PDA

View Full Version : which one is better rar or 7z?



pi_1st
29.12.08, 13:02
i have used rar compression for ages but recently 7z compression is making up ground
i have personaly compared the two and i have to admit 7z wins most of the time for binaries data

but the rar have better manager like winrar that has lot of nice features and very user friendly compared to 7z manager that is very simplistic and stiff

what do you sbi-ers think?

czullo
29.12.08, 13:23
i rather rar :)

shoulder
29.12.08, 16:47
I also voted for RAR.

One of the main reason is that it's the current standard when it comes to downloads. :wink2:

Se7Ven
29.12.08, 17:02
i use rar and voted rar because i had problems with 7z

pi_1st
29.12.08, 17:29
i forgot to vote :P
right now my personal archives are using 7z compression

Snitlev
29.12.08, 17:29
I use only Rar this is the perfect program for all ;-)

anon
29.12.08, 18:08
I prefer 7-Zip because of its high compression rate. Also, I'm fine with the default 7Z file manager. :smile:

@pi_1st: if you didn't like the 7ZFM there are other programs you can try (LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7z#Windows)). :thumbsup:

pi_1st
29.12.08, 20:48
@anon

thanks for the link, but after seeing the windows section i don't think i'm gonna add new application soon to my system. i believe the options just aren't good enough :P

anon
29.12.08, 20:50
after seeing the windows section i don't think i'm gonna add new application soon to my system.

Sandboxie! :biggrin:

zatoicchi
29.12.08, 21:20
i uses only rar.. it has served me well over the the years...RAR is the man..:biggrin:

Pickle
30.12.08, 23:48
it changes what you look for, you look for high comparison rates, you look for nice archived icons, you have a open source code mind etc... anyway my votes goes to rar, because even i use 7zip i only benefit its unrar option :)

parapow
31.12.08, 01:49
RAR is more popular, but 7z has better compression..

Tekrader
31.12.08, 04:18
Hi,
I voted rar.

I use rar because I am more familiar with it. It is also possible to open partial archives. And rar is the scene standard.

Regards

dmt
31.12.08, 12:21
i like rar i`ve used it over 5 years now . i also like ultra iso.

Buffybot
06.01.09, 14:21
i always used rar , but 7z is not soo bad

surgat
06.01.09, 14:37
rar archive is better because you can insert in it "data recovery" in 7z archive few futures

garv172
25.02.09, 12:19
rar because its more used and ive been using it so long

100%
25.02.09, 13:03
I voted 7-zip. Powerful compressor, free, lightweight and open source. My kind of program.

yoco
25.02.09, 16:57
I use RAR. It's best IMO!

Fingertip
26.02.09, 01:35
RAR, primarily because I've been using it since 2002. Old habits are hard to break.

system28
26.02.09, 10:42
Voted Winrar. "Recovery Record" is a very useful feature!

takomania
26.02.09, 14:50
i prefer winrar, but i may switch to 7zip (despite it's ugly gui) as it may start supporting 64bit chips before winrar does.

..despite what a lot of people think (and contrary to 7zip's documentation, the software does not make use of 64bit processors ...

sisonvher
07.03.09, 20:56
I chose 7z, but I basically more use Win Rar.

naBlin
07.03.09, 21:20
I also voted for RAR :wink2:

SBfreak
07.03.09, 21:58
I have both:redface:.In fact I have like 5 archiving tools on my pc right now...

thelonelyone
08.03.09, 02:16
RAR is more popular, but 7z has better compression..

same me ^^

ares
09.03.09, 07:44
RAR right now...
RAR forever...

wert
01.04.09, 12:21
i rather rar:wink:

sam
14.04.09, 15:44
I like rar.

boruc
14.04.09, 16:55
i like to use winrar, find it simple to use

shawshankraj
16.04.09, 06:13
I voted for winrar

alpacino
16.04.09, 09:04
I use winrar a lot, so RAR, but I like 7z as I use it sometimes with my backups.

anonftw
16.04.09, 13:41
7zip has better compression, but rar seems to more widely used. So, I use it too.

TheFaker
18.04.09, 16:02
always use rar

splicer
18.04.09, 16:15
I use WinRAR, and the .rar format. I guess The Scene has influenced me too much.

vannelli87
18.04.09, 18:01
I also voted for RAR.

