WinRar vs 7zip

D

da233

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
303
I just reinstalled my OS and was wondering which of these programs I should get. I've been using WinRar for the past few years and never gave 7zip a shot yet.

Does 7zip have any advantages over WinRar? Which program is lighter on system resources? Which one can load up faster?
 
Try both for yourself?

I have never had a need to install WinRAR.
 
I used WinRaR for years. I switched to 7zip about year ago (maybe two) because it was much faster.
 
They are such small apps, with modern OS's (Vista, 7), how fast they start is irrelevant.
 
criccio said:
They are such small apps, with modern OS's (Vista, 7), how fast they start is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about how fast they start? I said it opens files (like large several hundred megabyte files) faster.

Not to mention 7-zip is free.
 
ryan_975 said:
Who said anything about how fast they start? I said it opens files (like large several hundred megabyte files) faster.

Not to mention 7-zip is free.
Click to expand...

Plus, I think 7-zip has had an x64 version out much longer than WinRAR.
 
+1 for 7zip. Not sure about real numbers but it does seem (from my experience) to extract a little faster then WinRAR. I can't remember if/which had it but there was a file size cap on one of them which I had trouble opening a rather large multi-gig file.
 
I'm not sure if this is still the case, but one feature of WinRAR that 7-zip lacks is the ability to break an archive into multiple parts.

I have used both, but mainly for basic things like extracting files or making small archives to simplify attachment uploading.
 
7Zip, I converted over from winRAR a year or so ago. I run the native 64bit version, though totally unnecessary for such an app to be 64bit.

It was really the free aspect, no please buy me popup on opening files.
 
devman said:
7zip. Bonus points for being free (in both senses) software.

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_archivers
Click to expand...

Based on the features chart, WinRAR and something called "PeaZip" do it all... interesting. :) But it is a wiki article... doesn't mean it's fact.

Besides, WinRAR was free for me, but that's not why I chose it... it just works better in my experience, that's all. It is one of those applications that is worth every cent, even in spite of me getting it for free (from RARSoft itself).

And yes, WinRAR now offers 64 bit support which is important in archiving as the data can be processed in larger chunks. Is it faster? Yes. Twice as fast? Of course not, but every little bit helps... since people seem to be all over 7Zip for it supposedly being faster (it isn't in my experience), every little bit does help indeed.
 
Jawadali said:
I'm not sure if this is still the case, but one feature of WinRAR that 7-zip lacks is the ability to break an archive into multiple parts.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean. 7-zip has an option to make multiple-part archives. Just "add to archive" and there's a drop down box where you can select preconfigured things (floppy disks, etc) or type in an amount of bytes to cut them off as.

I use 7zip. It unzips/unrars everything, is small, fast, x64, and free. The compression of .7z files is also very good.
 
Joe Average said:
Besides, WinRAR was free for me, but that's not why I chose it... it just works better in my experience, that's all. It is one of those applications that is worth every cent, even in spite of me getting it for free (from RARSoft itself).
Click to expand...

How did you get it for free? I mean its not like average Joe's get a free copy of WinRAR...
 
450 said:
How did you get it for free? I mean its not like average Joe's get a free copy of WinRAR...
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly they offered full versions free with the start of the latest release (maybe it was the 64-bit version?). They only gave away a small number for a limited time. Maybe a year or so ago?
 
There was a time in the past where, if you had signed up for the WinRAR newsletter, they sent out the latest edition of the newsletter and also provided those on the subscription list with a link to get a free registration key (which works forever with any future versions as well) by doing one of those "TrialPay" subscription offers. They had one that was totally free for Stamps.com (didn't require me to input a credit card number or anything like that) so I hopped on it and grabbed a key, and the Wife did the same so we're set.

As far as I can tell, that offer still stands (the free registration key) if you sign up for and "complete" an offer from TrialPay. It's not the greatest thing ever but, it'll save ya $29 or so if you pick one, sign up, then cancel a few days later with no cost. It's got Netflix and Blockbuster on it now, those are 14 day trials... get a few free movies, WinRAR, then cancel... ;)

Full disclaimer: I kept the Stamps.com account for two months, used it for some shipping and then cancelled it. The link is:

http://www.win-rar.com/trialpaycheckout.html

Complete the offer as required (again, there should be at least one where there's no money required but hey, you might find something you can actually use, who knows), and they'll email you a registration file (a tiny .rar file) that when you double-click on will register your copy of WinRAR legitimately.

</back_to_the_regularly_scheduled_thread>
 
Does 7zip have an option for shell extensions? I've always stuck with Winzip because I could right-click on an archive, and have it extract to a folder with that archive's name.

EDIT: It does. I found a new archiver.
 
Last edited:
Yup, and it's customizable too...

shell.png


edit: Oops, looks like you already figured it out, and long before I even read the post too lol.
 
I use 7zip on my main PC but I have just installed WinRar on my XP Virtual Machine and I love it.
 
I switched from WinRAR to 7-Zip a few months ago, for no reason other than the fact that it's completely free. It is definitely not any faster than WinRAR was or at least, no noticeable difference anyway.

