( Hope this is in right forum! )
| |
|
Welcome to KnowledgeSutra - Dear Guest | |
Winrar Or Winzip?
Started by zootycoongold, Sep 29 2005 08:30 PM
157 replies to this topic
#5
Posted 30 September 2005 - 04:27 AM
If people don't mind me saying this, but I find that Winzip and Winrar aren't the best decompressors existing. I personally use a very good program called "Power Archiver" and it can use all the files that winrar can use, plus I believe, more than 10 more. (Also includes the HIGH COMPRESSION new 7z extension which can make a 50MB file shrink to 5MB... I'm not sure if that's true though)
www.powerarchiver.com
You should really check it out.
www.powerarchiver.com
You should really check it out.
#7
Posted 30 September 2005 - 10:15 AM
I have been using Winrar for a long time, had winzip before wirar came in...
Winrar is fast and handles more file type. There are a few other features like creating and saving profiles(i.e. settings) which I dont think is possible in winzip.
Another useful feature is "Encrypt file names" i.e, when setting password to a .rar file, if this option is checked, the user will not be able to view even the filename in the compressed file. In case of .zip, the filenames are visible but only cannot be opened.
I have not used power archiver, wud try is sometime... but winrar serves all my compression needs to my satisfaction so no worries...
Cheers
Winrar is fast and handles more file type. There are a few other features like creating and saving profiles(i.e. settings) which I dont think is possible in winzip.
Another useful feature is "Encrypt file names" i.e, when setting password to a .rar file, if this option is checked, the user will not be able to view even the filename in the compressed file. In case of .zip, the filenames are visible but only cannot be opened.
I have not used power archiver, wud try is sometime... but winrar serves all my compression needs to my satisfaction so no worries...
Cheers
#8
Posted 30 September 2005 - 10:47 AM
If you're looking for compression levels and overall performance then winrar is probably a good choice. If you're looking for compatability for users, I'd use Winzip. Winzip is by far the most popular form of file compression on the net. So if you're making a compressed file to share with other people, use Winzip. IF the compressed file is for yourself, use Winrar. I am of course talking about the different compression formats, not the programs themselves.
#10
Posted 30 September 2005 - 01:19 PM
i use both of them because winzip is easy to compress file usually,for instance,when we deliver a file document,the swiftest compressing way is winzip only move files to zip file;winrar is powerful to do anything concerned with compressing.certainly we can set password to our private file if we donot hope it to be public,winrar is appropriate to need the demand;we can delete some un-deleted file one time through winrar.
#12
Posted 30 September 2005 - 05:21 PM
I prefer using Winrar since it can open as well the winzip compressed files. i even made winrar the default program to open those zip files. But there are times when winzip is very useful, like when I am uploading compressed files at my Trap 17 webhost account. I tried uploading Rar file but Cpanel can uncomppressed them, this is the time when I go to the Winzip.
#14
Posted 30 September 2005 - 07:02 PM
What I personal think that winrar is better than winzip because winrar has the ability to open most of the compressed files...and everyone knows that RAR is getting popular and most people give downloads mostly in RAR files only.
now dooga has mentioned about 7z and says that 50 mb can be compressed till 5 mb....if that is true than I am sure that this 7z extension..i mean compression utility will also become popular very fast....but the makers of it will have to take right steps in this case.
Till the time I get more reviews about this 7z thingy...i am sticking with winrar because not only its light on memory..it has a nice and simple interface as well....it just works like explorer and everyone of use familiar with explorer.
now dooga has mentioned about 7z and says that 50 mb can be compressed till 5 mb....if that is true than I am sure that this 7z extension..i mean compression utility will also become popular very fast....but the makers of it will have to take right steps in this case.
Till the time I get more reviews about this 7z thingy...i am sticking with winrar because not only its light on memory..it has a nice and simple interface as well....it just works like explorer and everyone of use familiar with explorer.
#21
Posted 07 October 2005 - 10:42 PM
I don't use any of these, although I'd say the winzip would be better for the standard person. I find that winrar can be confusing at times, then there's the cost. Some versions of winzip contain an unlicensed version too, or at least they used to.
Nowadays, I don't use any of these zippers, I use an alternative which is on the freeware license. It's a program called 'izarc'. I would recommend it to anyone asking for a decent zipper. You can even unzip rar files too!
If you would like to install this izarc program, here is a izarc arc page on tucows, a well known downloading site consisting of trial and freeware applications and games.
http://www.tucows.com/preview/335168 - This link should take you straight to the page containing extra information about izarc and a download link.
I hope this comes in handy for someone :-)
Nowadays, I don't use any of these zippers, I use an alternative which is on the freeware license. It's a program called 'izarc'. I would recommend it to anyone asking for a decent zipper. You can even unzip rar files too!
If you would like to install this izarc program, here is a izarc arc page on tucows, a well known downloading site consisting of trial and freeware applications and games.
http://www.tucows.com/preview/335168 - This link should take you straight to the page containing extra information about izarc and a download link.
I hope this comes in handy for someone :-)
#22
Posted 07 October 2005 - 11:13 PM
Well, I prefer Winrar because as everybody has said it will open up more different file types whereas Winzip will only open up a few. The thing about Winrar and Winzip is they have the start up screens and they always try to get you to buy although there is nothing wrong with that it just gets a little annoying.
#24
Posted 08 October 2005 - 01:21 AM
I prefer winrar because it has many types of extensions that it can decompress but i use both of them. I haven't tested the power of compression of winrar but if i can say a bad thing about winzip it's that it doesn't compress good maybe just like 100-200 kb of a file <,<
Reply to this topic

1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users














