump files. The biggest one is a 200GByte database and it is always made available to me as a rar-archive...of 16+ GByte.

After unpacking it and re-archiving it with 7-zip (in extreme mode) by using a self-made script, I only have to download 7+ GByte. That difference is a huge one for me and unless winRAR can do the same trick I will take a look at it again.

Now I do agree that both archivers are great at what they do...and also agree that the interface of winRAR is as least as ugly as the one from 7-zip. 

zridling

  • Friend of the Site
  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,292
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #41 on: August 11, 2010, 08:46:23 PM »
7-zip here. I regularly have to download database dump files. The biggest one is a 200GByte database and it is always made available to me as a rar-archive...of 16+ GByte.

Now that's a MAN'S file there, baby!  :P

f0dder

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,029
  • [Well, THAT escalated quickly!]
    • View Profile
    • f0dder's place
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #42 on: August 12, 2010, 10:17:38 AM »
After unpacking it and re-archiving it with 7-zip (in extreme mode) by using a self-made script, I only have to download 7+ GByte. That difference is a huge one for me and unless winRAR can do the same trick I will take a look at it again.
Sounds like the compression settings haven't been cranked to the max? Remember that there's both the "Compression method" as well as "Dictionary size" (under the advanced options).

Sure, there's going to be size differences between RAR and 7z, both are improved every now and then... but 16 vs 7 gigs sounds like too much :)
- carpe noctem

CWuestefeld

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 1,002
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #43 on: August 12, 2010, 10:34:52 AM »
So is there anybody out there that would really object if archives were delivered in .7z format?

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #44 on: August 12, 2010, 10:48:51 AM »
7-zip here. I regularly have to download database dump files. The biggest one is a 200GByte database and it is always made available to me as a rar-archive...of 16+ GByte.

Now that's a MAN'S file there, baby!  :P

Yeah. Muy macho! I like it!!!

I have a client that regularly transfers huge files, although none are anywhere near as big as 200Gb.

But in their case, they found it quicker and less expensive to just dump to encrypted external hard drives and have them delivered on a rotating schedule by secure courier.

      

« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 10:54:33 AM by 40hz »

superboyac

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,070
  • Is your software in my list?
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #45 on: August 12, 2010, 11:25:31 AM »
Wow, so I finally "met" someone who works with those enormous files I always hear about.

I always find it funny that a lot of software will add a feature and say "We can now handle >2GB text files."  And I always wonder, "Who the heck is dealing with these enormous files on a regular basis?"

f0dder

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,029
  • [Well, THAT escalated quickly!]
    • View Profile
    • f0dder's place
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #46 on: August 12, 2010, 11:52:05 AM »
Btw, what about keeping yesterday's database dump, and only sending a (compressed) diff of today's + yesterday's? Needs a fair amount of disk space, sure, but might be worth it? Diffing's going to take CPU time, but should be well worth it in reduced compression time, if the diffing means a substantially reduced dataset to compress...
- carpe noctem

mwb1100

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 1,522
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #47 on: August 12, 2010, 12:01:42 PM »
they found it quicker and less expensive to just dump to encrypted external hard drives and have them delivered on a rotating schedule by secure courier.

Reminds me of something Tanenbaum quipped about in his "Computer Networks" text:

Quote from: Andrew S. Tanenbaum
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.

Shades

  • Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 2,100
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #48 on: August 12, 2010, 05:52:39 PM »
7-zip here. I regularly have to download database dump files. The biggest one is a 200GByte database and it is always made available to me as a rar-archive...of 16+ GByte.

Now that's a MAN'S file there, baby!  :P

Yeah. Muy macho! I like it!!!

I have a client that regularly transfers huge files, although none are anywhere near as big as 200Gb.

But in their case, they found it quicker and less expensive to just dump to encrypted external hard drives and have them delivered on a rotating schedule by secure courier.


Unfortunately not an option for me...or do you know a very cheap intercontinental courier that delivers within a day?

Post is something funny here in Paraguay anyway. Items/letters send to me take either 3 days or 3 months to arrive. And no, there is no difference between priority post or normal post. It just comes when it comes.

Quote
Sure, there's going to be size differences between RAR and 7z, both are improved every now and then... but 16 vs 7 gigs sounds like too much
Fortunately it isn't.

I believe you are right about the dump that I receive in RAR format is not packed using the most extreme settings RAR has to offer.
But still, I expect 7-zip to be at least 30% to 50% more efficient than anything winRAR can bring to the table. Regarding my dumpfiles that is.

Jibz

  • Developer
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,128
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?
« Reply #49 on: August 13, 2010, 12:37:46 AM »
I believe you are right about the dump that I receive in RAR format is not packed using the most extreme settings RAR has to offer.
But still, I expect 7-zip to be at least 30% to 50% more efficient than anything winRAR can bring to the table. Regarding my dumpfiles that is.

One thing that might affect it is the window size. WinRAR only supports up to 4 MB there, where 7-Zip can go up to 1 GB apparently (?). If your log files contain recurring events that are further apart than 4 MB, WinRAR will do worse.