Free Rar Extractor? 52 replies

Please wait...

Kwould

OK, but wash it first

50 XP

24th November 2003

0 Uploads

1,537 Posts

0 Threads

#41 11 years ago

I see you are a fellow Kentucky resident (SeV)... I personally have an actual paid license of WinRAR. I feel that $29 is worth the lifetime license. Although that may be 29 more dollars than free, it suits my use of it just fine - especially since my employer's primary large file transfers are done using RAR archives.




Lysdestic VIP Member

Dr. Professor Logic, PhD.

46,095 XP

11th November 2003

0 Uploads

4,322 Posts

100 Threads

#42 11 years ago

Yeah, Kentucky. I'm not exactly proud of it.

Hmm, are there any nice perks to having the paid edition?

I've never used it.




Kwould

OK, but wash it first

50 XP

24th November 2003

0 Uploads

1,537 Posts

0 Threads

#43 11 years ago

I'm not a native, but it's nice here... The only real perk is no pop-up. I've always looked at using software past it's trial period, regardless of functionality, as almost pirating. Sorta like downloading a game demo. I try it and if I like it, I buy it. Not to mention, the "free" version of WinRAR is no longer licensed as shareware, it is considered a trial license.




Lysdestic VIP Member

Dr. Professor Logic, PhD.

46,095 XP

11th November 2003

0 Uploads

4,322 Posts

100 Threads

#44 11 years ago

Which still works into my original point that I can just get 7-Zip and not have the pop up, for free, but I digress. =p

There was that big debate, and the guy who started the thread has already downloaded and found the one he wants to use.




ConstanceJill

Huh yeah, whatever ^^

38,777 XP

6th December 2006

0 Uploads

3,246 Posts

1 Threads

#45 11 years ago

Bs|Archaon;4007665Just because it's shareware doesn't mean that you actually have to pay to continue using it after a set period.[...][/QUOTE]Technically true, but if you have read the license, and you're supposed to have read it and agreed if you install, then yes, you have to pay. Quote from the first installer screen : «This is a trial version. Anyone may use it during a test period of 40 days. Following this test period or less, if you wish to continue to use WinRAR, you must purchase a license. »

[QUOTE=Bs|Archaon;4009562]On the compression front, the 7z format is good in terms of compression, but so little software supports it that I'd argue comparable proprietary formats (e.g. RAR files) are far more useful. If, for example, you're emailing files to someone, virtually everything can unpack RAR files. If you send them a 7z file then the person trying to open it pretty much has to have 7-Zip (there are a few but 7-Zip is by far the best 7z supporting archiver that I've seen). If you're sending files to someone in a corporation, it's very unlikely that they'll have a program like 7-Zip and it's very unlikely that they'll be able to install software on their work machines (and very unlikely that they'd bother even if they could); chances are you'll get an e-mail back asking for you to send it as a ZIP or a RAR.

Hmm, just no. And I give (good, in my humble opinion) reasons : 1 : WinRAR itself does support 7z extraction (even though it doesn't handle the creation yet, as far as I know). I'm pretty sure WinZip supports it too, as well as more and more archivers as time passes... 2 : that's what self-extracting modules are for.




Lysdestic VIP Member

Dr. Professor Logic, PhD.

46,095 XP

11th November 2003

0 Uploads

4,322 Posts

100 Threads

#46 11 years ago

Now see, I didn't know that, because I haven't used WinRar and WinZip in a while. In that case, out of 7-Zip you can get better compression, and still send it to people.

I don't see the advantage of the Win* programs anymore.




Bs|Archaon

I would die without GF

50 XP

15th March 2006

0 Uploads

5,910 Posts

0 Threads

#47 11 years ago

Neither did I, to be honest.

ConstanceJill;4010938Technically true, but if you have read the license, and you're supposed to have read it and agreed if you install, then yes, you have to pay. Quote from the first installer screen : «This is a trial version. Anyone may use it during a test period of 40 days. Following this test period or less, if you wish to continue to use WinRAR, you must purchase a license. »

If it states that it's a trial version then presumably it's not shareware anymore? Fair enough.




