Matrix Games Forums

War in the West gets its first update!Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm version 2.08 is now available!Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual preview
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RAR vs ZIP

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RAR vs ZIP Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RAR vs ZIP - 10/30/2010 7:12:32 PM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: United States
Status: offline
RAR files have become a more and more popular method of compression. Windows does not natively support RAR. I don't know which frustrates me more, the fact that Windows doesn't natively support RAR or the fact that more and more people are using a format not natively supported by Windows to compress their downloads.

_____________________________

Favorite/Awesome games from Matrix

War in the Pacific/AE
Panzer Corps
Commander Europe at War
John Tiller's Campaign Series
The Close Combat Series (all versions)
Post #: 1
RE: RAR vs ZIP - 10/30/2010 7:43:32 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4372
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
Well, RAR is a bit more advanced than the "zip" format, and from what I hear, the best widely available format for compressing video files. And there are good freeware compress/decompress programs; my current favorite is PeaZip, available at:
http://peazip.sourceforge.net/

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 2
RE: RAR vs ZIP - 10/30/2010 10:34:56 PM   
Arctic Blast


Posts: 1168
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
7Zip is another freeware option, one that can be integrated in to your right click command shell.

_____________________________

Meditation on inevitable death should be performed daily.

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 3
RE: RAR vs ZIP - 10/31/2010 1:05:59 AM   
diablo1

 

Posts: 994
Joined: 2/27/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

RAR files have become a more and more popular method of compression. Windows does not natively support RAR. I don't know which frustrates me more, the fact that Windows doesn't natively support RAR or the fact that more and more people are using a format not natively supported by Windows to compress their downloads.


I'd disagree that more and more are using RAR I left RAR for 7-Zip because it's free and much better and easier to use.

EDIT: Oh you were talking about WinZip? Thought you were refering to 7-Zip...sorry.

< Message edited by diablo1 -- 10/31/2010 1:06:37 AM >

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 4
RE: RAR vs ZIP - 10/31/2010 2:37:24 AM   
Andrew Williams


Posts: 6116
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline
I recommend 7-zip as well... but using windows "send to windows compress (zipped) folder" is easily the most user friendly option.

_____________________________


(in reply to diablo1)
Post #: 5
RE: RAR vs ZIP - 10/31/2010 10:59:51 AM   
E

 

Posts: 797
Joined: 9/20/2007
Status: online
RAR has been around since shortly after ZIP replaced ARC in popularity, in the 80's.

(in reply to Andrew Williams)
Post #: 6
RE: RAR vs ZIP - 10/31/2010 11:25:18 AM   
Arsan

 

Posts: 403
Joined: 7/1/2005
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline
Another happy 7-zip user here. 100% freeware, small, easy to use and compatible with .zip, .rar and a lot of other compression formats.

(in reply to E)
Post #: 7
RE: RAR vs ZIP - 11/1/2010 12:29:02 AM   
NefariousKoel


Posts: 2922
Joined: 7/23/2002
From: Murderous Missouri Scum
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arctic Blast

7Zip is another freeware option, one that can be integrated in to your right click command shell.



I use 7-zip. It has all the formats and doesn't have annoying shareware pop-ups asking you to purchase. It's freeware, so what could be better?

(in reply to Arctic Blast)
Post #: 8
RE: RAR vs ZIP - 11/1/2010 1:32:58 AM   
cmurphy625


Posts: 591
Joined: 1/19/2009
From: Boston, MA
Status: offline
Also a 7zip user... I feel it works best.. especially when unzipping mods into directories.. and best of all it's free..

(in reply to NefariousKoel)
Post #: 9
RE: RAR vs ZIP - 11/1/2010 1:55:46 AM   
diablo1

 

Posts: 994
Joined: 2/27/2010
Status: offline
Isn't Free wonderful? In an age where so many are greedy to the last cent it's nice to get something free for a change.

(in reply to cmurphy625)
Post #: 10
RE: RAR vs ZIP - 11/1/2010 5:58:06 AM   
jomni


Posts: 2769
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline
RAR or 7Zip works for me.
No preference.


_____________________________

My Blog
Random Wargame Name Generator

(in reply to diablo1)
Post #: 11
RE: RAR vs ZIP - 11/1/2010 6:26:16 AM   
V22 Osprey


Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/8/2008
From: Corona, CA
Status: offline
I may be wrong, but reason .rar files are becoming more popularity is due to the fact .rar have more compression. Let's say compress a 100MB file. The space .rar takes up is much less than a zip files, even though they are both compressing the same file. Smaller size means it is much easier to upload and download than .zip files.

< Message edited by V22 Osprey -- 11/1/2010 6:27:13 AM >


_____________________________


Art by rogueusmc.

(in reply to jomni)
Post #: 12
RE: RAR vs ZIP - 11/1/2010 6:41:20 AM   
Andrew Williams


Posts: 6116
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline
you are correct... but IMHO nothing is as convenient as using the built in zip conpression available through explorer

_____________________________


(in reply to V22 Osprey)
Post #: 13
RE: RAR vs ZIP - 11/1/2010 1:43:29 PM   
Arsan

 

Posts: 403
Joined: 7/1/2005
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

you are correct... but IMHO nothing is as convenient as using the built in zip conpression available through explorer


7-zip (and i think virtually any other compressing program) also has this explorer built in utility.
Cheers

(in reply to Andrew Williams)
Post #: 14
RE: RAR vs ZIP - 11/1/2010 11:05:22 PM   
V22 Osprey


Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/8/2008
From: Corona, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

you are correct... but IMHO nothing is as convenient as using the built in zip conpression available through explorer


Again, it .rar files are much easier to download and upload. This makes far easier on the person who doesn't have that fast of a connection. So convience argument can go both ways. Plus, having an external program for compression is becoming the norm nowadays.

< Message edited by V22 Osprey -- 11/1/2010 11:12:06 PM >


_____________________________


Art by rogueusmc.

(in reply to Andrew Williams)
Post #: 15
RE: RAR vs ZIP - 11/1/2010 11:17:49 PM   
E

 

Posts: 797
Joined: 9/20/2007
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: V22 Osprey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

you are correct... but IMHO nothing is as convenient as using the built in zip conpression available through explorer


Yes, but not everyone uses explorer.A Majority of the people I know use Firefox, Safari, or Google Chrome and hell, even I use Opera. So vast majority of people(including all Apple/Mac users) this statement is irrelevant and does not apply.



And here I thought he was talking about windoze explorer's shell, not windoze' interblech exploder. In which case the argument was irrelevant, as most all archivers can integrate into same (as was pointed out above).

Being one who has never used interblech exploder, I did not even know it had built-in zip support!

(in reply to V22 Osprey)
Post #: 16
RE: RAR vs ZIP - 11/1/2010 11:23:39 PM   
V22 Osprey


Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/8/2008
From: Corona, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: E


quote:

ORIGINAL: V22 Osprey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

you are correct... but IMHO nothing is as convenient as using the built in zip conpression available through explorer


Yes, but not everyone uses explorer.A Majority of the people I know use Firefox, Safari, or Google Chrome and hell, even I use Opera. So vast majority of people(including all Apple/Mac users) this statement is irrelevant and does not apply.



And here I thought he was talking about windoze explorer's shell, not windoze' interblech exploder. In which case the argument was irrelevant, as most all archivers can integrate into same (as was pointed out above).

Being one who has never used interblech exploder, I did not even know it had built-in zip support!


Yes, when I first read I thought he was talking about internet explorer, then when I re-read it I saw that he was talking about windows explorer. I edited it and corrected my mistake, I was hoping no one else noticed.

_____________________________


Art by rogueusmc.

(in reply to E)
Post #: 17
RE: RAR vs ZIP - 11/1/2010 11:26:42 PM   
Andrew Williams


Posts: 6116
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline
I was referring to windows explorer not IE.

As you can see abouve I use and recommend 7-zip (i ALSO HAVE WINRAR INSTALLED)

BUT

my mother doesn't want to arse around installing extra bloatware when stock windows can handle the task for her.

if you want a standard portable archiving format zip is the one that everyone can use as simply as (windows) explorer.


_____________________________


(in reply to E)
Post #: 18
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RAR vs ZIP Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.102