Comments on: WinZip vs. WinRAR http://chris.pirillo.com/winzip-vs-winrar/ News and Reviews! Geek, Internet Entrepreneur, Hardware Addict, Software Junkie, Book Author, Once TV Show Host, Technology Enthusiast, Shameless Self-Promoter, Tech Conference Coordinator, Early Adopter, Idea Evangelist, Tech Support Blogger, Bootstrapper, Media Personality, Technology Consultant, Thicker Quicker Picker Upper. Wed, 15 Feb 2012 04:06:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Nick Cook http://chris.pirillo.com/winzip-vs-winrar/#comment-710699 Nick Cook Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:13:01 +0000 http://chris.pirillo.com/2006/05/04/winzip-vs-winrar/#comment-710699 Yeah, WinRAR ruled supreme until yesterday when I received a zip file that it couldn't open. WinZip has reared it's ugly head once again - they've introduced a compression algorithm that only WinZip can decompress... something to do with Jpegs. I emailed the WinRAR guys yesterday and got a reply almost immeditately: "We do not plan to support WinZip JPEG compression in near future. Sorry." The daft thing is that WinZip are going to be causing so much confusion with this - no longer will Window's inbuilt compression work every time - unless MS decide to play catch up. Hmmm... Yeah, WinRAR ruled supreme until yesterday when I received a zip file that it couldn’t open. WinZip has reared it’s ugly head once again – they’ve introduced a compression algorithm that only WinZip can decompress… something to do with Jpegs. I emailed the WinRAR guys yesterday and got a reply almost immeditately:
“We do not plan to support WinZip JPEG compression in near future. Sorry.”
The daft thing is that WinZip are going to be causing so much confusion with this – no longer will Window’s inbuilt compression work every time – unless MS decide to play catch up. Hmmm…

]]> By: Eddie Thieda http://chris.pirillo.com/winzip-vs-winrar/#comment-706635 Eddie Thieda Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:59:13 +0000 http://chris.pirillo.com/2006/05/04/winzip-vs-winrar/#comment-706635 Me personally I use 7Zip, namely for these reasons: It's open source / freeware Works with a ton of formats Integrates into Windows without being annoying like WinRAR or WinZip. My thoughts, go check it out for yourself. And if you really want even better compression I would consider checking out UHARC cli version. Me personally I use 7Zip, namely for these reasons:

It’s open source / freeware

Works with a ton of formats

Integrates into Windows without being annoying like WinRAR or WinZip.

My thoughts, go check it out for yourself.

And if you really want even better compression I would consider checking out UHARC cli version.

]]> By: sz http://chris.pirillo.com/winzip-vs-winrar/#comment-219454 sz Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:50:31 +0000 http://chris.pirillo.com/2006/05/04/winzip-vs-winrar/#comment-219454 strictly on the WinZip vs WinRAR, 1 thing I use WinZip for that WinRAR don't do. our spam software archives all messages as TXT files, these include MIME encodes of attachments. Drop the TXT file into WinZip and the attachments are there to be extracted. I'm sure there are other solutions, but this was a WinZip vs WinRAR debate. strictly on the WinZip vs WinRAR, 1 thing I use WinZip for that WinRAR don’t do. our spam software archives all messages as TXT files, these include MIME encodes of attachments. Drop the TXT file into WinZip and the attachments are there to be extracted. I’m sure there are other solutions, but this was a WinZip vs WinRAR debate.

]]> By: MCV http://chris.pirillo.com/winzip-vs-winrar/#comment-190699 MCV Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:43:13 +0000 http://chris.pirillo.com/2006/05/04/winzip-vs-winrar/#comment-190699 Nice Zip vs Rar Debate.... I am using both Winzip and Winrar parallely i use winzip for larger files and winrar for shorter files... winrar has good compression rate and lacks speed... and zip has good speed but less compression rate..... i use both extensively depending on size of file both r cracked version though ;) Cheers, Nice Zip vs Rar Debate….
I am using both Winzip and Winrar parallely i use winzip for larger files and winrar for shorter files… winrar has good compression rate and lacks speed… and zip has good speed but less compression rate….. i use both extensively depending on size of file both r cracked version though ;)

Cheers,

]]> By: EW http://chris.pirillo.com/winzip-vs-winrar/#comment-28822 EW Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:04:25 +0000 http://chris.pirillo.com/2006/05/04/winzip-vs-winrar/#comment-28822 7 zip is the way to go. I use it to compress tiff files. I set 7zip to fastest compression and it still gets tiffs down to 10% of their file size which is good enough. I also use 7z compression for 2 security reasons: security by obscurity and password protection. Precisely because the popular programs don't support 7z gives my password protected archives on the corporate server an extra measure of protection against the everyday busybody. Flame me about security by obscurity all you want but it does give an extra level of protection. 7 zip is the way to go. I use it to compress tiff files. I set 7zip to fastest compression and it still gets tiffs down to 10% of their file size which is good enough. I also use 7z compression for 2 security reasons: security by obscurity and password protection. Precisely because the popular programs don’t support 7z gives my password protected archives on the corporate server an extra measure of protection against the everyday busybody.

Flame me about security by obscurity all you want but it does give an extra level of protection.

]]> By: QuickZip http://chris.pirillo.com/winzip-vs-winrar/#comment-23382 QuickZip Sat, 22 Jul 2006 15:16:20 +0000 http://chris.pirillo.com/2006/05/04/winzip-vs-winrar/#comment-23382 Have you guys looked and tried "QuickZip" http://www.quickzip.org It's free and works for me... from the site: "Open all kinds of archives Allows you to work with 22 encode and encryption formats and 44 archive extensions. Including the popular 7z format." t.i.e Have you guys looked and tried “QuickZip” http://www.quickzip.org
It’s free and works for me…
from the site:
“Open all kinds of archives
Allows you to work with 22 encode and encryption formats and 44 archive extensions. Including the popular 7z format.”
t.i.e

]]> By: Anonymous http://chris.pirillo.com/winzip-vs-winrar/#comment-19486 Anonymous Wed, 10 May 2006 01:54:56 +0000 http://chris.pirillo.com/2006/05/04/winzip-vs-winrar/#comment-19486 loool! Fair enough! But there is one question left to ask! Now a day most PC's have hard drives with large capacity like 80 GB+ Also you can buy blank CD's and DVD's very cheep and most people use high speed Internet connection! So! I don't think 3 or 4 megabytes different in compression make a big different in their daily uses! 7 zip is a good product with high compression ratio BUT very slow... also it is going to take sometimes for 7z format to become popular! Winrar is great but again don't expect to create a better zip file then original software winzip! And yes it's true! It does support ISO files but can it test them too! Can winrar create a checksum and verify your ISO image to see if there is any error in it!? NO! Try it yourself! In term of security...Nothing is like Securezip (Pkware Ltd). For me the most impotent thing is not high compression ratio but! Creating an archive with no CRC errors and also security is the main thing! loool! Fair enough! But there is one question left to ask!
Now a day most PC's have hard drives with large capacity like 80 GB+
Also you can buy blank CD's and DVD's very cheep and most people
use high speed Internet connection! So! I don't think 3 or 4 megabytes different in compression make a big different in their daily uses!
7 zip is a good product with high compression ratio BUT very slow…
also it is going to take sometimes for 7z format to become popular!
Winrar is great but again don't expect to create a better zip file then original software winzip! And yes it's true! It does support ISO files but can it test them too! Can winrar create a checksum and verify your ISO image to see if there is any error in it!? NO! Try it yourself!
In term of security…Nothing is like Securezip (Pkware Ltd).
For me the most impotent thing is not high compression ratio but! Creating an archive with no CRC errors and also security is the main thing!

]]> By: Anonymous http://chris.pirillo.com/winzip-vs-winrar/#comment-19485 Anonymous Sat, 06 May 2006 18:04:39 +0000 http://chris.pirillo.com/2006/05/04/winzip-vs-winrar/#comment-19485 I'm using 7-Zip, which is open source, lightweight and quick, it's the only compression app on my pc. I'm using 7-Zip, which is open source, lightweight and quick, it's the only compression app on my pc.

]]> By: Iggy http://chris.pirillo.com/winzip-vs-winrar/#comment-19484 Iggy Fri, 05 May 2006 18:46:59 +0000 http://chris.pirillo.com/2006/05/04/winzip-vs-winrar/#comment-19484 I'd have to say I disagree on one point. The first version of Winzip I used. I felt was a usability nightmare - the layout and design were crap in my opinion. Once I came across Winrar I finally found an ease of use experience. Granted I don't use it for zip files. Do to the built in zip functionality in XP and Vista. Odd how Microsoft refuses to add RAR support as well. If memory serves me right - I've been using Winrar since 1999 or 2000 and haven't regretted the decision one bit. I'd have to say I disagree on one point. The first version of Winzip I used. I felt was a usability nightmare – the layout and design were crap in my opinion. Once I came across Winrar I finally found an ease of use experience. Granted I don't use it for zip files. Do to the built in zip functionality in XP and Vista. Odd how Microsoft refuses to add RAR support as well. If memory serves me right – I've been using Winrar since 1999 or 2000 and haven't regretted the decision one bit.

]]> By: Anonymous http://chris.pirillo.com/winzip-vs-winrar/#comment-19483 Anonymous Fri, 05 May 2006 17:27:39 +0000 http://chris.pirillo.com/2006/05/04/winzip-vs-winrar/#comment-19483 Do a google search for “pkzip author diedâ€Â?. There are some very interesting stories about Phil Katz, who was considered by many to be the “father of shareware”.
—————–
theblogclub.net: http://www.theblogclub.net
bloglogs.net: http://www.bloglogs.net
—————–

]]> By: Anonymous http://chris.pirillo.com/winzip-vs-winrar/#comment-19482 Anonymous Fri, 05 May 2006 14:07:22 +0000 http://chris.pirillo.com/2006/05/04/winzip-vs-winrar/#comment-19482 Glad someone said it. I have been using Winzip for many years as well, about two years ago I installed WinRar because Winzip could not decompress all my files... after a year I made it my default archive program.... then about three months ago I wondered why I even still had WinZip installed... it was taking up a whole 1.5 Mb!!! so I uninstalled it, haven't looked back! Glad someone said it.
I have been using Winzip for many years as well, about two years ago I installed WinRar because Winzip could not decompress all my files… after a year I made it my default archive program…. then about three months ago I wondered why I even still had WinZip installed… it was taking up a whole 1.5 Mb!!! so I uninstalled it, haven't looked back!

]]> By: Anonymous http://chris.pirillo.com/winzip-vs-winrar/#comment-19481 Anonymous Fri, 05 May 2006 09:11:29 +0000 http://chris.pirillo.com/2006/05/04/winzip-vs-winrar/#comment-19481 Yeah, maybe WinZip is finally falling... As for WinZip vs. WinRAR: I found a tool years ago that does it all, and they still have free upgrades for life. I contacted the author who acknowledges that upgrades are indeed free for life and will remain so. The name is BitZipper: http://www.bitzipper.com Regards, Paul Yeah, maybe WinZip is finally falling…
As for WinZip vs. WinRAR: I found a tool years ago that does it all, and they still have free upgrades for life. I contacted the author who acknowledges that upgrades are indeed free for life and will remain so. The name is BitZipper: http://www.bitzipper.com
Regards,
Paul

]]> By: Anonymous http://chris.pirillo.com/winzip-vs-winrar/#comment-19480 Anonymous Fri, 05 May 2006 06:30:06 +0000 http://chris.pirillo.com/2006/05/04/winzip-vs-winrar/#comment-19480 Surprise. There is no money in utility software any more. I'm currently using a freeware clone of winzip called Easyzip 2000 Surprise. There is no money in utility software any more.
I'm currently using a freeware clone of winzip called Easyzip 2000

]]> By: Anonymous http://chris.pirillo.com/winzip-vs-winrar/#comment-19479 Anonymous Fri, 05 May 2006 03:42:12 +0000 http://chris.pirillo.com/2006/05/04/winzip-vs-winrar/#comment-19479 Chris- Honestly, I never cared all that much for WinZip. I also didn't like Microsoft's implementation either. If you're like me, check out FilZip (oh, and it's free!) http://www.filzip.com Chris-
Honestly, I never cared all that much for WinZip. I also didn't like Microsoft's implementation either. If you're like me, check out FilZip (oh, and it's free!) http://www.filzip.com

]]> By: Anonymous http://chris.pirillo.com/winzip-vs-winrar/#comment-19478 Anonymous Fri, 05 May 2006 02:39:16 +0000 http://chris.pirillo.com/2006/05/04/winzip-vs-winrar/#comment-19478 I agree with the previous post. Whenever I distribute files, Mac or WIn, I just use the compression format supported by the OS vendor. Generally, this is a plain vanilla .zip. I agree with the previous post. Whenever I distribute files, Mac or WIn, I just use the compression format supported by the OS vendor. Generally, this is a plain vanilla .zip.

]]>