WinZip vs. WinRar

[Dennis Snelgrove]

I've done a bit of looking for opinions on this, but I really can't
find more than one or two, so...

I want to actually buy one of these two programs to use on my home PC.
I've used compression utilities enough in the last 20 years that I
figure I should pay for one and get it over with. As I understand
it, WinZip is more or less the industry standard, but WinRar is a good
program to use and getting the industry standard isn't always the best
way to go. I've tried both, and I prefer WinRar's interface, but that
isn't enough to make or break the choice.

Any opinions? Please?

Thanks...

 

[JS]

Look at the feature set, if one supports more formats than the other and all
other things being equal, go with the stronger feature set.

JS

 

[Dave Cohen]

Look at the feature set, if one supports more formats than the other and all
other things being equal, go with the stronger feature set.

JS

I've never found anything the paid version of winzip couldn't handle. On
a friends machine we did come across file type that gave the free
version problems. We tried a couple of other programs, one was
zipgenius, forget the other but you can always find something that will
handle a particular compression type.
Personally I like the registered version of winzip, mine isn't the latest.
Dave Cohen

 

[Ronnie Vernon MVP]

Good advice from JS. Everyone works in different ways, take a good look at each program and pick the one best suited for your needs.

 

[easymike29 via WindowsKB.com]

Dennis

If you've been using free applications for 20 years you could donate to the
one you like the best. Not moralizing here, just a suggestion.

Gene

 

[Robert Moir]

I've done a bit of looking for opinions on this, but I really can't
find more than one or two, so...

I want to actually buy one of these two programs to use on my home PC.
I've used compression utilities enough in the last 20 years that I
figure I should pay for one and get it over with. As I understand
it, WinZip is more or less the industry standard, but WinRar is a good
program to use and getting the industry standard isn't always the best
way to go. I've tried both, and I prefer WinRar's interface, but that
isn't enough to make or break the choice.

If you like WinRAR stick with it. It supports the ZIP formats as well,
too.

 

[Vanguard]

I've never found anything the paid version of winzip couldn't
handle. On a friends machine we did come across file type that gave
the free version problems. We tried a couple of other programs, one
was zipgenius, forget the other but you can always find something
that will handle a particular compression type.
Personally I like the registered version of winzip, mine isn't the
latest.
Dave Cohen

Winzip won't handle .rar files. If you don't get or use the RAR
format than you don't care that Winzip doesn't support them. Also,
while Winzip can *read* lots of compression formats, it only writes
using .zip format.

 

[Vanguard]

I've done a bit of looking for opinions on this, but I really can't
find more than one or two, so...

I want to actually buy one of these two programs to use on my home
PC.
I've used compression utilities enough in the last 20 years that I
figure I should pay for one and get it over with. As I understand
it, WinZip is more or less the industry standard, but WinRar is a
good
program to use and getting the industry standard isn't always the
best
way to go. I've tried both, and I prefer WinRar's interface, but
that
isn't enough to make or break the choice.

Any opinions? Please?

Thanks...

Although I had trialed WinRAR, I bought WinZip (several years ago) and
have it installed but I probably won't bother upgrading to the newest
version. 7-Zip is free (and it supports .rar files whereas WinZip
does not) and obvious it supports its own 7z format. You could try
7-Zip for awhile to see if what it supports meets all your personal
needs. There is UltimateZip (but it's nagware with a startup screen)
and it supports the 7z format.

 

[Guest]

I like winzip... I used it on my old computer for 8 to 9 years... It is easy.
But i did not like winrar. It was hard to use, to me

 

[Pneuma Cheney]

I've done a bit of looking for opinions on this, but I really can't
find more than one or two, so...

I want to actually buy one of these two programs to use on my home PC.
I've used compression utilities enough in the last 20 years that I
figure I should pay for one and get it over with. As I understand
it, WinZip is more or less the industry standard, but WinRar is a good
program to use and getting the industry standard isn't always the best
way to go. I've tried both, and I prefer WinRar's interface, but that
isn't enough to make or break the choice.

Any opinions? Please?

Thanks...

WinRAR supports zip however it's strongest suite is easy file recovery setup and
backup of files on your HD's. It is also used on usenet for posting binaries in
multiple parts.

 

[Paul Johnson]

I've done a bit of looking for opinions on this, but I really can't
find more than one or two, so...

I want to actually buy one of these two programs to use on my home PC.
I've used compression utilities enough in the last 20 years that I
figure I should pay for one and get it over with. As I understand
it, WinZip is more or less the industry standard, but WinRar is a good
program to use and getting the industry standard isn't always the best
way to go. I've tried both, and I prefer WinRar's interface, but that
isn't enough to make or break the choice.

I wouldn't bother with WinZip, and rar files are a pain since you have to
get a seperate program on most OS's to deal with rar, but zip is common on
Windows and Linux both. XP calls .zip files compressed folders, and work
just like folders in Windows. Sure beats dealing with WinZip or WinRar...

 

[Paul Johnson]

I've never found anything the paid version of winzip couldn't handle.

Winzip handles unix tarballs (.tar.gz) files in an exceptionally and
fundamentally retarded manner.

 

[Sophie Adams]

I wouldn't bother with WinZip, and rar files are a pain since you
have to get a seperate program on most OS's to deal with rar, but zip
is common on Windows and Linux both. XP calls .zip files compressed
folders, and work just like folders in Windows. Sure beats dealing
with WinZip or WinRar...

ZIP files work "just like folders"? Really? So you can run
applications right from a ZIP file? No, you can't--you need to extract
the archive first.

There are many good archivers, for both Windows and Linux, that can open
RAR files. Many of them are free.

 

[cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

Paul Johnson wrote:

On the one hand, we might say "get the one that supports the biggest
range of archives, so I can extract them all!"

On the other hand, if you just use one or two formats, why "support"
the rest, when the most likely reason to need oddball formats is
because malware use them to circumvent av scanning and/or exploit bugs
within the extraction code?

As at 2006, I'm leaning in favor of the latter.

Not quite true - there are three types of general lossless compression
that XP can use at the file system level:

1) DOS-era disk compression

This is a hangover from the Stacker and MS-DOS 6.xx days, and is
possible only on FAT16 volumes. What appears to be a hard drive
volume is in fact a single CVF (Compressed Volume File) on a "real"
volume, and the OS's file system code handles compression in and out
of this CVF file transparently. Never was a good idea; pointless now.

2) Native support for archives as "compressed folders"

This is what you are referring to. The shell may gloss over this
fact, but all "compressed folders" are really .CAB or .ZIP archive
files that are visualized as if they were file folders. Unlike disk
compression (FAT16) and file compression (NTFS), native archive
support applies to all types of file systems.

3) NTFS file compression

The NTFS file system supports native file compression on NTFS volumes
with particular (and typical) cluster sizes. Such files may be shown
in blue within the shell, if that feature is enabled. In addition to
this, NTFS supports "sparse" files which do not compress the contents,
but omit storing large sections of zeros, indicating they should be
inserted at that point in the file instead.


MS's native support for archives as folders is far from seamless:
- navigating Explorer into archive opens new single-panel window
- the proper full path is not displayed, in title bar or on Search
- processing of damaged archives is buggy

I stumbled on the latter by accident, when copying files out of a .zip
(viewed as a "folder" in native XP with no 3rd-party archivers). The
copy process showed no errors, but not all selected files were copied
out - and the only way I'd know this, is if I checked. If I
deselected one particular file, copy would work, but selecting that
file caused the copy operation to silently abort.

Checking the .ZIP on another PC with WinZip showed that although
WinZip would open the archive OK, it would generate an "invalid
compression" error when processing the affected file within the
archive. MS's code seemed not to detect this error condition at all,
and just silently aborted instead.

ZIP files work "just like folders"? Really? So you can run
applications right from a ZIP file? No, you can't--you need to extract
the archive first.

Let's test that... yes, such is the case when tested running ERUNT's
..exe from within the archive that contained it.

There are many good archivers, for both Windows and Linux, that can open
RAR files. Many of them are free.

If I'm not using .RAR files, I'd rather not have the system enabled to
"open" them. One less exploit surface to worry about

------------ ----- --- -- - - - -

Drugs are usually safe. Inject? (Y/n)

 

[Paul Johnson]

ZIP files work "just like folders"? Really? So you can run
applications right from a ZIP file? No, you can't--you need to extract
the archive first.

It depends on how your zip handler deals with it. KDE unzips to a temporary
location and opens the unzipped folder, so yes: What I'm used to, zip
files do work just like folders. Sometimes even I'm guilty of forgetting
that you can get worse software, but you have to pay more: KDE is free, I
figured by extension the Windows internal .zip handler also worked as t

There are many good archivers, for both Windows and Linux, that can open
RAR files. Many of them are free.

My point is you usually have to go through extra effort to install one (even
if it is as simple as "apt-get install rar unrar": Sometimes you're on a
machine you don't have access to install software...even .tar.bz2
and .tar.gz are more common than .rar files. If you want better
compression and still have a decent number of people be able to open it, go
with .tar.bz2 instead.