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.Willy@sh.itjust.works to Showerthoughts@lemmy.world – 224 points – 4 months ago79Post a CommentPreviewYou are viewing a single commentView all commentsShow the parent commentWhat 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?I explained it in another comment on this thread. https://lemmy.world/comment/104679377z has way better (ultra) compressionSo 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 (:
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?I explained it in another comment on this thread. https://lemmy.world/comment/104679377z has way better (ultra) compressionSo 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 (:
That claim is so vague as to be useless. Better how? Ratio? Speed? Better than what competing formats, and how?I explained it in another comment on this thread. https://lemmy.world/comment/10467937
7z has way better (ultra) compressionSo 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 (:
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 (:
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 (:
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?
I explained it in another comment on this thread.
https://lemmy.world/comment/10467937
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 (: