Free Rar Extractor? 52 replies

Please wait...

Bs|Archaon

I would die without GF

50 XP

15th March 2006

0 Uploads

5,910 Posts

0 Threads

#31 11 years ago

Ultimately it depends what you're sending. If it's a bunch of text files or a few JPEGs then even a dial up user won't have a problem, and using a more effective archive format won't chop off much size. If you're sending a 200MB file and using RAR can chop of 10MB extra compared to ZIP then you're probably going to use RAR, even if you're on broadband. With files that size you're unlikely to use email, but it's entirely conceivable that you could be uploading to a server via FTP or using a VLAN to share files between offices (both of those rely on internet speeds, just like email).

That newer encoder does offer improved compression rates for ZIP files but it's not a major improvement. Personally I'd question whether it's actually an improvement given that the ZIP format's advantage is compression speed. Improving the compression ratio makes it slower. If you need speed then I'd say it's better to use the faster, original encoder. If speed isn't a problem then why use ZIP in the first place?

Ultimately, the ZIP format was designed with speed rather than compression in mind; any modifications to it still have to work within that restriction.




Lysdestic VIP Member

Dr. Professor Logic, PhD.

46,135 XP

11th November 2003

0 Uploads

4,323 Posts

100 Threads

#32 11 years ago

True, I suppose. However, if I were on broadband, a 10MB difference really wouldn't bug me too much.

Maybe not an improvement to the person compressing, but if you are using 7-zip to avoid that whole shareware thing, I would argue that it is worth it.

Why compress as a zip file when using 7-Zip? Because with 7-Zip, as you and I both said, it is the format everyone else has.

For me, the ultimate thing out of all it still remains the same, it's free and it does all of the standard formats. It may not be able to compress as a RAR, but it can uncompress them.

As I said, it's nice having a totally free program, that let's me do everything I need to do without reminding me that I have to buy it, or whatever other annoyances WinZip and WinRAR employ these days.




Bs|Archaon

I would die without GF

50 XP

15th March 2006

0 Uploads

5,910 Posts

0 Threads

#33 11 years ago

It's worth noting that on a normal broadband service it takes about 5-10 minutes to upload 10MB. That's fine if you've got nothing better to do with your connection than let it sit there uploading, but if you do...




Lysdestic VIP Member

Dr. Professor Logic, PhD.

46,135 XP

11th November 2003

0 Uploads

4,323 Posts

100 Threads

#34 11 years ago

I'm aware of this, of course, sitting on Dial-Up for so long, 5-10 minutes isn't anything. =p

In summary, reminders just annoy me, and free software tickles my fancy.




Bs|Archaon

I would die without GF

50 XP

15th March 2006

0 Uploads

5,910 Posts

0 Threads

#35 11 years ago

Yeah well we normal people are used to downloading at more than 3kb/sec and we hate waiting for stuff to send. :D




Lysdestic VIP Member

Dr. Professor Logic, PhD.

46,135 XP

11th November 2003

0 Uploads

4,323 Posts

100 Threads

#36 11 years ago

I'll have you know, I get a whole 6kb\s on dial up! =p




Bs|Archaon

I would die without GF

50 XP

15th March 2006

0 Uploads

5,910 Posts

0 Threads

#37 11 years ago

Really? Maybe it got faster since everyone else moved on and stopped using the bandwidth? :p




Acualy Is Confusingkid

Keep honking im reloading

48,430 XP

19th September 2006

0 Uploads

4,563 Posts

0 Threads

#38 11 years ago

Well, In case you're curious, I got WinRAR and have used it LOADS unzipping templates and other files for my new PHPBB software. It's stable, fast and has many options, Although Winzip is good as well.




Bs|Archaon

I would die without GF

50 XP

15th March 2006

0 Uploads

5,910 Posts

0 Threads

#39 11 years ago

Just to give a more practical example, I've just had to take a backup of one of our office machines and move it to a different site. Mostly text files, so they're not big individually; but there's roughly 42,500 of them. Normally I'd use RAR without even thinking about it but I decided to do it with RAR and ZIP for my own curiosity more than anything (after all, random numbers like 200MB and 10MB don't really mean anything).

On disk they're about 830MB. In a normal ZIP file they're about 205MB and in a RAR file that dropped to 175MB, ao a 30MB saving. However, the ZIP file took almost exactly 30 minutes to archive, whereas the RAR file took 34 minutes (a saving of 4 mins, obviously).

At 30kb/sec, which is roughly the upload speed we get from out office (small company; we have ADSL on one end and cable on the other, nothing special) the ZIP file would take 116 minutes to send. The RAR file would take 99 minutes, a saving of 17 minutes.

4 minutes lost on compression, 17 minutes saved when actually sending the data; 13 minutes saved overall.

I hate making backups; you can tell how bored I've been over the last couple of hours.




Lysdestic VIP Member

Dr. Professor Logic, PhD.

46,135 XP

11th November 2003

0 Uploads

4,323 Posts

100 Threads

#40 11 years ago

What zip archiver did you use for that?

Making backups does suck, so saving time is a good thing.

Keeping in mind however, the original poster wasn't using it for large scale type things. ;)

Don't worry, it's the internet, we're all bored.