Random rant: 7-Zip (7z) file format

[snn47]

@Nematocyst
I admitt it's a pain that XP doesn't provide a de-/select button for packed files (zip and cab) and having to remove it is also not a option.

Thats why I still use W2k SP4 even so my notebooks came with XP. The only other tool that I could find that allow to search through packed files/folders was the file search utility from speed commander, which is unfortunately slower then XP.

@all
I don't want to sound like 7zip-prg is the best, but it matured over the past years and is still improving constantly. I used Powerarchiver before 7zip when it was still freeware and just have Winzip at the office.

Under zip the 7zip-prg is more efficient then other programms when you still want zip-files. After packing you can verify the integrety of a packed file within seconds, which took in Winzip much longer.

To support the argument said before of saving traffic, when I archived the 1GB folder with webdownload in 7zip format it was just about 0,25GB small. No other format/prg did achieve this much at the time.

[Caroliano]

Note that he didn't touch in the bandwidth aspect....

[LightningFire]

The only benefit for zip-support in XP is that it allows you to search also throught zipped folders/files, which is something I havn't found in Totalcommander.


When you do commands->search, in the dialog there is the option/checkbox to search archives (except UC2).

So no benefit at all for zip support in XP ;).

[Neo Neko]

Well, have fun discussing it with yourself because I'm not going to waste my time on a MS vs OSS discussion that I never brought up in the first place.

Yep you are an MS guy. :p

The XP native support for ZIP was mentioned as merely an added perk of using a well known and supported format such as ZIP (which it was long before MS ever added support to XP), but you had to be hawkish and turn that into some sort of proof of corporate evil and proceed to throw punches.

Not necessarily. You extoll the compatability of Zip. Fine. Good. But you rant on 7-zip. An open source format. While completely for the most part ignoring RAR, ACE, or LZH which using words you have used bring nothing new to the table so to speak. Not necessarily an equal opportunity ranter. Maybe I am reading an anti OSS bias where there is none. But you have to admit it could look like there was. What did 7-zip do to you to make you so mad? Why not mention any of them. Or why mention any other format in general. Wouldn't your argument have been just as effective if all you talked about was ZIP and not ZIP?

I'll spell it out for you again: I don't like 7-Zip because I find it unnecessary in this time and age and consequently a hassle for the end user.

That is hardly a reasong for anything. And has no real factual basis or backing. You like ZIP because your environment of choice really only supports it. We got that. Understand that many of us don't care for ZIP because we find it unnecessary in this time and age and consequently a large waster of still valuable space for the end user. Not that we rant about why people are still using archaeic compression methods. Because even we use them from time to time.

I had no idea that disliking a file format can make me biased, closed minded, intolerant, a troll, an OSS hater and a brainwashed corporate lackey - all at once.

You may or may not be all that. But understand that is how you are coming off.

I'll end my participation in this thread by quoting the one person who actually has experience running a large website and distributing software:

What you think I have never run my own web sites or distributed software? News flash. I have run and worked on several sites distributing lots of different software. I have even coded my own software and my own sites for a long time. Hell I have even hosted sites etc. I am quite familliar with the whole affair.

That's the reality for you. Now you can talk software politics all you want.

Doom9 does not use ZIP because it is the best thing to use or the only right thing to use. He uses it because it is just one less thing for people to write in asking about without actually trying to find out on their own. He does not have or want to spend time answering such basic questions repeatedly. I on the other hand don't mind as much which is why I am still messing with you. :devil: ZIP is adequate. And Doom9 no longer has much in the way of bandwidth issues. Though this may scare you. There was a time when there were bandwidth issues and alternatives other than ZIP were explored.

And in the end I never said there was anything wrong with ZIP. I simply took exception to your seemingly quite biased and somewhat pointless rant. Why do we need another format? Simply because we do. If we called it a ZIP file it would make ZIP a less reliable etc choice. Simply because most ZIP programs would not understand the compression algorythms used in the ZIP container. Same thing for using it in RAR. Simply put 7-zip is different from all of them and not a part of any of them. Therefore it needs it's own format that will accomodate, expand, and grow as it does. And if your integrated environment can't handle it yet that is whay they write these nice external aplications for you to install and use. You are not out anything if we all use what we want. ZIP is usefull like latin is. A dead language/format that isn't really going to unexpectedly or drastically change. you can rely on it in times of need. But that doesn not mean you always have to use it or that everyone else should either.

Politics are not required. Just common sense. People are different all over. And I love that. I embrace that. And I don't scold them for just being different. ;)

[Sirber]

isn't this "ZIP vs the rest" the same as "Windows vs the rest" and "divx vs the rest"?

[*.mp4 guy]

I'm not going to tuch the rest of this thread, but 7zip extracts all the archive formats I've ever run into very quickly and easily (one click easy) and as someone who was stuck with dialup for 2 1/2 years I can easily say that it would have been great if 7zip was around then.

[stax76]

Why is it that people are scared by new and great technology? Give it some time and people eventually will get over it. In the beginning people were against .NET as hell and by now some years later most of 'em happily running it.

