So 7Zip resurrected from dead, but is it any good?
How does 7Zip 15.14 compare to WinRAR 5.30 performance wise?
I remember my faggot friend wanted to look up a video, but for some reason ended up installing winrar
(I already had 7zip)
What a fucking nigger holy shit
I kicked him out of my house for that
Winrar is ass terrible
7zip was never dead it was just stable
only windows children need deed dedicated GUIs to do this shit, adults have stable libraries supporting filetypes that get updated when necessary not just for the sake of it
Well lets see.
On windows acoording to this old 2013 benchmark (Jesus christ no one benchmarks file zipping these days)
Winrar is shite.
>needing to verbalize ffs
baka desu senpai
Holy balls, I don't get why I haven't been using 7zip all these years. Pretty much the only reason I've held onto winrar was the context menus, I didn't like that 7zip's right click thingies were in a cascaded menu, what a fag I've been. Fixed the context menus to my liking and got file hashing to boot.
The preset compression settings were changed for the new version of 7zip, it is expected to work better with newer machines, specially those with more ram, but it can be worse. Be sure to tweak the settings. Also, depending on what is to be compressed, different settings will have different effects, as has always been the case.
Well, I bet there's many more who cling to winrar solely for that reason. I didn't like the absence of icons in the context menu either, and guess what, you can enable them. Also, I'll stick with "add to zip" since zip is ubiquitous with normies. Don't want people to go "WHAT IS THIS 7z SHIT CAN'T YOU USE ZIP OMG" on me.
>How does 7Zip 15.14 compare to WinRAR 5.30 performance wise?
Does it include any improvements in the compression scheme? If it doesn't, then RAR ver 5 is equal to 7z LZMA2 in most cases, better in a few edge cases, all the while being significantly faster.
So compression ratio wise it is
RAR5 >= 7z LZMA2 > RAR
and compression time is
RAR (fastest) > RAR5 > 7Z LZMA2 (slowest)
I just used resourcehacker to edit out the popup reminder.
>On windows acoording to this old 2013 benchmark
That one doesn't include the new RAR5 format that came out, like, two years ago, which is every bit as good as 7z but also much faster.
>don't have to worry about compression formats as it can decompress everything
>and can compress to about anything(-rar, but noone with one fifth of a brain uses that)
that only works on the 32-bit version. I tried it with the 64-bit version and couldn't get it to work, might have fucked up somehow tho.
Jesus, who gives a shit about performance and compression ratio unless you archive shittons of shit everyday? Pretty much all them are fine.
Compression wise old RAR still bests RAR5, and LZMA bests both
Though it seems the WinRAR 5 used in this tests was broken, the results are somewhat odd, though this is the only compression benchmark updated regularly