Bs|Archaon

I would die without GF

50 XP

15th March 2006

0 Uploads

5,910 Posts

0 Threads

#48 11 years ago

(SeV);4010972Now see, I didn't know that, because I haven't used WinRar and WinZip in a while. In that case, out of 7-Zip you can get better compression, and still send it to people.

I don't see the advantage of the Win* programs anymore.

I just conducted the same test with 7-Zip and 7z, using the Ultra compression setting. It took 42 minutes to create and was 202MB. So it was only 3MB smaller than the ZIP file, 27MB larger than the RAR file; and yet it took considerably longer than either to create (12 mins longer than the ZIP file, 8 mins longer than the RAR file).

Having said that, different compression techniques have advantages and disadvantages so this could be due to the type of data I was using rather than 7-Zip/7z actually being worse at compressing data.

(RAR file made with WinRAR, 7z file made with 7-Zip on Ultra)




ConstanceJill

Huh yeah, whatever ^^

38,777 XP

6th December 2006

0 Uploads

3,246 Posts

1 Threads

#49 11 years ago

Bs|Archaon;4010983If it states that it's a trial version then presumably it's not shareware anymore? Fair enough.[/QUOTE]I had put the first sentence in bold only because it was on that first installer screen I was talking about, however the sentence that came next was more important, and you don't seem to have read it... it's part of the WinRAR license too.

[QUOTE=Bs|Archaon;4011113]I just conducted the same test with 7-Zip and 7z, using the Ultra compression setting. It took 42 minutes to create and was 202MB. So it was only 3MB smaller than the ZIP file, 27MB larger than the RAR file; and yet it took considerably longer than either to create (12 mins longer than the ZIP file, 8 mins longer than the RAR file).

Having said that, different compression techniques have advantages and disadvantages so this could be due to the type of data I was using rather than 7-Zip/7z actually being worse at compressing data.

(RAR file made with WinRAR, 7z file made with 7-Zip on Ultra)

Choosing "Ultra" compression doesn't make everything ... for optimal results, you should use the 7z format, LZMA method (or PPMd if your files are mostly about text, maybe) and the biggest dictionnary size you can according to memory usage (if you don't want hellish disk swap usage slowing your machine down deadly).

You need to learn a little how to use it right if you want better results (it's only slightly more complicated than WinRAR : with that one too, it's usually better to use a bigger dictionnary if you can, and if you don't know that, you will not get as good results as you could). If I remember well, with 512 MB ram you can use up to 32 MB dictionnary with LZMA method (while it took around 1.3 GB to use 128 MB dictionnaries, when it still was possible). You almost always get better compression by creating solid archives too.

Of course, I'm not saying 7z/LZMA always does better than RAR, but in most cases as far as I could see (and I made lots of tests ;) ), it does.

There are other compression formats that may give even better results sometimes (as always and like you said yourself, it depends also on the file set you feed it ^^ ) but they are either very marginal (.UHA ... ) or the compression method takes way too much ressources to be used on nowadays' computers, or both (.KGB ... )

If you want to make more tests with .RAR format to see if it does better than "well enough made" 7z archives, I invite you to try with the contents of these archives there : Last Chaos USA Patched On 09-19-2007 - FileFront.com Command and Conquer Gold - Freeware - FileFront.com NWN Dedicated Server v1.68 - FileFront.com Thief: Deadly Shadows Editor (Small) - FileFront.com

;)




Oblivious

I tawt I taw a puddy tat...

50 XP

30th December 2002

0 Uploads

2,806 Posts

0 Threads

#50 11 years ago

winRAR for me. Used it for years, never had any issues nor found any formats it couldn't open. It also has tons of intuitive options for how you want to store things that other apps didn't (and still may not) have.

Besides, I'm an old dog and don't take kindly to new tricks. I go with what I know, which is winRAR. :smokin: