7zip vs. WinRAR what is better ???

[MikeS104]

I have WinRAR ver 3.0 also from 2002 and when I tried adding the RARREG.KEY file to a newer version it would not work

Don't know what to say.

Just went back and checked my software-related email folder, and the only purchase receipt, correspondence, and attached "single PC usage" RARREG.KEY from RARSALES was back in late September 2002. That's it.

Doesn't actually say what version of WinRAR that applied to, but I'm going to guess it was version 3.

And I have never had any problem using it to register all newer releases, including the current 4.00 64-bit version I'm running.

Don't know how to explain your experience of failing to get the same results. Why not write to WinRar GmbH and ask?

Work bought v3.x for myself and another guy. Our key files work with v4.

 

[Britton30]

7zip for me too. It is allegedly more secure, harder to crack. There are free Winrar password crackers which claim to work in minutes.

 

[JerometheGiraff]

WinRAR DEMO
Whats with the giant signature graphics ?

 

[logicearth]

One additional comment... I've recently had need to investigate and then extract from the installation files on a Win7 install DVD.

Specifically, these are compacted inside of INSTALL.WIM on the DVD.

And WIM files are NOT supported by the named alternatives, to the best of my knowledge.

7zip opens WIM files from the Win7 DVD just fine... o.o

 

[StalkeR]

7 Zip. First and mainly reason because its free,and I think that it have higher compression than WinRar.

 

[yowanvista]

I use both but prefer WinRAR since it has more features and a complete GUI unlike 7-zip

 

[dsperber]

7zip opens WIM files from the Win7 DVD just fine... o.o

Didn't know that. Never actually used the product, being a WinRAR user forever.

WinRAR doesn't support WIM, hence my discovery of WinMount when I needed that functionality. I incorrectly assumed WIM support was unique in WinMount, and since it was not in WinRAR that it would also not be in 7zip. This was obviously naive. I should have checked first.

Thanks for this info.

 

[Warlockz]

I use both, winrar for archiving , and 7zip to open files winrar cant..

7zip for me too. It is allegedly more secure, harder to crack. There are free Winrar password crackers which claim to work in minutes.

Its actually up to the user of winrar or 7zip to create a strong password, and to choose settings like encrypt/hide file names ect, The so called Cracking software your talking about uses a dictionary/bruiteforce attack therefore they are only able to crack insecure passwords, so no their is no easy backdoor or any other easy known cracking method in winrar as long as you use a secure password and the right settings so others cant view filenames.

Here is an example of a secure 233 bit password generated by a free software called Passworg.
/!yA, sl%.D6JL+]ZI=bhBtQ)VPi:x

But in the long run if your trying to encrypt single files or packed archives, and your worried about backdoors or someone cracking your files something like AxCrypt is way more secure than winrar or 7zip by a long run, check out the Features page for more info and all the features winrar and 7zip lack.

Another issue to be concerned about is the file itsself before you archived it has probably been copied to other places on your hd in one way or another, be it cache, file index (Search Feature Catalogs), thumbs.db, last file access ect.

 

[SIW2]

PowerIso opens wim's too.

 

[mickey megabyte]

for all android fans, 7-zip opens apk files too.

 

[StalkeR]

for all android fans, 7-zip opens apk files too.

Of course...

 

[jokemaker]

For such a long thread, very few posts respond to the OP's question, which is which is better.

I just made a few tests, and both created zip files of identical size, in roughly the same time.

 

[logicearth]

..which is which is better...

"Which is better" is completely subjective and impossible to answer because there cannot be "better" or "best" it all comes down to something personal. Something "better" for one person would not be "better" for another.

And for the record, ZIP format is the same in 7zip and WinRAR because that is the format of another compression algorithm which will preform the same regardless.

 

[King Arthur]

7zip is open source, WinRAR is proprietary. Beyond that there's not much that differentiates the two.

 

[jokemaker]

..which is which is better...

"Which is better" is completely subjective and impossible to answer because there cannot be "better" or "best" it all comes down to something personal. Something "better" for one person would not be "better" for another.
.

Wrong. Some issues are objective, such as the two issues I addressed: resulting file size and time required.

 

[Golden]

Jokemaker,

You compressed to the .ZIP format, which is why the resultant archive size was the same.

If you had used the propriety .7z format, then the 7ZIP archive would have been smaller. Read logicearths reply again - he explains the same thing

 

[jokemaker]

Jokemaker,

You compressed to the .ZIP format, which is why the resultant archive size was the same.

If you had used the propriety .7z format, then the 7ZIP archive would have been smaller. Read logicearths reply again - he explains the same thing

View attachment 264031

I read that part and I have no disagreement with it. In fact, it is quite relevant to the OP's original question. I was disagreeing with the other part of his post, in which he makes a completely different statement.

 

[A Guy]

Compression Performance: 7-Zip, MagicRAR, WinRAR, WinZip : Compression: Your Data, On A Diet

Best Archiver with Fastest Speed and Smallest Compressed File

A Guy