Foo - Do you use .ZIP or .RAR files?

In addition to cycling, I am also a consultant. My current job is to understand the current use of "compressed" files, such as (.ZIP, .RAR, .7Z, etc.). So I'm looking for people who use compressed files and are willing to take an online 10-minute survey. Your answers will be completely anonymous, and you have the chance to win one of five $100 American Express gift cards.

To participate, click here to start taking the survey: Compressed Files Survey (https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=SclSyaGtfQGaAWbQgfB50w_3d_3d). To get more information, please send me a PM through this forum or email study.interview@gmail.com by 7/17/2009.

Thanks in advance for your help keeping me employed!

done

I did the survey, but for this thread...

I use .zip files because I can extract them using something built-in to XP (is it WinZip, even?) but for .rar files I have to install at least the trial version of the .rar extractor thingy.

(I haven't really given a rat's patooey about cmopressed files, honestly, so as long as they use the .zip extension and I can open them, that's all I need. This is one of my holes of knowledge in computer software world.)

Well, then for Sonata's sake, I'll reply in kind.

I prefer saving most things in ZIP format for the same reason. Its universal...can be opened anywhere.

If I'm saving only for myself on my machine, I use 7Z because 7zip is free and its compression is a little better than zip format. I really zip files more to archive them than to save space, though saving space is a nice fringe benefit.

I HATE RAR files because they are very UN-universal. Can only be opened with WinRAR, AFAIK, which is not a free program. It annoys me that another forum I'm on.....every time somebody uploads a file for others, they almost always use RAR format. Am I the ONLY one on the forum who doesn't have WinRAR?

Am I the ONLY one on the forum who doesn't have WinRAR?

I don't. WinRar doesn't like Linux. Command line unrar and rar work just fine though!

tarball

tarball

Nice for cleaning things up, but it doesn't compress the data.

I don't. WinRar doesn't like Linux. Command line unrar and rar work just fine though!

Well, yeah, on Linux. But I want to be able to open easily whether on Linux OR Windows.

I HATE RAR files because they are very UN-universal. Can only be opened with WinRAR, AFAIK, which is not a free program. It annoys me that another forum I'm on.....every time somebody uploads a file for others, they almost always use RAR format. Am I the ONLY one on the forum who doesn't have WinRAR?


I don't. WinRar doesn't like Linux. Command line unrar and rar work just fine though!

Actually...just looked up RAR files on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAR

According to that article 7zip (my main zip tool) should be able to read them. I wonder if they added the capability since the last time I tried because I recall not being able to many times in the past.


I better make sure I update my 7zip when I get home, I guess. ;)

Done

I use .zip ties a lot and like my steaks .rar.

I use total commander for working with files which can read rar or zip without having to get winrar.

I mainly use zip for stuff I archive.

gzip - linux (sometimes bzip2)
7zip - windows
and I just discovered The Unarchiver for the Mac... so much better than Stuffit.

I use rar mainly.
I like this shell integration function the best > extract each archive to separate folder
I also like the parity function, but I very rarely use it to make an archive at all.

I just use the trial version endlessly since the shell menu doesn't give an annoying continue/buy now popup and I'm still on 3.71.

As I answered the quiz:
The choice will vary depending on what the purpose is, for the general public it's .zip due to OSes typically supporting it out of the box. I use .7z or .rar for my own archives.

On Windows and Linux, I use WinRAR because it supports AES-128 encryption, archive segments, recovery records (so I have a good chance of recovering an archive's contents if there is some corruption), and very good compression. Its archive "signing" for registered users is another way to check for corruption without having to decrypt an archive.

On OS X, I use StuffIt Deluxe for old time's sake. StuffIt has the features that WinRAR does, although it is not in use much anymore these days.

On generic UNIX variants, I hit ftp.gnu.org and compile bzip2 and tar. It works, and is decodable almost anywhere.

This forum rocks! Thank you, everyone!!!! Survey is getting some great response, and all this additional feedback is fantastic! Keep 'em coming.

And to keep this somewhat on topic, my husband just pulled the trigger on a Bianchi C2C road bike. He looks HOT.

don't worry, this is foo, completely off topic to bikes :innocent:

I don't use .zip any more after losing files to corruption and finding out it's one of if not the worst file compression format to recover.

One nice thing about bzip2, if a chunk of a file is damaged, you can usually recover the whole file except a damaged block. This is why I use archiving utilities with recovery records.

Thanks again, everyone. Getting some great responses in this thread and to the survey. If you haven't already taken the survey, please consider saying yes to letting me follow up via a phone interview. We are looking at selecting about 20 people, and only have 13 so far. I don't bite, promise!

.zip FTW

rar is alot more difficult to use than zip. So, I use zip.

I don't use .zip any more after losing files to corruption and finding out it's one of if not the worst file compression format to recover.

Try tar and gzip files, I practically had to re-write a piece of ancient software because of the GNU's specs on tars and how the software works (or how I've found no available public software that dealt with bad tar headers), only to end up losing every file over a gig (occasional corruptions), and had to use a 3rd party gzipper just to get the archive available to me.

I would have even taken zip that day, which I've been able to get files out of much easier than a 3 day trek of nightmares and disappointments.

What's wrong with zip? And if it's so bad, then why are other file formats so hard to use? I mean, .rars. Man, that program is really hard to figure out.

