Willy@sh.itjust.works to Showerthoughts@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 年前Remember when it was a big deal if you chose .zip, .rar, or 7z, etc? Now we all have so much bandwidth it doesn't matter.message-squaremessage-square38linkfedilinkarrow-up18arrow-down10
arrow-up18arrow-down1message-squareRemember when it was a big deal if you chose .zip, .rar, or 7z, etc? Now we all have so much bandwidth it doesn't matter.Willy@sh.itjust.works to Showerthoughts@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 年前message-square38linkfedilink
minus-squareAnticorp@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·2 年前What a strange take. Rar is the OG for better compression in Windows.
minus-squareNoxy@yiffit.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·2 年前That claim is so vague as to be useless. Better how? Ratio? Speed? Better than what competing formats, and how?
minus-squareCocodapuf@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0arrow-down1·2 年前So that makes sense to use now. Rar made sense before 7z existed.
minus-squareBazebara@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·2 年前7z was developed in 1999. As far as I know, rar was popular due to was shareware with practically unlimited “trial” and there was an opinion, that paid products are better.
What a strange take. Rar is the OG for better compression in Windows.
That claim is so vague as to be useless.
Better how? Ratio? Speed?
Better than what competing formats, and how?
7z has way better (ultra) compression
So that makes sense to use now. Rar made sense before 7z existed.
7z was developed in 1999. As far as I know, rar was popular due to was shareware with practically unlimited “trial” and there was an opinion, that paid products are better.
All the while 7z os FOSS (: