Finally x64 version of WinRAR. Now it's faster than ever.

So, I think the last time I updated winrar was v3.3.

I remember see threads that the Author had died. Is this a new guy or was the post I read fake? I thought I remember it being on the official site.

One word for you, guys ... 7zip XD

winrar > *

you deserve to be stabbed in the face Kirill.

no seriously.

try me
winrar doing all my needs here,been using it for couple years,fast,easy to use

Granted I havent tried 7zip for well over a year but whe I did it was total crap, maybe its better now I dont know, nor care, but it was slow and buggy and the slightly better compression didnt outweigh it being a slow resource hog

anyways, like I said maybe its better now but there's still no reason to switch from winrar, atleast not for me.

Slightly? You need to check your sources. They only case where rar from my experience manages to pull better compression ratio is with general binary files, like program install folders and the likes. It will usually give extra 10%.

7zip (and the LZMA compression) is A LOT better
* when compressing a lot of similar files. For example, if you have a 100 1MB large similar files, rar will pull 60-70% of compression ratio while LZMA will give you around 1-3%.
* when compressing textures LZMA also kicks ass. DXT, dds, whatever; with LZMA you'll get at smaller file size and even better if you use 64bit version and you have enough RAM for compression (it needs around 2.5GB with 265MB dictionary, I think).

Generally, winrar offers better user interface and file detection (for instance, if you have a sfx archive it will easily detect it and offer you the "open as archive" option in the menu) where 7zip will give you open archive option for all kinds of files.

The only bug I noticed in 7zip is the problem when unpacking locked archives. If you choose the "extract here" option, it will launch its standard progress window and the window asking for a password *below* it so it can get confusing if you don't know what is going on.

Lest we forget, 7zip is completely free. No nags, adds, nothing. From all the people I know, only one guy has bought a licensed copy of winrar.

Yes, if yoru compressing multiple copies of the same file then its great, but as I (and most people) never do that then who cares? Overall the compression difference between winrar and 7zip is negligible and hardly enough to base a decision on.

The fact that it eats up your ram isnt cool either, especially if your packing/unpacking huge archives it means your system is gonna be laggin like hell for the duration, which is gonna be even longer because its slow.

Like I said, absolutely no point in switching to 7zip, unless, of course, all you do is compress copies of the same file

I've been using Winrar since before it was win before that ace,lhz and a few others I can't even remember and winrar is by far the best of them all by miles. No issues and does the job everytime, who could ask for more from a program? and 7zip was garbage when I tried it and I see no reason to try it again. Actually I think there was one winrar release that was borked, 3.2 IIRC but that was addressed immediately.

7zip has 1.5x more compression power when configured properly, then winrar

OK, blindartist, not only do you need to check your sources, but yo need to read as well.

1) I never ever said SAME files. I said SIMILAR. The difference is so huge, I can't express it with words. Who the fuck would be compressing more copies of the same file?
2) Overall compression? Can you give me some examples?
3) "Eats up my RAM"? Yes, you CAN configure it so that it "eats less". I gave an example where you can achieve superb compression when compressing textures. And, since I have 4GB, how much do you think my system lats with 7zip taking 2.5 GB maybe two times per year?
4) Where did I say anyone should switch?

It's funny how people who have zero to no arguments resort do dumb comments. Yeah, I compress and compress the same file over and over all day long. During night as well, it's just feels so rewarding.

Same and SImilar are pretty much thesame thing when your talking files, I dont know what you think youll be archiving thats a bunch of "similar" files (word documents with a wrod changed? maybe copies of a file with a diff extension? give me a break) but in order to achieve this amazing compression the files have to be pretty damn close.

I dont feel like posting links to comparisons on here, you can fidn them yourself but even on 7zips own site the figures they posted show a difference of less then 10% and every independent comparison ive seen shows a difference of about 5% overall.

I hate how people trying to defend some dumb program give the stupidest reasons as to why its "better"

Guru3D proves why 7z is superior with their driver repacks.

slightly better compression doesn't make it it superior but forget it man, if you like it then thats cool, power to you

its the best for source code and precompiled libs too.

Even if its only 5%, it's still better, isn't it?

Thou fail, sir. Try compressing a bunch of random textures with LZMA/rar and tell me which is better. Yeah, textures are seldom used these days.

7zip is better for that as well, check out the Ocarina of time, Community texture pack.

350+ worth of textures, compressed to 130MBish

I managed to compress some GTASA texture mods (author made a low compressed installer, sized at 900MB) to less then 200MB. I made three archives, one with textures reduced to 175MB, one with screensohts (he used a lot of those :/) of about 60MB and the last one containing some other files totaling at 20MB.

This is using the 256MB dictionary on a 64bit 7.

Also, many mod packagers use 7zip. Some download services use it as well, like Stardock's Impulse.

