Do you use 7-Zip files?

[jdd]

The 7-Zip *.7z is my preferred compressed file type.  I am interested to know if it is preferred by many others at DC.  Thanks, jdd

[Nighted]

I find with the new version of WinRAR that my RAR files actually get better compression.

[Renegade]

While 7z files may offer some compression advantages over ZIP or RAR, ZIP is still better supported.

If compression is still more important, then I find RAR is still better than 7z as it's been commercially proven over years and simply has that reliability factor going for it. If compression is of utmost importance, then RK or PAQ8 are better, but still have that question of being proven for reliability and widespread support.

[Nomadin]

I still stick with WinRar.  I registered it quite a while ago and it has served me well.  I particularly like a couple command line options that are not available on 7zip.

I use -ag_YYYYMMDD, which automatically appends the current date to the file name, so Opera.rar becomes Opera 20070426.rar.  Makes my backup scheme much easier to manage and -hgPASSWORD to automatically apply a password.

[f0dder]

I'm a WinRAR not-quite-but-close zealot myself, and I've been using RAR since the early DOS days. It's fairly fast, has a very good compression ratio, has portable source available for decompression (so while it's not quite opensource, at least it's not 100% lock-in and dependency), the UI is nice and unbloated, and there's very good commandline support as well. RAR also offers AES encryption, recovery data, authentication verification, and support for NTFS streams and security info. Licenses are pretty darn cheap. Quality software!

7-zip isn't half bad, and it's speed has improved a lot during the years. But while it's opensource, I dare you to actually do something with it - the LZMA SDK is one big pile of ugly spaghetti code, as I'm sure most people who's worked with it can attest. Dunno how portable it even is, without a lot of glue code...

Zip is a pretty sucky format today, especially because of it's lack of solid compression. The format has been amended a bit with later versions of winzip and whatnot, but once you start using those extensions, you risk that other people can't decompress, and you lose it's "available everywhere" status.

For source code distribution, especially if it's portable, I prefer .tar.bz2 (or if you want to support even really old quirky architectures, .tar.gz) - not because it's necessarily the best format, but because it's available pretty much everywhere, and still has a decent compression ratio.

[zridling]

f0dder speak; I listen.

I'd rather use 7z than zip any day, but it remains a second-choice format behind RAR. RAR has proven its reliability over many years. It's not sexy, but it works.

[Hirudin]

I've tried 7z a couple times, but for one reason or another, I very quickly give up on it.

I'm not a big archiver... I download a lot of zips, and create RARs on occasion. WinRAR's context menu options have always been exactly what I need, have always worked, and are always there when I need them. I think this alone has made me stick with WinRAR since I first discovered it and ditch everything since. Also, the dual progress bar when you're raring/unraring is pretty fun to watch...

What can I say, I'm easy to please!

I'm now a paying customer so it'll take a whole lot to make me go with anything else.

[Nudel]

7-zip isn't half bad, and it's speed has improved a lot during the years. But while it's opensource, I dare you to actually do something with it - the LZMA SDK is one big pile of ugly spaghetti code, as I'm sure most people who's worked with it can attest. Dunno how portable it even is, without a lot of glue code...

At least it has an SDK, unlike RAR. The 7Zip SDK I was looking at looked very similar, almost identical in fact, to unrar for decompression. Might have been a higher-level wrapper around LZMA though (in fact, it must have been).

I almost only use Zip myself. It works well enough and it works in everything. The advantages of using another format don't seem enough to outweigh the hassle factor.

Hassle aside, I'm against using RAR to store data as I don't like the idea of storing data in a closed, undocumented format that people can't even licence a compressor for.

[f0dder]

RAR is by no means closed and undocumented. Yes, there isn't any compressor source available and you're not allowed to write one, but the format is documented and has portable decompression source available - that's good enough that you won't end up with archives you can't decompress.

You found an easy-to-use SDK? http://www.7-zip.org/sdk.html - that one certainly isn't, at least not if you just want to, say, use the LZMA code for generic de/compression. Tangled mess. Too bad, really, sinze .7z is a decent enough format.

The LZMA SDK has a pretty nice license, btw - basically "LGPL made sane by adding exceptions."

[Darwin]

Two points... First the second one  : I use zip ONLY because I tend to be archiving things to send to other people via e-mail. Occasionally, I use Rar to create an SFX file but that adds to the PIA factor because I then have to explain to the recipient not only that they have to change the extension in order to open the file but also that they need to run an exe file to get to the actual file that I am sending. Every so often this is too much for people.

My first point is that the poll has two choices which, to my mind are identical: NO and NEVER... Unfortunately, I can't remove my vote to check how the poll was originally worded - was a distinction made? I can't remember 

[Nudel]

RAR is by no means closed and undocumented. Yes, there isn't any compressor source available and you're not allowed to write one, but the format is documented and has portable decompression source available - that's good enough that you won't end up with archives you can't decompress.