Multi-file archive support in general 7-Zip could use some work compared to WinRAR. It's not as seamless and trouble free. Other than that, it works fine.
 
drdeutsch said:
Not sure what you mean. 7-zip has an option to make multiple-part archives. Just "add to archive" and there's a drop down box where you can select preconfigured things (floppy disks, etc) or type in an amount of bytes to cut them off as.

I use 7zip. It unzips/unrars everything, is small, fast, x64, and free. The compression of .7z files is also very good.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. My experience was from a few years ago, and although I download the newer versions of 7-zip ever so often, I don't think I have attempted to make a multi-part archive since. Good information to have.
 
7zip, because its faster, has customizable shell extensions, is far lighter, and entirely free



criccio said:
They are such small apps, with modern OS's (Vista, 7), how fast they start is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

criccio said:
The OP... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

so you read the first post and note speed is something the OP is interested in, and then complain about it not being relevant just to perpatuate some perceived arguement with someone else (and because somehow the OS, not the hardware or the application itself, determines performance, and obviously no OS but Vista or Windows 7 could run an application quickly (whats that other one, Microsoft made it at one time, its considered faster, but sorta hard to find, forget what its called though ;)))
 
So why exactly are you attacking me here? You did the same thing in another thread for no reason. What did I ever do to you? Hell, what did I even do in this thread...?

He wanted to know "which one can load up faster"... Somehow I think that is irrelevant now with Superfetch...
 
I have used both for rudimentary backup purposes with over 20 GBs of data consisting of various file formats. With the command line version of WinRAR it was possible to tell it just to "store" certain already-compressed file types (such as zip files, jpegs etc) without trying to shrink them any further (in other words, just copy them into the .rar file), while compressing everything else. In 7-Zip this isn't possible, everything has to be compressed the same. However, in spite of that, 7-Zip still completed the backup job faster than WinRAR did (and the backup was of a similar size, possibly even smaller but I don't recall)... which impressed me.

7-Zip also supports AES encryption, which can be useful.
 
Joe Average said:
WinRAR.
Click to expand...

+1

I just prefer it over 7zip. Been using it for many years and it has never failed me or anyone else I know that uses it. And now there's a 64-bit version (I don't give two shits who came out with a 64-bit version first).

devman said:
7zip. Bonus points for being free (in both senses) software.

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_archivers
Click to expand...


Uh, according to that link they can both open the same number of formats, except one which WinRAR can and 7zip cannot (ACE; never heard of it, but still). Also, WinRAR might as well be free because it will never nag you or stop working. Honestly I never understood how it wasn't free. You just install and that's it. It never once mentions that you need to register or anything of the sort.
 
Last edited:
Used winrar for years switched to 7zip when I switched to 64 bit OS last year, ended up installing winrar 64bit beta because 7zip has some problems with passworded .rar files, still prefer 7zip.
 
The startup difference can't be any more than like .2 seconds... so what's the point?
 
Last edited:
All other things being equal. The license of the two algorithms and programs makes it pretty clear cut for me at least.

RAR:
"Neither RAR binary code, WinRAR binary code, UnRAR source or UnRAR binary code may be used or reverse engineered to re-create the RAR compression algorithm, which is proprietary, without written permission of the author."

LZMA (7zip's Compression format):
LZMA is in the public domain.

and then the programs themselves:

WinRAR:
You may not use, copy, emulate, clone, rent, lease, sell, modify, decompile, disassemble, otherwise reverse engineer, or transfer the licensed program, or any subset of the licensed program, except as provided for in this agreement. Any such unauthorized use shall result in immediate and automatic termination of this license and may result in criminal and/or civil prosecution.

7zip:
This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
 
My .02 cents. I have used WinRAR and 7-Zip for years now. In general use I much prefer 7-Zip. It's what we use on all our PCs/Servers at work, cuz it's free :). The 7z compression is as stated very good. Now, having said all that. There is one place that I cannot compare the two without handing the award to WinRAR. For command line use it is the poo! I have written batch backup/compression files that did anything and everything I wanted. 7-Zip's command line is no where near as robust. However, if you are not going to be using it for that purpose, by all means go with 7-Zip!
 
I found an issue with 7zip. It seems to have issues when opening files from an encrypted zip file. It will prompt me for the password, and then will give me various errors, depending on what application the file type is using. Graphics file, for example, won't open in Photo Viewer...and will give me a message about a missing or corrupted file. WinZip opens them fine. I tried removing the encryption, and I get the same problems. I know the file is okay, though, so it isn't truly corrupted.
 
DeaconFrost said:
Does 7zip have an option for shell extensions? I've always stuck with Winzip because I could right-click on an archive, and have it extract to a folder with that archive's name.

EDIT: It does. I found a new archiver.
Click to expand...

Native Zip support within Windows does that.

For 99 and 44/100% of users, the built in Zip support within Windows since XP came out should suffice.

Before XP, I used to use EnZip...a free program at that time which was "nag free"...meaning no prompts every now 'n then to purchase it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top