Ok, just to put this crap to rest I installed 7zip, copressing a 580mb file of random textures:

7zip
Default: 153mb 2:32
Max Setting: 149mb 4:06

Winrar
Default: 163mb 1:20
Max: Setting: 162mb 1:31

Size:
Difference at default :6.1% in favor of 7zip
Difference at max: 8.5% in favor of 7zip

Time:
Difference at default: 46.7% in favor of Winrar
Difference at max: winrar was more then twice as fast!

In a day of 1tb hard drives I could really give a shit about a few megs, but time is money, and 7zip didnt even add itself into the right click menu, winrar is the superior program.

Alright, Im done iwith this, not gonna respond to this thread anymore so, peace.

its not about hdd space saving, its about digital distribution.

and if these were still the days of dialup then it would matter, on a seperate note I still remember when 56K modems were adverised as "lightning fast"

Just proving my point, 7zip has better compression.

lol, forget it.

Forget what? My whole point was - 7zip has better compression (good), it's free (good) and it has a lower quality user interface then winrar (bad). Have you successfully disputed any of these? No. Have you had one single valid point in this thread? No.

Here is what I'm talking about, with screenshots for those who have trouble reading.

I used
* win 71000 x64
* latest x64 versions of 7zip (4.65) and WinRar (3.90)



* the files I referenced before that consist of GTA SA mods SRT3 (by ParoXum) and SRT3-continued (by BLITZ) and some minor other mods (a few car retextures, Grim's weapon pack and the "things to do in SA 'till you're dead" mod). If you unpack those archives/installers, overwrite some older ParoXum's files with newer BLITZ's ones, remove all the jpeg images and sound archives from the package and delete all the thumb.dll files, you should get something like this



1,61GB of in 1865 files (mostly dxt textures), one IMG archive, a few exe installer files, some scripts and text files.

First I compress with 7zip



7zip supposedly uses 2 cores and it doesn't really show as on my CPU the usage is some 30% on 3.2GHz. The memory usage shows as it takes most of my free RAM, total usage (with the OS) was about 3.3GB. I think we can safely assume 7zip would benefit from faster RAM.

Now I compress with WinRar



WinRar uses a lot less RAM and even the processor usage is higher, it peaks at 50%.

Now we compare

Duration:
LZMA - 643,4 sek (+46,3%)
rar - 439,6 sek

File size:
LZMA - 322608154 bytes (-65,3%)
rar - 930446623 bytes



Not a large difference. At all. And look, it took more then 200 seconds longer OMG!!!!11!

* Note, on a 20mbit connection it would take some 250 seconds longer to dl the rar.

Serously i could give shit about 7zip's slgihtly better compression, a few megs either way make no difference with 1tb HD and 10mb internet conections, it being free also makes no difference to me. forthermore I dont give a flying fuck about 7zips ability to super compress files that are thesame, i never compress files that are thesame and thats hte only case where it work, other then that 7zips copression is only about 5-10% better, who cares.

Ive run a bunch of tests now compressing actual random files that are all different and 7zip is cosistantly 5-about 9 percent better, depending on the settings, and at max settings its about 3x slower then winrar.

Winrar is considerably faster, its rock solid, has a better interface and faster workflow and better features.

winrar > 7zip, thats all there is too it

Sightly better compression? 65,3%
Few megs? Try 600
Free? Well, you must have a lot of dosh or you're just a pirate
Same files? I don't compress them either
Who cares? I do, as well as other sane people
3x slower? lol
Considerably faster? 46,3%, by your account, when considering compression, that's practically nothing
Rock solid? lol what does that mean and how does it reflect on the 7zip "rocksolidness"? lol
Better interface? The only thing that is correct in this mount of garble you spouted
Faster workflow? lol
Better features? lol you're grabbing to straws right now, lame

You can easily find the files I compressed, while the stuff you mentioned exists only in your head.

You are a troll and people thought me not to speak to trolls, so bye.

yea you packing your 'test' with a bunch of similar files to try and make 7zip look good doesnt count for much, ive done several tests using more realistic senario's and the results are consistantly 5-9%, and when you run 7zip with max settings its slow as hell, 4 minutes to winrar's 1.5.

Whats funny is that the true garbage is the shit your sellin to try and make 7zip look good, is it a bad program? no, is it better then winrar? not to me, silly fanboy.

You and idiot buddy, stop responding, this is getting old.

God, you're a troll it's not even funny. The only truly stupid idiotic moron here is you men. And that "other idiot" here is actually the smartest one as he gave up on your stupid troll ass a long time ago lol

Here you will find the BLITZ's SRT 1.6 installer
http://www.gtaforums.co.uk/index.php...s&showfile=685

Here you will find ParoXum's SRT 1.0
http://www.gtagarage.com/mods/show.php?id=1807

Check it out for yourself, you nitwit. No same files here you ... I'm running out of insults here. Just like I said above, my test can easily be verified by anyone. Unlike your "several tests" lol.

Oh, once again: I'm not selling anything you fucking moron. 7zip is goddamn fucking free, just like that brainfart you call thoughts. If you think winrar is better (even though you offer on only the lamest reasons lol), fine with me, no need to put down 7zip only because you're a cretin. Bye.