Good point!

I still wish RARLabs would provide an API into WinRAR or licence the compression algorithm, or that people would stop using RAR so the format would die and people would then stop asking for compressions support to be added to other programs, but it is true that you'll be able to decompress the files whatever happens so there's no risk in using RAR now.

[Nudel]

My first point is that the poll has two choices which, to my mind are identical: NO and NEVER... Unfortunately, I can't remove my vote to check how the poll was originally worded - was a distinction made? I can't remember 

Here's the wording/choices:

Do you use *.7z compressed files as your primary archiving/zipping file type?
Yes
No
Sometimes
Never
Blue

[superboyac]

blue?  what does that mean?  Did the internet community come up with yet another term I don't know?  I'm such a n00b.

[TucknDar]

You can get winrar 3.51 for free, just look here for how-to -> http://homemade-tutorials.blogspot.com/2006/08/free-winrar-license-v-351.html

[Curt]

I have never found any reason for me not to use 7-Zip!

[attachimg=#]

[dk70]

I dont use 7zip for locale files, zip is so much faster - life too short for ultimate compression ratios. However, sending larger files over internet means 7zip or similar. So Winrar does not look so bad today, go back a bit in time and 7zip often had advantage. Still does overall I think but much closer http://www.maximumcompression.com/index.html Silly compression times makes x% difference redundant of course. 

Regardless of fast internet connections 7zip/Rar should be mandatory - out with zip. Exe files kill concern for receivers arsenal of unpacking equipment. Principle, like not throwing away beer cans in forests Old free Winrar is way better than zip.

[Curt]

I have never found any reason for me not to use 7-Zip!

I should add that it is very seldom I compress anything; I almost only unpack. Compression effeciency doesn't interest me. But easiness does. And this is where 7-Zip may be the easiest and maybe even the fastest unzipper: right-click the file and pick your choice. So easy that even I can understand how to use it.  I have tried many zippers, but 7-Zip is my favourite / favorite.

[masu]

For Self-Usage I use 7-Zip, if I want to share something I use ZIP for compatibility.

[Tekzel]

I pretty much exclusively use 7-zip.  The only time I don't is when I am sending it to someone that isn't a computer geek.  Then I use zip.  All of my file based backups use 7-zip.  Why?  I dunno.  Its open source for one.  As for speed, yadda, who cares?  On a relatively modern PC the speed difference between any of them is probably small enough to be academic unless you just sit there all day compressing and decompressing files.  IF that is the case, you have bigger issues than finding the fastest compressor! haha.  Oh, also, it has a  7 in the name.  That is waaaaay cool.  RAR never did anything for me, in fact if I come across a RAR archive I want to keep I always recompress it to 7-zip.

Down with the (RAR) man.

[f0dder]

Tekzel: when compressing files of roughly 4.7GB of size (*cough*), speed is certainly an issue. Also, WinRAR can practically be used as a backup tool because of all it's commandline options, as well as unicode filename support, NTFS security & alternate streams support, etc...

Now, if 7zip was actually cleanly written and was extended to have the same support as winrar...

[Darwin]

Thanks superboyac! I didn't want to be the only one going "Blue? What the hey does that mean?!"

Also, NO and NEVER seem to be the same thing... so why are they both on the list of choices?!

[f0dder]

I took at it as "no=I don't generally use it" and "never=I NEVER USE IT EVAR!"

[Edvard]

(or if you want to support even really old quirky architectures, .tar.gz)

Geez, I can't swing a dead cat around open-source-land without smacking a .tar.gz. In fact, Slackware packages are nothing but a populated directory tree wrapped in .tar.gz and renamed .tgz.

I use 7-Zip (the application) because it has proven reliable and fast for quite a while, and I use it constantly at work to sling files off to clients and fellow employees.

I tried using the .7z format for archiving, and found it painfully slow, although I do agree it's a decent format if you've got the time.

[Curt]

I took at it as "no=I don't generally use it" and "never=I NEVER USE IT EVAR!"

Almost the same for me:

"No": It so happens that I am using something else, but if 'this or that', I might use 7-Zip.
"Never": I am not using it, and never will and never have - and I hate it.

"Blue": 7-Zip makes me sad...   

[jdd]

I took at it as "no=I don't generally use it" and "never=I NEVER USE IT EVAR!"

f0dder's interpretation of "No" and "Never" is correct.  

(or if you want to support even really old quirky architectures, .tar.gz)

I use 7-Zip (the application) because it has proven reliable and fast for quite a while, and I use it constantly at work to sling files off to clients and fellow employees.

Good point. The 7-Zip application and the .7z format are two separate issues.  I should have been more succinct with my question.

Thanks superboyac! I didn't want to be the only one going "Blue? What the hey does that mean?!"

It's my favorite color.