RAR Files

Man High Castle wrote:

Can anyone recommend a good, free program to extract RAR files in Win
10 Pro?

7-zip is a good archive tool. I use Peazip which uses the 7-zip libs
(http://www.peazip.org/peazip-help-faq.html, "PeaZip uses Open Source
components from 7-Zip/p7zip, FreeArc, and other state of art Open Source
software to offer the same GUI frontend to create, browse, test and
extract 7z and ZIP archives under Linux and MS Windows as well.").
However, Peazip has a nicer GUI and is more familiar since it looks like
File Explorer.

7-zip GUI:
https://cdn.fileinfo.com/img/sw/ss/lg/7-zip_322.jpg

Peazip GUI:
https://cdn.lo4d.com/t/screenshot/peazip.png

Note: While you can use the free archiver tools, including RARLAB's
UnRAR, to extract from .rar files, you need to buy RARLAB's RAR ($29,
free but adware on Android, and a free personal-use Chinese edition
since 2015) to create the proprietary .rar files.

The Man in the High Castle wrote:
Can anyone recommend a good, free program to extract RAR files in Win 10
Pro?

WinRAR is free, well sort of. It just nags you.
--
Quote of the Week: "The fact that we can't easily foresee clues that
would betray an intelligence a million millennia farther down the road
suggests that we're like ants trying to discover humans. Ask yourself:
Would ants ever recognize houses, cars, or fire hydrants as the work of
advanced biology?" --Seth Shostak
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org /
/ /\ /\ \ http://antfarm.ma.cx. Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

Ant wrote:
The Man in the High Castle wrote:
Can anyone recommend a good, free program to extract RAR files in Win 10
Pro?

WinRAR is free, well sort of. It just nags you.

It uses the old ZIP model, where decompression was free,
and compression costs money. That's why plugins are
available for decompression of RAR, which other
designers can incorporate.

Paul

"Apd" wrote

| And why are they shipping the Win2000 version of
| cabinet.dll? That's a system file, on every Windows
| system.
|
| You'd think if they ship that, they'd support W2k.
|

Yes. It's odd altogether. Microsoft have been adamant
that no system files should ever ship since XP, I think.
They're mostly locked, anyway, blocking replacement.
By putting it in the program folder they're almost certainly
loading that instead of the system version. Maybe there's
some reason, but I don't know what it might be. I've
written a class wrapper myself for cabinet.dll, which I
use in my own MSI unpacker software that runs on all
Windows versions. I've never seen any issues.

On 23.06.19 16:00, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-06-23 8:45 a.m., The Man in the High Castle wrote:
Can anyone recommend a good, free program to extract RAR files in Win 10
Pro?

7-Zip
Winzip

I use and prefer 7-zip, try both, see which you like, Also there are
some others which I am not familiar with.

Rene


IZarc

Paul wrote:

[RAR] uses the old ZIP model, where decompression was free, and
compression costs money. That's why plugins are available for
decompression of RAR, which other designers can incorporate.

RARLAB's UnRAR is open source. Anyone can use the free code libraries
to decompress RAR.

I always thought it presumptuous or even stupid that RARLAB charges for
their proprietary RAR program. Although claimed better, does RAR have a
command lead in usage and is it really that much better than .zip or .7z
that it can command a commercial price ($29 USD)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAR_(file_format)
Version 3 of RAR [file format] is based on Lempel-Ziv (LZSS) and
prediction by partial matching (PPM) compression, specifically the
PPMd implementation of PPMII by Dmitry Shkarin.

LZSS = Lempel-Ziv-Storer-Szymanski

https://www.diffen.com/difference/RAR_vs_ZIP
7-Zip can use LZMA and LZMA2 [for its .7z archives]

Igor Pavlov, the Russian developer of 7-Zip, has stated that the
standard ZIP format is inferior to RAR and ZIP files created in 7-Zip.
Though a lot does come down to the file types being compressed, RAR
and 7-Zip's ZIP archives compress data as much as 30 to 40% better
than standard ZIP.

Since RAR uses Lempel-Ziv and 7-zip (and Peazip) use the
Lempel-Ziv-Markov compress algorithms which are considered better than
what Zip uses, I have to wonder if RAR can be said to be using an old
and inferior version of the Zip algorithm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_(f...ession_methods
The .ZIP File Format Specification documents the following compression
methods: Store (no compression), Shrink, Reduce (levels 1-4), Implode,
Deflate, Deflate64, bzip2, LZMA (EFS), WavPack, and PPMd[27]. The most
commonly used compression method is DEFLATE, which is described in
IETF RFC 1951.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEFLATE
Deflate ... uses a combination of the LZ77 algorithm and Huffman
coding.