[Sirber]

the only .NET I'm forced to use doesn't work: ATI Catalyst. I need a fresh reboot or the GUI don't start. :devil:

[charleski]

Ok, from looking at many of the replies in this thread, I suspect there are several people here who have the luxury of NOT having to move around various locations and deal with computers that are managed by BOfH control-freaks (either pimply-faced virgins or embittered middle-aged losers).

If, like me, you do have to work with computers that are administered by people whose knowledge of their systems doesn't extend that far beyond ticking all the 'Deny' boxes they can see in Group Policy, you'll realise that XP's native support for zip files is a godsend, especially if you left your thumbdrive with its password cracker and rootkit at home (heh).

7-zip may indeed be pretty good, but after a decade of ARC, ARJ, UHA and other pretenders it needs to work hard to prove itself. As far as my home system goes, I use WinRAR 3.4 and see no reason to move to anything else.

[john3voltas]

In the beginning people were against .NET as hell and by now some years later most of 'em happily running it.
Believe me, you don't wanna go that way...
I am one of those millions of people that are forced to use .NET.
I see that for the programmer's point of view it is a whole lot easier this way but it isn't for the average user guy.
I would be glad to kick both .NET and J2SE from my PC but it just ain't possible with so many tools (even OSS ones) making use of those frameworks.
If you ask me, just another attempt from M$ to keep all the eggs in the same (their!) basket...
Cheers

[zambelli]

I promised myself I wouldn't touch this thread anymore, but you're just being stubborn beyond reason. This is the last time I post, and then I'm done, for real.
Yep you are an MS guy. :p
You can put as many smiley faces as you like at the end of that statement, but it's sad that this has been the driving force of your argument. How can I spell it out for you that my gripe with 7-Zip has nothing to do with XP, Linux, Microsoft, OSS, or any other unrelated thing that you have somehow managed to drag into this thread? If your friend comes to you and says, "I'm totally for the death penalty", do you immediately come back with "Yep, you're a Republican. You hate freedom."? That's how this thread feels to me: I'm stating my opinion on something, and you're dragging in software politics and telling me what my party allegiance is. Do you understand why I refuse to have any part in that?

You extoll the compatability of Zip. Fine. Good. But you rant on 7-zip. An open source format. While completely for the most part ignoring RAR, ACE, or LZH which using words you have used bring nothing new to the table so to speak. Not necessarily an equal opportunity ranter. Maybe I am reading an anti OSS bias where there is none.
Finally you get something right: yes, you're reading an anti-OSS bias where there is none! If you had bothered to read the entire thread, you would've seen me talk about the historical context of other file compression solutions. In the late 80s and early 90s the file compression scene was very competetive and it made perfect sense given the limited disk space and low bandwidth we were dealing with at the time. I've been using PCs for over 15 years and I remember very vividly the file format jungle that was ZIP, TAR, ARJ, LHA, LZH, ACE, ARC, ZOO, UC2, RAR and too many others which I can't even remember anymore. Downloading files from BBS'es and sharing anything with friends was a major PITA because you never knew which crazy new compressed format you were gonna get. ZIP was invented in 1989. RAR arrived in 1992. LZH dates back to the Amiga days. And ACE... late or mid 90s, I think, but don't have an original ACE tool at hand to confirm the precise copyright date.
Finally, by the start of this decade the jungle finally quiets down, digital evolution weeds out the weaklings and the numbers of compressed file formats essentially dwindles down to a strong few, the most prevalent being ZIP and RAR. So far, so true, right?

And THEN in 2002 (!!!), 7-Zip shows up, and on top of that takes several years to actually gain any kind of footing (and I'm sure someone will take the time to dispute this because they've been living in a commune for the last 3 years dealing exclusively with 7-Zip files and thus feel like the rest of the world surely must be doing the same thing). A little bit late to the party, don't you think? The main reason we compress files these days is for easy distribution and download, particularly in multimedia where compressability is fairly low. More efficient compression is nice, but in my book it's simply not worth the hassle at this point. So it's not OSS vs Microsoft or any other crap that you and others have been implying. To me this is a simple matter of compatibility, common (de facto) standard and ease of use.

Introducing a new compressed file format in 2002 to me is analogous to now introducing an alternative to Binhex, UUE and Base64 encoding for binaries in email. "Hooray, the new algorithm produces 25% smaller email attachments! But oh wait, no email client supports it and your friends can't open your wonderfully small attachments without first installing a special plugin. :(" A great idea, no doubt, but about 10 years too late.

That is hardly a reasong for anything.
Hassle for the end user is not a good reason? I've no idea what you do for a living, but if it's software development, your customers are in deep trouble.

You like ZIP because your environment of choice really only supports it. We got that. Understand that many of us don't care for ZIP because we find it unnecessary in this time and age and consequently a large waster of still valuable space for the end user.
I like ZIP because it's the de facto standard for compressed files on the Internet! Can't you at least admit that's a fact?
People are asserting that I'm somehow anti-innovation, but that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying there's a time and place for all innovation and in the case of file compression that time was in the previous decade, the battle was fought, decided, let's move on. There are plenty of technologies both in the computer world and the non-computer world that you could update and innovate, but for many of them innovation is not necessary because they've been standardized to the point where any changes would outweigh the benefit of improvement. Do you ever wonder why the width of railroad tracks hasn't changed in over a century? Do you think it's because railroad engineers hate innovation and freedom of ideas?

ZIP is usefull like latin is. A dead language/format that isn't really going to unexpectedly or drastically change. you can rely on it in times of need.
You fall back on Latin often? Is this before or after you have exhausted your knowledge of Aramaic, Church Slavonic and Norse? :D

Are you really too blind to see that ZIP is a de facto standard in file compression? It's not even remotely analogous to a dead language. A far better analogy would be English or Spanish. In a recent post you said "English as a language is good enough so why doesn't everyone use it? Not using it only makes it harder for the majority of the world to interoperate with them." Well, the fact of the matter is that in most global communications, English already IS the de facto standard. What language is primarily used at the United Nations? What language is included in nearly every technical manual in existence? I don't think that English should be forced upon anybody or that any nation should be forced to replace their native language with English. However, if you're trying to reach the maximum number of people in the world for whatever reason, don't you think that it makes the most sense to use English? Obviously asking everyone to speak Basque or Macedonian at a global summit doesn't make sense if your goal is easy communication, does it? Along those lines, I think using ZIP for software distribution makes most sense because everyone's familiar with it and can read it. Using 7-Zip, on the other hand, feels more like writing a technical manual only in Esperanto. Sure, it's simpler, unaligned, unbiased and modern, but you've just lost a bunch of customers because they don't want to bother with a translator. You have to ask yourself: what's your goal?

You may or may not be all that. But understand that is how you are coming off.
Well, if this post doesn't clarify where I stand, there's really nothing more I can say to make you guys see my point of view. I'm not asking you to agree, but please don't attach meaning to my words that's not there and imply topics that I never started.

[GrofLuigi]

Unfortunately I have not a found a 7zip plugin for Total commander yet.
You mean something like this (http://www.totalcmd.net/plugring/7zip_plugin.html)? ;)

Or maybe it doesn't work for you? I must admit that I haven't tested it yet.

GL

[foxyshadis]

Neo, there was never any indication that he cared whether it was open source or not, all that mattered was that it was relatively new, imperfectly supported, and often used frivilously (which he called "unnecessary"), in which case it may as well have been a rant about lossless audio formats, blogs, video containers, flash movies, Java, premium coffee, or anything else that someone could make an opinionated, somewhat unfounded rant on.

[Sirber]

@zambelli @neo keo

so to conclude this once and for all:

ZIP is the most used compressor while the elite use 7zip.

everyone happy? :p

[dragongodz]

7-Zip shows up, and on top of that takes several years to actually gain any kind of footing
hmm so when zip or any other new archiver compression appeared it was instantly used by everyone ? of course not. you can pass the same result on to lots of other software, was xvid when first released suddenly taken up by every man and dog ? no, etc etc etc. so that statement means nothing.

The main reason we compress files these days is for easy distribution and download, particularly in multimedia where compressability is fairly low. More efficient compression is nice, but in my book it's simply not worth the hassle at this point.
this seems to be what you are not getting. yes it may not be worth your time and effort but it certainly is for others. you use a quote from doom9 earlier about why he uses zip. try reading all of this thread
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=63800
i wont try and speak for doom9 but i feel confident that most people running sites etc with high amounts of downloads would love if the content was 25% or more smaller in physical size without losing any actual content. especially any that have to pay for the amount downloaded or for any excess over a certain amount.
and as has already been stated by others there is more than just doom9 on here that has had experience with software distribution etc. doom9 chose to use zip so he didnt get hassles from people asking about other formats ,however others would rather put a f.a.q. or whatever and use better compression. both are as valid as each other for their own reasons.

[Doobie]

7z has my support. I haven't experienced any hassle with files that use 7z. 7z has enough benefits over both rar and zip to justify its use. 7z is free/open and compresses slightly better than rar and significantly better than zip.

If you want something to rant about, how about so many programs trying to do so many things. For example, I have a dozen programs on my computer that can burn CDs, even though I have no need for most of them to burn CDs. I even hear that DivxNetworks is throwing CD burning into their video player. If the Divx player can't burn CDs better than Nero, then what's the point?

In 20 years, it will be time to move beyond 7z. And, so what if we have 1Gbs internet connections and multi-terabyte hard drives.

[foxyshadis]

I bet the majority of doom9's bandwidth costs come from pageviews and the forums anyway, particularly the PNG snapshots. He already uses gzip on the pages, to mitigate it.

7zip's best place for online file distribution is in creating highly compressed installers. If it's in an exe wrapper no one needs to care how it got there, which is why installers still use all kinds of exotic compression formats. (Although NEAD, which Adobe and HP use, has symmetrical decompression time and thus has to be one of the more useless compressors out there.)

[Sirber]

7zip uses LZMA. You can use it in NSIS too and get kick ass small installers :D

[Caroliano]

@charleski: The only places I go and is this way, they use Win98, so not a big deal for me. :rolleyes:
And most of the 7z compressed things is software, that you can't install there anyway. But I see your point.

Along those lines, I think using ZIP for software distribution makes most sense because everyone's familiar with it and can read it. Using 7-Zip, on the other hand, feels more like writing a technical manual only in Esperanto.
That was funny. Good analogy anyway. The conclusion is that Esperanto rulez, isn't? :p

I never saw it as an MS vs OSS discussion until some OSS people start caling he a MS guy. He already give all his arguments and we all our arguments. This was simple an rant, so no necessity to extend more in my opinion.

Note that he didn't touch in the bandwidth aspect AGAIN...

[mpucoder]

Interesting thread on pros and cons of leading edge technology, so let me weigh in as a content provider. The most important thing to websites is accessability, not bandwidth. To that end I prefer to use zip for distribution, as stated many times above, everyone by now is familiar with it. rar and tg still have a "Linux only" stigma, and 7zip is too new for most people. The object is to make the download as easy as possible for as many people as possible. Bandwidth was an argument 2 or 3 years ago, when anything over 10GB/month was a premium costing hundreds of dollars and T1 speeds were also expensive. But today $40/month gets you the equivalent of a T1 connection via DSL with no bandwidth limit. Provide your own server, register a domain, find some free dns slaves, and you're in business.
Btw, the same argument is applied at my site towards css and javascript. I have nothing against the technology, but avoiding it ensures greater accessability.

[stax76]

Believe me, you don't wanna go that way...
I am one of those millions of people that are forced to use .NET.
I see that for the programmer's point of view it is a whole lot easier this way but it isn't for the average user guy.
I would be glad to kick both .NET and J2SE from my PC but it just ain't possible with so many tools (even OSS ones) making use of those frameworks.
If you ask me, just another attempt from M$ to keep all the eggs in the same (their!) basket...


I'm not sure if you really see the big picture, it's all about making progress and not about conspiracy.

[Doom9]

Here's a little experiment I've performed looking at the stats.
The two top traffic tools are DVD Decrypter and DVDShrink with 17532 and 9193 downloads respectively.

DVDDecrypter is distributed as exe by request of the author, DVDShrink is zipped.

Size deltas with 7zip at Maximum compression

DVD Decrypter: 15 KB
DVDShrink: -9 KB (that's right, the zipped one is smaller)

Total traffic difference: 262'290 - 82'737 = 179'553 KB or 175 MB.

If I were to ZIP DVD Decrypter, the size delta is only 6KB.

Number three on the traffic list is AviSynth, distributed as an exe. Zipped, I gain 2 KB, compressed with 7zip adds 40KB. Number of downloads: 1292

Number four on the traffic list is XviD 1.03, distributed as executable. Once again, it gets bigger compressed with both ZIP and 7zip, and the zipped output is 3 KB smaller than the 7zip. Number of downloads: 2696

Number 5 is SmartRipper. Same size compressed with rar or 7zip. Number of downloads 3902

Number 6: ImgTools Classic, currently zipped. Size gain, 25KB. Number of downloads: 2145

Number 7: Nandub, currently rared. Size gain: 120KB. Now that's a number. Number of downloads: 1885

Number 8: ImgBurn, currently being distributed as exe, requested by the author. Size gain with ZIP: 21 KB, 7zip: 17KB. Number of downloads: 1849

Number 9: Ifoedit, currently zipped. Size gain by using 7zip: 126KB. Number of downloads: 2622

In total, that's a plus of 562'294 KB for 7zip, coming mostly from two tools in the top 10 list.

But, the traffic can be further reduced by picking the appropriate compression tool, or keeping the whole thing uncompressed in the first place. And now you have to weigh 550MB of traffic (which costs essentially nothing) versus the hassle of telling all those downloaders what 7zip is.

By the way, number 10, or actually it's number 3, is right.html, your entry page with the news. That one is being gzipped on the fly and I'm sure nobody would come my way if people had to download it and uncompress with 7zip to read the news ;)

[mpucoder]

By the way, number 10, or actually it's number 3, is right.html, your entry page with the news. That one is being gzipped on the fly
Only if the browser supports gzip (the request header lists supported mime types) - if only a similar mechanism were available for downloads webmasters could use new tools without fear of backlash.
But Doom9's stats also indicate that 7zip is not always the best compressor.

[celtic_druid]

No compressors work well for compressed installers or packed exe's. If the installer uses no compression or you have non packed exe's 7-zip will beat zip probably every time.

DVD Decrypter I think uses NSI, probably with LZMA. Take my XviD compiles. The installer is just an EXE, no point packing it since it uses LZMA already. The standalone dll/ax's I pack with 7-zip since it give smaller filesizes than zip or rar. People who want simple will download the installer anyway I guess.

Looking at the current news we have yamb. 998 as a zip, 858 as 7z. I would imagine that downloads in the news experience a spike, so that could add up to quite a bit. 815kb when you use 7-zip after first unpacking mediainfo.dll.

866kb with 7-zip if you pack yamb, 876 with winzip. So it looks like zip handles UPX'ed stuff better than 7z. By that I mean 998 vs 876. Obviously at 866 7zip still wins.

[john3voltas]

I'm not sure if you really see the big picture, it's all about making progress and not about conspiracy.
Oh, believe me that I can see the real picture and IMHO .net is certainly not the way to progress.
But that's just my honest oppinion ;).
And I may be wrong about M$ and "the eggs and the basket" but that's just because they do these things very often.
Now, you go check all the big projects out there that need .net and check their forums or mailing lists.
For instance nLite is one of those cases ;).
The author was "forced" to make available a set of DLLs that allow people to use nLite without .net.
There are thousands of potential users that will never use such projects unless .net framework is not needed.
And I can't critisize them for that...
I'll give you one word: bloated.
Now, I do acknowledge that .net is much easier/faster from the programmer's point of view! ;)
Cheers

[john3voltas]

No compressors work well for compressed installers or packed exe's. If the installer uses no compression or you have non packed exe's 7-zip will beat zip probably every time.
Exactly what experience tells me! :)

[zambelli]

Note that he didn't touch in the bandwidth aspect AGAIN...
Sorry for missing it twice, I got caught up in the other discussion. :)
I think the bandwidth argument is a valid one theoretically, but I simply didn't have any real-world numbers to back it or knock it either way. I would imagine that it would depend largely on the situation. For a struggling website that can barely pay the bills and stay online - I suppose 7zip would be a true blessing. But for websites that have no trouble paying the extra few bucks for the zip/rar bandwidth overhead, I imagine it'd just be a hassle.
The numbers Doom9 posted speak for themselves on that matter.

[dragongodz]

The numbers Doom9 posted speak for themselves on that matter.
some more quick numbers.
zip = best
rar = best + solid archiving
7zip = ultra + solid archiving

FFMpeg source code cvs checkout - 9065k
zip = 2194k
rar = 1473k
7zip = 1413k

5 pdf's - 2282k
zip = 2103k
rar = 1783k
7zip = 1776k

66 jpg's - 4510k
zip = 4382k
rar = 4317k
7zip = 4137k

so there actually can be quite substantial savings using even rar over zip and 7zip gains more again. it all depends on what you are compressing.

as you also basically said it(and i also tried to point out earlier) whether the savings in bandwidth these could potentially bring is worth telling people how to handle these different compressions or not is up to those running the sites depending on their situation. for some it would be worth it and for other not. its a big world out there with different pricing schemes from different isp's etc.

[rkr1958]

Thanks for the discussion on 7zip. I never knew it existed. I just downloaded and installed it. It looks greats. I think I've found a replacement for WinZip. I love Open Source Software.

[bratao]

I stay with winrar, few people use 7zip, and the speed and memory used in 7zip are a monster with you compare with winrar, only to save 50k, ahrgg..

[Caroliano]

If the person has suport for winrar so probabily it has suport for 7z also. This was already discussed.

But I agree that the memory usage for the higest compression is realy high. Use rar or less compresion with 7z in that case....

[Sirber]

Seems 7z is not the winner anymore...

http://www.rojakpot.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=4&pgno=11

[Caroliano]

This comparison was more about speed. They used the fastest preset in all the data compressors. 7z was never a contender for this type of test, we were talking about compression rate.

[dragongodz]

Seems 7z is not the winner anymore...
This comparison was more about speed. They used the fastest preset in all the data compressors. 7z was never a contender for this type of test, we were talking about compression rate.
actually that test is good for 1 thing, it shows how slow the greater compression can be. its hardly an extensive test though being just 1 archive. notice i tested multiple types in that mini test i did because you get different results/savings depending on the source. so you need to look at all the pages not just the end one.

so let me quote myself from page 1.
actually i saw some tests done awhile ago showing other compression algorythms that actually did much better. they however would take many hours to compress what zip, rar or 7zip would do in minutes. so its a great new compression at a useable speed.
and the tests i saw ages ago actually had a lot of other more esoteric compressions aswell which compressed extremely well but as i said were not usable in a real world situation because of their snail pace.

[foxyshadis]

The article's methodology and presentation lean too heavily on lame hardware review strategies (throw mindnumbing graphs at everything, showing off how dumb it was to have outliers like winrk, sqeez, and sbc included in a speed-contest), but they do make a good point in a bad way: The vest majority of people care more about compression speed than size, except in dire circumstances, and 7-zip needs to meet and exceed the efficiency of rar to unseat it.

I just don't even understand why someone would throw together something like that when a far more comprehensive resultset exists at MaximumCompression.com. (The overall speed (http://www.maximumcompression.com/data/summary_mf3.php)/size (http://www.maximumcompression.com/data/summary_mf.php)/efficiency (http://www.maximumcompression.com/data/summary_mf2.php) rankings.)

I hope maxcomp updates with winrk3 soon because it's so much faster in the fastest (ROLZ2) modes. =D

[dragongodz]

foxyshadis - actually the single file tests show interesting results aswell. the only problem is times were not given for them nor is the multiple of single types etc.
http://www.maximumcompression.com/index.html

7-zip needs to meet and exceed the efficiency of rar to unseat it.
and it does under some circumstances. look at the mini tests i did or even the single file tests in that link. it didnt with that 1 multiple file types test they did of course but that doesnt mean that will always be the case. also with winrar still being updated aswell i would expect both to get better with time so both are good.

another thing 7zip has which is not often mentioned is different compression alogorithms. yes the default is LZMA but it also has BZip2 and PPMd to choose from when they may be of more use. :)

[Neo Neko]

Seems 7z is not the winner anymore...

http://www.rojakpot.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=4&pgno=11

Yeah I just finished reading that. Interesting though not thurrough. Had not seen squeez or SBC that I can remember before. 7-zip ran about the middle of the pack which is not bad. It is still my preffered compressor ATM. Though I think I will look into some of the others.

I wonder if Microsoft actually does expose some sort of API for their compressed folder interface. I have not heard anything about it. But if they did it would be nice if more people knew. Even if Microsoft would not bundle other decompressors it would make it possible for other people to add 3rd party support for other formats. Then I suspect we might see a few less people with pointless rants. ;) Save for the ones that would complain that they don't come bundled and have to be downloaded and installed. :p IIRC many file managers etc under Linux/BSD do or are in the process of.

[foxyshadis]

They do, zipfolders works as a complex but fairly standard shell extension. (I think it can work on 2k, too.) Some software, like zipmagic, extends the integration to multiple formats and OSes. I don't know the details, though. I've seen talk of one being created for 7-zip for years, but nothing's shown up yet.

Stuffit made big talk about being on the verge of having folder, image viewer, and browser plugins ready to go when they released stuffit 9 with jpeg compression... but nothing ever showed up, and I'm glad I didn't pay for it then. Allume is the graveyard of dead software, I'm shocked they managed that one innovation.

[Doobie]

The best argument againt 7z is that there are tighter compressors around. If you need top speed or maximum compatibility, use zip. If you want balance, use rar. If you want size above all???

At one time, WinAce seemed to enjoy the popularity that 7z now gets. But, WinAce, WinRK, Stuffit, etc. aren't free and open, even if they're tighter than 7z. Are they?

BTW, please, people, stop using Divx/Xvid, MPEG4 AVC, RM, and other codecs that lack native supported in Windows. It's too much hassle have to load new codecs on clean installs just to support this soup of standards. Stick with mpeg1, it's faster and more compatible. :p

[eidenk]

1860 files weighing a total of 101 MB compressed to just 255 KB (you read well, 255 kilobytes from 101 megabytes) with 7-Zip in solid archive mode. And a self extracting archive weighs only 322 KB.

Sort of extreme compression ratio, isn't it ?

Of couse such a ratio is possible only if all the files are very similar to each other. In this case, all the files are Filter Factory 8bf Photoshop compatible plugins.

As for zip folders, it also exist in Windows Millenium but it's quite crap IMO as you can't create an archive with it AFAIK. Some goes for MS cab folder (or is it called cab view ?) shell extension which is basically the same as zip folder but for MS cab archives and is available for free from MS since the days of Win 95 I think.

There is one soft called Iceows that I have tried and that mimics the MS zip and cab folder behaviour with added filetypes support and extra functionality. It did not remain on my system though.

A very good and powerfull free archiver is IzArc. I use it for opening archives but don't use it's shell extension anymore since 7-Zip shellex supports extracting Lzh archives.

If you download something compressed from Japan, it's going to be in the lzh format most of the time I have noticed, not zip, 7z or rar.

[Atamido]

Wait... You use MS backup? :)Ah, obviously never touched a server. Anything that backs up the computer's system state while it is running hooks into this service. Unless you have particular needs, MSBackup is the easiest to use, and will not cost you thousands of dollars.

A couple of quick points I want to make as the thread seems pretty jumbled.


7z produces the smallest .Zip files. So any knowledgable person will have it installed anyway, even if they rarely encounter a .7z file.
If you need to either transfer a large file over a slow connection, or fit a large file into a smaller space, this still makes a lot of sense. Not all connections nor storage spaces are infinite.
There are different compression rates. If I need something compressed quickly, then I will use the faster setting. I often don't need the file right away and can set it to compress at the maximum settings and come back to it tomorrow. There are also a host of other options I can customize for a specific need.
LZMA, which 7z can use, is very efficient at decompressing. So even if it spends 8 hours compressing, it is very fast for whoever needs to decompress it.
You can create a self extracting .7z file very easily, and unless your compressed file is less than 100KB, it will still be smaller than a .Zip.
While the average user is better off getting a ZIP file, that does not mean that an advanced user wouldn't be better off with a smaller 7z file. I give average mulit-platform users .Zip files. I give average Windows users .7z files that are self extracting. And I give advanced users .7z files. Planning for the specific user ensures I maximize my 384kpbs upload.
7z is probably never going to become the dominant compression format for the average user. But like *nix and many other high end tools, it will always have it's place for people that know what they're doing.

[masken]

The new format incompability-thing is an annoyance that will pass I guess...

What I'd like as a sysadmin is an MSI-package and customization possibilities via MST (such as setting the ZIP-format as the standard format) so that the application can be distributed onto clients in an easy manner.

[snn47]

The new format incompability-thing is an annoyance that will pass I guess...

With a new format you know that you may have problems.

More annoying is the incompatibility with previous versions of a format e.g. when changes were made to RAR not only other programs supporting RAR, but also older versions of WinRAR-program were suddenly incompatible.

[Neo Neko]

Backwards compatability is nice. But it always gets to much attention. When it comes to data formats etc I am more interested in forwards compatability. I very rarely travel to the past. ;) And when it comes to something like 7-zip it is generally rare and quite simple to do an upgrade.

[masken]

To get an application widely used, it must be easily available. Making installation packages for the most common distribution methods (like MSI/MST's, and MS SMS server) is a very important key in getting your application out into companies. If there's no package, noone will install it as it requires manual procedures (normally, users in company/enterprise environments aren't local admins).

the other main issue is compability. You cannot force others onto an application before they've got it installed. Therefore, backwards compability and spreading the application first is the main key to getting it successful.

[Neo Neko]

To get an application widely used, it must be easily available.

7-zip easily avalible. Check.

Making installation packages for the most common distribution methods (like MSI/MST's, and MS SMS server) is a very important key in getting your application out into companies. If there's no package, noone will install it as it requires manual procedures (normally, users in company/enterprise environments aren't local admins).

Not a bad point but not all that good either. For the average home user MSI packages are pointless. And remember things can go both ways. PCs came to many homes because of work. But things like IM etc came to work from the home. And I suspect that when there is an MS dependant business demand for it an MSI can/will be made and well featured. And after reading the SF forum it is in the works. At any rate any admin worth his pay even an MS one could "manually" set up an automated install IIRC. But not the point and click admins. ;)

the other main issue is compability. You cannot force others onto an application before they've got it installed. Therefore, backwards compability and spreading the application first is the main key to getting it successful.

Actually forcing someone on to an aplication before they have it installed as you put it; is a prime way to get people to use new aplications. If we tip-toe around backwards compatability then all your document files should really be ascii text CR/LF terminated and all your archives could only be zip. I only worry about backwards compatability in one of a few cases.

1. The non-backwards compatable software/format in question is not free or freely avalible.

7-zip is not only freely avalible but also highly avalible. ;)

2. The person recieving the non-backwards compatable software/format does not have access to the internet to download and install the required software.

Solution: bundle required software as well. It is really small and perfectly legal to do so. ;)

3. The person in question does not have admin rights to install software.

Solution: Use the 7-zip packages that don't require "formal" installation. Or create a self extracting package with all the space you save over ZIP.

At any rate many times backwards compatability is brought up as a reason not to do something in regards to opensource. The person making the claim is mostly blowing sunshine and spreading FUD. ;) There could indeed be some valid concerns over things like RAR and ACE archives. But not 7z. :)

Business etc will always be cumbersome and slow. Especially those with point and click admins. But there is no reason for the rest of us not to start using it regardless of access or aptitude. Because the only way something gets to be used is by using it. ;)

[masken]

7-zip easily avalible. Check.

Wrong, see below.

Not a bad point but not all that good either. For the average home user MSI packages are pointless. And remember things can go both ways. PCs came to many homes because of work. But things like IM etc came to work from the home. And I suspect that when there is an MS dependant business demand for it an MSI can/will be made and well featured. And after reading the SF forum it is in the works. At any rate any admin worth his pay even an MS one could "manually" set up an automated install IIRC. But not the point and click admins. ;)


Actually forcing someone on to an aplication before they have it installed as you put it; is a prime way to get people to use new aplications. If we tip-toe around backwards compatability then all your document files should really be ascii text CR/LF terminated and all your archives could only be zip. I only worry about backwards compatability in one of a few cases.

There's always wishes about how things should or should not work, and then there's reality. Also, it is a fact that companies large enough to host their own IT often sets up internal standards. I know I do as a consultant. And I know several professionals who refuses to touch anything else than standardized packages, and sets that as a demand on the suppliers. This is a whole industry today. There's companies that does nothing else than package and customize applications for distribution.

Whether one likes or dislikes Microsoft, their OS's are on the vast majority of servers and clients around the world as it is today. And they've got a standard way for installation packages that is natively supported, that works well, and is free to use. No admin likes sitting with regmon & filemon and make custom scripting/installation solutions for every application that the company should support and maintain. It's unbearable. And no company is interested in buying such services externally either, it costs too much. It's just a dead end, simply put.

[Neo Neko]

Wrong, see below.


There's always wishes about how things should or should not work, and then there's reality. Also, it is a fact that companies large enough to host their own IT often sets up internal standards. I know I do as a consultant. And I know several professionals who refuses to touch anything else than standardized packages, and sets that as a demand on the suppliers. This is a whole industry today. There's companies that does nothing else than package and customize applications for distribution.

That does not make me wrong. You are a very business oriented guy. Eazy enough to tell. While what you say does account by and large for the business world of point and click MCSE admins it is not universal even in the business world. To put it another way what you say is not "wrong". Just very narrowly drafted. wakaremas-ka?


Whether one likes or dislikes Microsoft, their OS's are on the vast majority of servers and clients around the world as it is today. And they've got a standard way for installation packages that is natively supported, that works well, and is free to use.

Native? To the more recent versions of Windows perhaps. But in the world of Windows not everyone can afford the newest and shinyest.

Standard? That comes down to your background. If you are a business Windows admin for a company that has enough liquid assets to stay ahead of planned obsolecence then perhaps it is a standard. If not then there are many sometimes confusing alternatives etc. I know it is scarry to think about. But there are big companies out there still running decent install bases of Windows 95! Not to mention 98, ME, etc. ME/2000 is the first version of Windows that even came with Windows Installer! Now what about home users? The situation is even worse for the most part. ;)

Free to use? Perhaps. Are they free to make though? Does MS provide any free tools? I see alot of payware. But keep in mind that for a project such as 7-zip that sort of stuff could be quite prohibative to many avalible resources. Looking over Microsoft.com etc I was not able to turn much up in the way of how to make them.


No admin likes sitting with regmon & filemon and make custom scripting/installation solutions for every application that the company should support and maintain. It's unbearable. And no company is interested in buying such services externally either, it costs too much. It's just a dead end, simply put.

When it comes to Windows based businesses with point and click admins you are probably right. There was never much hope for that bunch anyway. As they are perpetually in an intractable state and often the last to move. Though I know of some Unix shops and admins that are about as bad if not worse. My whole issue was that the business side is only half the argument. And by focussing solely on it you miss alot of other important extenal factors. Yes business when left to itself will tend to stagnate to the motto of "if it isn't severely cripling us don't fix it". That does not make it right. You have to create and roll with the changes. And when companies misread the changes well you end up with alot of friction Like the **AA suing/harrasing/insulting it's customers etc.

Lets just put it down to this. Firefox. The little non-standard standard app that could. It has been years in the making. But it is finally getting traction in the business world. And even if you are not deploying it for businesses you work for you still benefit. Because it got MS off their arse and work on that crufty old Internet Explorer again. Even though it may still be a slim benefit. Still better than business as usual. ;) 7-zip may not get they itself. But a sucessor in spirit almost surely will. Much like the Mozilla->Firefox transition. Mozilla is gone but still with us. ;)

Forging ahead........

[masken]

That does not make me wrong. You are a very business oriented guy. Eazy enough to tell. While what you say does account by and large for the business world of point and click MCSE admins it is not universal even in the business world. To put it another way what you say is not "wrong". Just very narrowly drafted. wakaremas-ka?
Yes, it's business oriented. Why? As mentioned, that's how you reach spread in applications. And speaking about the vast majority of users, servers and workstations is hardly a narrow subject.

Native? To the more recent versions of Windows perhaps. But in the world of Windows not everyone can afford the newest and shinyest.
The Windows Installer technology came with Windows 2000 natively, which means that it's been on the market roughly 6 years now. In most cases meaning 2 hardware generations, or at least one.

Standard? That comes down to your background. If you are a business Windows admin for a company that has enough liquid assets to stay ahead of planned obsolecence then perhaps it is a standard. If not then there are many sometimes confusing alternatives etc. I know it is scarry to think about. But there are big companies out there still running decent install bases of Windows 95! Not to mention 98, ME, etc. ME/2000 is the first version of Windows that even came with Windows Installer! Now what about home users? The situation is even worse for the most part. ;)
I'm sorry, but you're wrong again. It is quite uncommon with Wintendos and NT4-machines on companies today, even small ones. All Wintendo's and the NT4 OS went out of market in 2002 (except Ms's worst OS ever, WinME which lived to 2003). You really should know what you're talking about if you make such statements...

Free to use? Perhaps. Are they free to make though? Does MS provide any free tools? I see alot of payware.
That is true. Many companies try to make money, otherwise they wouldn't exist. But there are free alternatives, like WinINSTALL LE & Caphyon Advanced Installer for example.

Finally, statements like "When it comes to Windows based businesses with point and click admins you are probably right. There was never much hope for that bunch anyway.", and "Lets just put it down to this. Firefox." aren't very thought through and quite pubertal. How many users have Firefox? How many users will ever have it? Why isn't it growing as much as the hype? To me it seems simple. It's not spreading faster in reality because it isn't easily deployable in most companies around the world. The lack of an MSI-package (although there's custom one's floating around), administration and maintenance tools are a big part of the reason if you ask me. In the Firefox case, there's also the unneccessity of the application itself. The difference between IE which is also freely available and Firefox are very small. Changing simply doesn't give any notable advantages. This isn't a narrowminded statement, it is reality. You can ironize how much you want over this, but the facts are still there. :)

I always thought that people who develop software, whether freeware or not, wants it to spread. Even if the "aim" are private individuals, why not package the application using industry standards instead of special solutions? It has even taken some large companies quite some time to come to this realization. In your case, Winzip still haven't got it right. If 7Zip is a competitor, what substantial advantages does it have over existing software (well besides the fact that it's free)? I don't see compression ratios as the main factor. I don't think that the vast majority of users give a damned about the extra few percents of compression ratio. It is the ease of use, compability, maintenance, updates and installation.

[Emp3r0r]

@zambelli: :goodpost:

I used have no problem with 7z until recently when media player classic went to 7z. Since then I've been pissed because every time I want to hook someone up with the best media player, it goes from simple installation to complex.

I don't know if you guys have family or routinely help folks with their computer but I think it sucks to have to install 7zip just to put a codec or a media player on someone’s box for them since 99.9% of the time they won’t have WinRar or 7zip already installed.

So I also beg and plead, stop using 7zip for convenience sake. Think about our families and the less technically fortunate people when you 7zip something for distribution.