The one archiver I miss, which had an interesting interface was Compact Pro for the Mac. You created an archive, loaded the files into it, then when you did a save, it did its work. This way, you could do all the tasks of building where goes in what directory in the archive, tell it to save, then walk off, and it would split the archive how you wanted it (for floppy or SyQuest disks), etc.

Linux: tar / bzip2
Windows: default / Winzip

Another question for you: Can you please give me more information on the file types you compress? If you compress videos, what video file type? If you compress photos, JPG? GIF? Are you compressing music? MP3 or what?

Thanks!!!

usually just bundle jpg and mp3 with no compression, but give it parity.
can't really compress jpg, mp3, avi, mkv, and mp4 files since they're already highly compressed and would benefit more from parity just incase the archive dvd disc gets scratched or has some flaws.

Another question for you: Can you please give me more information on the file types you compress? If you compress videos, what video file type? If you compress photos, JPG? GIF? Are you compressing music? MP3 or what?

Thanks!!!I'd say the files I zip mostly would be mostly text and/or office type documents. I don't usually bother with MP3s, JPG and videos as most of those file formats are already somewhat compressed. Zip and MP3, for example, and you don't get it much smaller.

Another question for you: Can you please give me more information on the file types you compress? If you compress videos, what video file type? If you compress photos, JPG? GIF? Are you compressing music? MP3 or what?

Thanks!!!

I mainly use an archiving program less for file compression than to do another purpose, such as grouping a chunk of files together (say pictures in a directory), encrypting, signing, or other file tasks. For example, using WinRAR (a registered copy) to archive a source code tree to copy to an offsite storage area.

If someone wants an archiving program that has a large array of compression algorithms for different file types, I would recommend taking a look at StuffIt Deluxe. It says it can repack lossy compressed files to save more space, although you don't get the exact original file back (though one with the same audio/video quality.) WinRAR also has specialty algorithms for various things (x86 windows executable code), but not to the extent of Smith Micro's program.

Sorry for my lack of knowledge on this tuff. I don't know anything about programming and stuff. Just your basic computer user here...

Ease of use is really important. What is the best compressing type of program that is easy for a basic computer user to use?

Hey everyone! We need a few more volunteers to both take the survey and to agree to be considered for a telephone interview. If selected and interviewed, you will be be given a $50 American Express gift card. If you HAVEN'T taken the survey, please do so! If you HAVE taken the survey but are willing to change your mind about being interviewed, please send me a PM via this forum. A great big THANK-YOU to those who contacted me to be interviewed. (You know who you are!!!) :thumb:

In addition to cycling, I am also a consultant. My current job is to understand the current use of "compressed" files, such as (.ZIP, .RAR, .7Z, etc.). So I'm looking for people who use compressed files and are willing to take an online 10-minute survey. Your answers will be completely anonymous, and you have the chance to win one of five $100 American Express gift cards.

To participate, click here to start taking the survey: Compressed Files Survey (https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=SclSyaGtfQGaAWbQgfB50w_3d_3d). To get more information, please send me a PM through this forum or email study.interview@gmail.com by 7/17/2009.

Thanks in advance for your help keeping me employed!

I'll do your survey, but I figured I should throw a word in. For most applications, neither compression method makes a real difference in file size reduction. Choosing the appropriate method begins to make sense when you're talking about compressing data in the gigabytes. Furthermore, at that level, compression algorithms begin to show their true strengths and weaknesses.

ZIP is not well regarded at that level, and there are better algorithms than RAR, namely TAR, 7Z, etc. RAR, if I'm not mistaken, also slows down as the file size goes up.

Hope that helps!


Well, then for Sonata's sake, I'll reply in kind.

I prefer saving most things in ZIP format for the same reason. Its universal...can be opened anywhere.

If I'm saving only for myself on my machine, I use 7Z because 7zip is free and its compression is a little better than zip format. I really zip files more to archive them than to save space, though saving space is a nice fringe benefit.

I HATE RAR files because they are very UN-universal. Can only be opened with WinRAR, AFAIK, which is not a free program. It annoys me that another forum I'm on.....every time somebody uploads a file for others, they almost always use RAR format. Am I the ONLY one on the forum who doesn't have WinRAR?

Linux: rar/unrar
Mac: unsure, but there is an app that supports rar

Another question for you: Can you please give me more information on the file types you compress? If you compress videos, what video file type? If you compress photos, JPG? GIF? Are you compressing music? MP3 or what?

Thanks!!!

Usually, I compress documents, source code or other tidbits of information. I hardly ever compress media files, though I regularly decompress them (and they come in RAR format, most of the time).

BTW, you must have a pretty nice budget to be giving away AmEx gift cards like that

Sorry for my lack of knowledge on this tuff. I don't know anything about programming and stuff. Just your basic computer user here...

Ease of use is really important. What is the best compressing type of program that is easy for a basic computer user to use?

If you're on anything newer than Windows XP, you can use their native compression software to accomplish that. It's as simple as right-click and sending to a compressed folder.

Plenty of RAR utilities for Mac: http://www.versiontracker.com/macosx/systemutilities/compress

Personally I like 7z. It gives me tighter compression than both ZIP and RAR for most things I compress.

* RAR is for the movie pirates that wanna make it difficult and sometimes impossible for others to put the avi file back together.

* ZIP is for the general populus.

* RAR is for the wannabe Unix admins.

* Real Unix sys admins use file.tar.gz

* Real Unix sys admins use zip when compressing a file that will be emailed to a lesser being.