If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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| | \ _ / ( ) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
RAR Files
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
RAR Files
"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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
RAR Files
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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
RAR Files
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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
RAR Files
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 ] ........... |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
RAR Files
"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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
RAR Files
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
RAR Files
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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
RAR Files
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
RAR Files
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
RAR Files
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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
RAR Files
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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
RAR Files
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|