October 25, 200520 yr winzip or winace. WinZip cuz it tightens up files more. Ace cuz it has a HUGE support list.[uPDATE]Never mind. WinRAR is the sickness. I shrunk a 254MB file to 32MUTHA-LOVIN' MB!!! Edited October 25, 200520 yr by m3n70r
October 25, 200520 yr ^ lol, i wish more people would try more software before claiming one is the best. I would say probably WinRAR, because its easy to use and has a nice gui. But 7zip is the best really.
October 25, 200520 yr Author i thought that this would be between 7zip and winrar, i currently use winrar and i pretty much love it, just wondering if anything was better. ive used 7zip a few times a while ago, i think ill give it another try.
October 25, 200520 yr 7-Zip for me...but different archivers compress files differently in my opinion... most multimedia files get compressed more-so than lets say... batch files and text files less than 500k... so yeah...TugZip is also a good archiver... it looks really good, runs fast, easy to use interface, and its free
October 26, 200520 yr overall WinRAR is by far the best as its just so much more useable. for high compression though id say 7z or UHAR.Edit: Completely Forgot about TugZip. excellent freeware program capable of creating many different archive types. Edited October 26, 200520 yr by ScubaSteve
October 26, 200520 yr PowerArchiver 2006, Version 9.5http://www.powerarchiver.com/download/powarc950.exeIn my opinion THE BEST! archiver solution !!!
October 27, 200520 yr I like the WinRAR UI better than the 7zip interface - it just seemed more intuitive to me. Both command-line versions are great. I prefer Winrar's command-line program because of it's ability to have versioning of the same file with in the same archive. There is also a free version for unpacking, called unrar.exe. I was trying to use 7za to create differential backups (it compared a previous archive file and created a new archive file that only included new/changed files) but it kept crashing on me, giving me an internal error and I could never find anything on the 'net about this. After that, I switched to WinRAR.-John
October 27, 200520 yr PowerArchiver 2006, Version 9.5http://www.powerarchiver.com/download/powarc950.exeIn my opinion THE BEST! archiver solution !!!It may be intergrated, but it gives horrible compression ratios. I used their "7-zip" compression, and it came out larger than WinRAR. I like the WinRAR UI better than the 7zip interface - it just seemed more intuitive to me. Both command-line versions are great. I prefer Winrar's command-line program because of it's ability to have versioning of the same file with in the same archive. There is also a free version for unpacking, called unrar.exe. I was trying to use 7za to create differential backups (it compared a previous archive file and created a new archive file that only included new/changed files) but it kept crashing on me, giving me an internal error and I could never find anything on the 'net about this. After that, I switched to WinRAR.-JohnAgreed. For my day-to-day archiving I use WinRAR. For those archives or silent installers I use 7-zip to get the highest compression.
October 28, 200520 yr It may be intergrated, but it gives horrible compression ratios. I used their "7-zip" compression, and it came out larger than WinRAR. Did you check this 2006 version with "maximum compression" option? maybe it's compression ratios are not The Best around, but "horrible" come on!
October 28, 200520 yr Did you check this 2006 version with "maximum compression" option? maybe it's compression ratios are not The Best around, but "horrible" come on! Yup... did that. With 7-zip on an installer I got a compression ratio of 27.5%, while with PA2006 on maximum compression for 7-zip, I got 45%.
Create an account or sign in to comment