Master Razor
30.10.12, 23:11
I use the command line versions of them. WinRAR is free this way and 7z is great for automatic archival and stuff.
Technically, I;m using both and I have no problems with archive formats getting replaced.

anon
30.10.12, 23:25
$5 to whoever can tell me why this thread was created :happy:

saebrtooth
31.10.12, 03:25
i have used rar compression for ages but recently 7z compression is making up ground
i have personaly compared the two and i have to admit 7z wins most of the time for binaries data

but the rar have better manager like winrar that has lot of nice features and very user friendly compared to 7z manager that is very simplistic and stiff

what do you sbi-ers think?
Are you talking about compression or ease of use? or a balance of both?

saebrtooth
31.10.12, 03:29
$5 to whoever can tell me why this thread was created :happy:

gime gime gime

cirulilu
31.10.12, 16:14
7zip better compression ratio

SaintShaolin
02.11.12, 02:47
Definitely RAR.
WinRAR seems to have better features than 7zip.

Okaim
02.11.12, 03:59
rar soupports 128bits AES encryption
7zip soupports 256bits AES encryption

Master Razor
02.11.12, 19:52
7zip better compression ratio
This and:

it is free for personal and commercial use
it has better encryption
Self-Extracting Archives are much flexible than in RAR
it is smaller in size and lightwieght in memory footprint



RAR is more popular...
So, are we using programs because they are popular?

Perhaps winrar has more features but I don't you use them all. This is an archiver and it contains everything related to archives. Not fancy stuff.

gu5t3r
03.11.12, 00:58
If you pack 7-zip app with compressed archive, you still have smaller file than rar =)

Jello
09.11.12, 14:01
My vote is for rar, tried 7zip but didn't like it.

Master Razor
09.11.12, 22:10
My vote is for rar, tried 7zip but didn't like it.
What didn't you like about it?

lertsy
10.11.12, 12:59
I think that the reason many prefers .rar is that it's more global. As you mentioned in the first post, winrars interface are a lot more developed than 7zips. Therefore my vote goes to .rar even if it might not have the better performance.

Master Razor
10.11.12, 14:17
I think that the reason many prefers .rar is that it's more global..
What exactly is this "global" stuff?
7zip can extract rar archives. It can't create rar but WinRAR can open 7z...

cirulilu
10.11.12, 16:39
there are many file archivers that support both rar and 7zip and many other formats. if it's a matter of user interface, search and find the program you like. i personally use haozip that support probably all formats. try it, it's free Haozip, Free compession software with the largest user group in China! Efficient! Utility! Fast! (http://www.haozip.com/Eng/index_en.htm)
here is an incomplete list of file archivers Comparison of file archivers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_archivers)

anon
10.11.12, 17:51
I think that the reason many prefers .rar is that it's more global. As you mentioned in the first post, winrars interface are a lot more developed than 7zips.

7-Zip's interface keeps it simple.

Hey lertsy :wavey:

Master Razor
10.11.12, 18:17
Haozip bloated:

* Support virtual CD-ROM mounting -- drivers that will load on windows boot

* Powerful dual-core Trojan horse checking engine -- horrible performance when extracting an 8GB archive

* MD5 comparison function -- most users don't even know what that is. And if they do, there more than just MD5.

fuzzy
11.11.12, 12:49
Do we really need to vote on which is a better archive type. I personally don't like either and use zip, cause I end up on a lot of computers that don't have file archivers installed. As for compression I don't care. These days nobody does anymore and archives have become containers to group a bunch of files or split larger files. We have so much space available that nobody uses archives anymore for what they were intended.
I might be wrong here but I see this poll as one of convenience not one of usability as the whole dynamic of the compression world has changed over the years when it comes to end users.
Use rar or 7z, or zip or gzip, tar or uharc :wwhistle: doesn't really matter as long as it gets the job done.

Master Razor
11.11.12, 14:13
Use rar or 7z, or zip or gzip, tar or uharc doesn't really matter as long as it gets the job done.
What about performance?
The time varies even when no compression is used (ie. just use a container). That and the performance impact on the os. Context menus and other crap take up system resources too you know.

svartevarg
13.11.12, 17:26
most packers in scene/p2p use rar....ao most people just go with it

Master Razor
13.11.12, 20:02
most packers in scene/p2p use rar....ao most people just go with it

If I'm not mistaken, aren't scene releases packed with both rar and zip?

slikrapid
15.11.12, 02:28
Q:
What exactly is this "global" stuff?

A:
most packers in scene/p2p use rar....ao most people just go with it


aren't scene releases packed with both rar and zip?

prevalently rar, zip is still used due to traditional reasons in sections like: 0day, apps, games (small-size stuff)


whether 7z is somewhat more powerful or not doesn't matter, its good to have competent alternatives (in case the one(s) you use become bloatware, etc.)

Okaim
15.11.12, 13:26
$5 to whoever can tell me why this thread was created :happy:
So we can earn 5$..

anon
15.11.12, 14:29
Well, no one has answered yet :wermm:

Okaim
16.11.12, 02:42
Well, no one has answered yet :wermm:
My answer is still intact, despite the paradox.