Okay, so what is the order of appearance for Lempel-Ziv (LZSS),
Lempel-Ziv-Markov (LZMA), and LZ77 to know which is based on an older of
which?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZ77_and_LZ78
circa 1977 (for ZIP/Deflate)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lempel...%93Szymansk i
circa 1982 (for RAR)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lempel...hain_algorithm
circa 1996 (for 7-Zip/Peazip)

From those dates, "[RAR] uses the old ZIP model" is wrong. RAR used (or
moved to) a later compression algorithm, not to the old one for ZIP.
Instead, ZIP is the grandfather, RAR the father, and 7z the son. In
addition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_(file_format)
Initial release: 1989

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAR_(file_format)
Initial release: March 1993

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7z
Initial release: 1999

So the order of release was: ZIP, then RAR, then 7z. And RAR used later
compression algorithms than did ZIP.

Il giorno Sun 23 Jun 2019 04:00:58p, *Rene Lamontagne* ha inviato su
alt.comp.os.windows-10 il messaggio
. Vediamo cosa ha scritto:

Can anyone recommend a good, free program to extract RAR files in Win
10 Pro?

7-Zip
ok

Winzip
this is NOT free, as requested






--
/-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ T /-\
-=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- - -=-
http://www.bb2002.it
............ [ al lavoro ] ...........

"VanguardLH" wrote

| From those dates, "[RAR] uses the old ZIP model" is wrong. RAR used (or
| moved to) a later compression algorithm, not to the old one for ZIP.
| Instead, ZIP is the grandfather, RAR the father, and 7z the son. In
| addition:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_(file_format)
| Initial release: 1989
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAR_(file_format)
| Initial release: March 1993
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7z
| Initial release: 1999
|
| So the order of release was: ZIP, then RAR, then 7z. And RAR used later
| compression algorithms than did ZIP.

Interesting historical info. Yet the hottest new method is
20 years old.

For most things, though, none of that really
matters. JPG is a horrible image format with only one
advantage: small size. But it was an early Web favorite
because it supported 24-bit color, progressive loading,
small size and -- most critically -- there were no
royalties. That's made JPG universally supported, and
we've paid the price, with webpage images that can
barely be made out because they've been compressed
so far. JPG is so popular that it's even used in the last
place it should ever be used: cameras. It's relatively
small and you can view it in a browser. Who cares if
Uncle Fred's face looks like it's made of rectangles?
You can tell it's Uncle Fred, right?

Similarly, ZIP is almost universally supported. RAR and
7Z are not. And most people rarely care about getting a
bit better compression. If they did then ZIP would not
be the standard and GZ wouldn't be typical online. I've
never even tested 7Z or RAR. Who would I send them to?
Why would I put myself in the position of using 7-Zip's
horrendous GUI if I don't need to? ZIP compresses text
to about 10% original size and JPG almost not at all.
RAR? Maybe 5% better? Maybe even 10%? As the saying
goes, ask me if I care.

Mayayana wrote:
"VanguardLH" wrote

| From those dates, "[RAR] uses the old ZIP model" is wrong. RAR used (or
| moved to) a later compression algorithm, not to the old one for ZIP.
| Instead, ZIP is the grandfather, RAR the father, and 7z the son. In
| addition:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_(file_format)
| Initial release: 1989
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAR_(file_format)
| Initial release: March 1993
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7z
| Initial release: 1999
|
| So the order of release was: ZIP, then RAR, then 7z. And RAR used later
| compression algorithms than did ZIP.

Interesting historical info. Yet the hottest new method is
20 years old.


I think there is still important development work being done.

The 7ZIP program now has at least one multi-threaded decompressor
working, which makes a difference.

As for the topic of compression, you can only squeeze so much
"order" out of files, and it gets harder and harder to make
improvements.

ZIP or GZIP have good space/runtime tradeoffs, while
the later arithmetic methods require quite a bit more
runtime. To compress a disk drive sized file (image),
costs about $1 of electricity. So the application of
such, is not trivial.

The hottest methods are also "tuned for file type".
The pre-compressor is just as important as the
compression step. For example, there is one pre-compression
step used for EXE files, to make the overall incoming
block smaller, before the compressor even gets to see it.

And the compressors are actually different types. There's
a 2D plot of space-time somewhere, which compares them,
and you should see some separation between the two groups.

RAR and 7Z (and whatever compressor MSFT uses for its DVDs)
are important for web/downloads, as they can save a few bucks
in bandwidth costs. Not that many people use such compressors
for home projects. And if you look at a backup program like
Macrium, the compressor there is lighter in weight than
GZIP or WinZIP.

While your three links might be an attempt to trivialize
the development of the three methods, RAR and 7Z save
more space than ZIP ever will. And that's progress for you.
And the recent release of multi-threaded 7z decompression,
solves one of the irritations of using compression - getting
your content back at reasonable speed.

When you're using compressors, you should to the extent
possible, not use two compressors (one after the other).
For example something.zip.7z wouldn't be as efficient
as something.7z. The compressors work best, if they
get to see the original content (so they can use
their pre-compressor "encoding" stage).

Paul

On 24/06/2019 04.59, VanguardLH wrote:
Paul wrote:

[RAR] uses the old ZIP model, where decompression was free, and
compression costs money. That's why plugins are available for
decompression of RAR, which other designers can incorporate.

RARLAB's UnRAR is open source. Anyone can use the free code libraries
to decompress RAR.

I always thought it presumptuous or even stupid that RARLAB charges for
their proprietary RAR program. Although claimed better, does RAR have a
command lead in usage and is it really that much better than .zip or .7z
that it can command a commercial price ($29 USD)?

RAR has some advantages.

It includes verification, but optionally can include repair info. That
is, a damaged archive can be repaired. This makes it good for backups.

It can easily create split archives, filling some destination media
(initially, floppies).

It can run a script (batch) when it is decompressed, which is useful for
creating installable programs.

I did not know the price is so much. $29?

On the other hand, it does not support the full attribute set of a Linux
filesystem. Ie, is not really multiplatform.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 24/06/2019 04.59, VanguardLH wrote:
Paul wrote:

[RAR] uses the old ZIP model, where decompression was free, and
compression costs money. That's why plugins are available for
decompression of RAR, which other designers can incorporate.

RARLAB's UnRAR is open source. Anyone can use the free code libraries
to decompress RAR.

I always thought it presumptuous or even stupid that RARLAB charges for
their proprietary RAR program. Although claimed better, does RAR have a
command lead in usage and is it really that much better than .zip or .7z
that it can command a commercial price ($29 USD)?

RAR has some advantages.

It includes verification, but optionally can include repair info. That
is, a damaged archive can be repaired. This makes it good for backups.

It can easily create split archives, filling some destination media
(initially, floppies).

It can run a script (batch) when it is decompressed, which is useful for
creating installable programs.

I did not know the price is so much. $29?

On the other hand, it does not support the full attribute set of a Linux
filesystem. Ie, is not really multiplatform.


I switch from ZIP to RAR many years ago for backup and archive system
because RAR could handle more files per archive than ZIP. Verification
and error correction also added plus for backups.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 24/06/2019 04.59, VanguardLH wrote:
Paul wrote:

[RAR] uses the old ZIP model, where decompression was free, and
compression costs money. That's why plugins are available for
decompression of RAR, which other designers can incorporate.
RARLAB's UnRAR is open source. Anyone can use the free code libraries
to decompress RAR.

I always thought it presumptuous or even stupid that RARLAB charges for
their proprietary RAR program. Although claimed better, does RAR have a
command lead in usage and is it really that much better than .zip or .7z
that it can command a commercial price ($29 USD)?

RAR has some advantages.

It includes verification, but optionally can include repair info. That
is, a damaged archive can be repaired. This makes it good for backups.

It can easily create split archives, filling some destination media
(initially, floppies).

It can run a script (batch) when it is decompressed, which is useful for
creating installable programs.

I did not know the price is so much. $29?

On the other hand, it does not support the full attribute set of a Linux
filesystem. Ie, is not really multiplatform.

Many compression schemes support verification.

That's why the decompressors have flavors of "test" parameter,
which doesn't extract, but just verifies a CRC or hash inside
the file.

I vaguely remember some decompressor printing "OK" to the
screen. Which meant the archive was intact.

Paul

On 24/06/2019 20.10, Paul wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 24/06/2019 04.59, VanguardLH wrote:
Paul wrote:

[RAR] uses the old ZIP model, where decompression was free, and
compression costs money. That's why plugins are available for
decompression of RAR, which other designers can incorporate.
RARLAB's UnRAR is open source.Â* Anyone can use the free code libraries
to decompress RAR.

I always thought it presumptuous or even stupid that RARLAB charges for
their proprietary RAR program.Â* Although claimed better, does RAR have a
command lead in usage and is it really that much better than .zip or .7z
that it can command a commercial price ($29 USD)?

RAR has some advantages.

It includes verification, but optionally can include repair info. That
is, a damaged archive can be repaired. This makes it good for backups.

It can easily create split archives, filling some destination media
(initially, floppies).

It can run a script (batch) when it is decompressed, which is useful for
creating installable programs.

I did not know the price is so much. $29?

On the other hand, it does not support the full attribute set of a Linux
filesystem. Ie, is not really multiplatform.

Many compression schemes support verification.

But last time I looked none had "repair" in a stable release considered
reliable.

That's why the decompressors have flavors of "test" parameter,
which doesn't extract, but just verifies a CRC or hash inside
the file.

I vaguely remember some decompressor printing "OK" to the
screen. Which meant the archive was intact.

Â*Â* Paul



--
Cheers, Carlos.

Paul wrote:

Mayayana wrote:

VanguardLH wrote

"[RAR] uses the old ZIP model" is wrong. RAR used (or moved to) a
later compression algorithm, not to the old one for ZIP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_(file_format)
Initial release: 1989

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAR_(file_format)
Initial release: March 1993

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7z
Initial release: 1999

Interesting historical info. Yet the hottest new method is 20 years
old.

While your three links might be an attempt to trivialize
the development of the three methods, ...

Those links were provided by me ... not to trivialize but to datestamp
the compression schemes (to refute your claim "RAR uses an old ZIP
model").

Maybe you got confused as to who said what to whom. Mayayana likes to
use the vertical bar ("|") as his indent quoting character; however, he
does not edit the quoted content for consistency on quoting. Instead of
editing them to all vertical bars, or using the common one ("") already
present in prior quoting, he mixes together different quoting
characters. You'll notice when I reply that I make it visually easier
to see quoting by using the same character. Sometimes, though, I don't
edit to make them all them same just to show what a jumbled visual mess
becomes the quoting when different characters are mixed together.
(Yes, this paragraph is a gibe at Mayayana's lazy quoting style, so I
risk starting a lambasting subthread.)

RAR and 7Z save more space than ZIP ever will. And that's progress for
you.

Since .rar and .7z archive files are rare compared to .zip, seems the
"progress" did not progress very far. It stagnated. Better doesn't
mandate adoption. In a reply to Mayayana, I noted Betamax vs VHS.
That's one that came to mind. Further reflection would find other
examples where better didn't mean wider adoption. Hell, we wouldn't be
in a Windows newsgroup on the argument better mandates usage.

When you're using compressors, you should to the extent
possible, not use two compressors (one after the other).
For example something.zip.7z wouldn't be as efficient
as something.7z.

That's probably more due to the addition of the header sections for each
layered compressed archive than of not compressing [much] further.
That's like zipping and zipping and zipping a .zip file which doesn't
increase compression but just keeps adding more headers.

Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 24/06/2019 20.10, Paul wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 24/06/2019 04.59, VanguardLH wrote:
Paul wrote:

[RAR] uses the old ZIP model, where decompression was free, and
compression costs money. That's why plugins are available for
decompression of RAR, which other designers can incorporate.
RARLAB's UnRAR is open source. Anyone can use the free code libraries
to decompress RAR.

I always thought it presumptuous or even stupid that RARLAB charges for
their proprietary RAR program. Although claimed better, does RAR have a
command lead in usage and is it really that much better than .zip or .7z
that it can command a commercial price ($29 USD)?
RAR has some advantages.

It includes verification, but optionally can include repair info. That
is, a damaged archive can be repaired. This makes it good for backups.

It can easily create split archives, filling some destination media
(initially, floppies).

It can run a script (batch) when it is decompressed, which is useful for
creating installable programs.

I did not know the price is so much. $29?

On the other hand, it does not support the full attribute set of a Linux
filesystem. Ie, is not really multiplatform.
Many compression schemes support verification.

But last time I looked none had "repair" in a stable release considered
reliable.

To add reliability to any packaging, you can use Parchive
techniques from the outside. I don't know if anyone has
put this into, say, a multi-part archive as a means to
improving reliability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parchive

That was also proposed as a mechanism for enhancing
data stored on CDs or DVDs, but the problem with that
concept, is when the "error rate" gets high enough
on optical media, the laser refuses to track the spiral,
and you can't pull anything off the disc. So Parchive
for optical media is a waste of time, just because of
error characteristic (tolerates errors well, until
the laser loses lock).

And that leaves PAR as a mechanism for storing, say, chunks
on multiple drives. RAID without a RAID. You could have
four separate hard drives, store a three chunk file, generate
a fourth PAR file, and now, if one of the four drives goes
down, the missing PAR chunk is replaced by one other chunk.

I played with PAR a bit at the time, but one of the problems
I was finding in forums, is it wasn't mathematically robust.
Some people were unable to recover damaged archives using
the additional PAR blocks they had on hand, and it was
claimed to be a "matrix problem", because the technique
involves large sparse matrices.

This is a kind of error correcting code, which is likely
still in usage every day, for movie downloads. You "spray"
a server with twice as many segments as is needed to represent
a movie, the movie company does DMCA takedowns on the articles,
and if enough survive, PAR allows them to be glued together
to make an intact movie. It's something along those lines.
Maybe you have 1,2,3,29,30,31,1000,1008,1023... when the
movie is 900 long, and the movie can still be recovered
as you download more than 900 remaining segments.

Paul