7-Zip vs. WinRAR

>>51577994
>inb4 epic shilling for either of those and no one cares about what anyone else says if they disagree

>>51577994
Op is a faggot

winrar is "free"
7z is actually free but it lacks the options I use the most in winrar

>>51578051
what options

PeaZip

>>51578096
custom compression presets integrated in the context menu, so I configure one for just one-click compression and other for one-click encription

>>51577994
I use both because I'm no autist

7zip excels at tasks like extracting exe files for example, sometimes you don't want to install something completely just so you can run a single exe in wine

7z is faster free and has way better compression

WinRar is outclassed in every category

I can open an image directly in WinRAR and view it, 7zip on the other hand gives an error

>>51578153
>LZMA2
>faster
better compression, worst time of the popular algorithms

>>51578176
7z is pretty slow to me to uncompress

>>51578132
also i use the files as containers some times, where i use to drag and drop files into it directly and winrar detects the operation and proceeds automatically,
but 7z doesnt let me drop files into a container in the first place

>>51578210
>for me
ok senpai nice blog

What's the best GUI-based zippan program

>>51577994
WinRAR
>using free software over proprietary software
>ever

>>51578293
wow youre such an epic troll dude when I grow up I wish I could be like you

>>51578298
*for OS X

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/winrar-winzip-7-zip-magicrar,3436.html

>7-Zip is the clear performance winner of our file archiving and compression tools round-up. It sets the standard for both compression ratio and time with its very own 7z compression format. It manages to beat MagicRAR, WinRAR, and WinZip for the best compression ratio, even with its Fastest Compression setting enabled. 7-Zip is also a lot faster than the competition if the LZMA2 algorithm is used. It took 7-Zip only 25 seconds to compress our benchmark files and folders with Hyper-Threading enabled. Meanwhile, WinRAR took 44 seconds, WinZip 51 seconds, and MagicRAR an arduous 159 seconds.

7-ZIP MASTER RACE

dirty shitrar peasants

>>51578406
>tomshardware
kek fucking grandpa detected

enjoying your hardware news?

Winrar, 7zip is shit tier

>>51577994
>He doesn't just use unp in bash.

File: winrar.png (10KB, 785x375px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 785x375px

>>51578406
>2013
>everyone has a different data set to compress
>not running the tests yourself
>my test was ran 5/12/2014

>>51578156
This

File: images.jpg (9KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 225x225px

>>51578913
>>51578156
Works On My Machine Post of The Day

File: theme_winrar_jr.png (12KB, 523x100px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 523x100px

winrar with this theme if you are not a pleb

>>51579118
>no flat material design theme
fuck off

But 7z is free
doesnt /g/ like free things?

>>51578950
Actually no it doesn't. It's well explained that 7-zip can't directly open pictures and that's the usual behavior.

>>51578122
This.

>>51579155

I got WinRAR free almost a decade ago doing the TrialPay offer which they still have, it's a non-issue really.

I use WinRAR because it works and does more for me than 7zip has ever been able to do including a lot of repair related things. 7zip is so plain and boring and missing features that I require so, WinRAR is the winner and will remain as such for years to come.

File: 1448546023022.jpg (174KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1024x1024px

>>51577994

why not both? Winrar for .rar and 7-zip for everything else.

>>51578298
>>51578332
keka is good enough honestly

Some like it free like in gratis
Other like it free like in muh fredooms

>>51577994
7z is faster
/thread

>>51578122
Peazip is laggy. It takes a couple seconds or more to show up, but 7zip is perceivably instant.

wintards

7-zip can actually make use of a 64 core system

Does 7zip automatically make a new folder when you right click ant hit extract now?

>>51577994
Use Lrzip

http://ck.kolivas.org/apps/lrzip/README.benchmarks