Major Fubar 0 Posted October 1, 2002 Why do people insist on using all these BS file compression formats? Why not just stick with nice, simple, ZIP files! Anyway, here's my problem. I've got the demo version of WinAce, and I find half the time I try to extract RAR files it f**ks up and tells me it can't do it. My question: are there any better free progs for RAR files? Thanks - Fubar Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
second_draw 0 Posted October 1, 2002 personally i never use .rar . but i assume winxp might have native support for decompressing the file. It may just be the file (damaged/corrupted ?) . Goto the official rar site here. I had a really good multi-file-format utlilty but i lost it when i went XP. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
second_draw 0 Posted October 1, 2002 btw. if you haven't noticed, i have forgotten the name of the program. other programs quite a few extraction tools various decompressers and runtime file stuff extracting program i recommend the top link Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
STS_SolidSnake 0 Posted October 1, 2002 Winrar 3.0 is l337!! I just love Winrar, it extracts every single compression formats! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bogo 0 Posted October 1, 2002 I personaly use winrar because it supports all formats .zip .ace .rar and it's fast and easy. The problem with winzip today is that it only supports .zip files while other apps have a larger support for files format. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Major Fubar 0 Posted October 1, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (second_draw @ Oct. 01 2002,12:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">personally i never use .rar . Â but i assume winxp might have native support for decompressing the file. It may just be the file (damaged/corrupted ?) . Goto the official rar site here. I had a really good multi-file-format utlilty but i lost it when i went XP.<span id='postcolor'> Nah, it's happened with a lot of different files. But thanks guys, I'll check out WinRar... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joltan 0 Posted October 1, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Oct. 01 2002,11:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why do people insist on using all these BS file compression formats? Why not just stick with nice, simple, ZIP files!<span id='postcolor'> You should get the newest winrar version - I recon there has been some change in the compression, as older WinRar versions are unable to decompress some files (most likely the reason why WinACE can't decompress them either). As an alternative you might wait if an update to WinACE provides support for these new archives, too. Winrar supports ZIP, ACE and most other compression formats, and is well integrated into the system. I usually use it just to create ZIP files (as it's the defacto net standard and even supported directly by Windows XP), while still having the possibility to decompress everything else without worrying about using different programs to do so. BTW: the WinRAR demo is free, too Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RED 0 Posted October 1, 2002 Winrar is the best compression utility, I recommend everyone to download it. RED Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted October 1, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joltan @ Oct. 01 2002,08:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">recon there has been some change in the compression, as older WinRar versions are unable to decompress some files (most likely the reason why WinACE can't decompress them either).<span id='postcolor'> Yep, new version has a slightly different file format. Rar is able to achieve higher compression rations than zip, and ace is even better than those two in most occations. Hece the reason people want to use ace and rar. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PitViper 0 Posted October 1, 2002 winrar is pretty good. zip totally sucks when it comes to multiple volumes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Major Fubar 0 Posted October 2, 2002 And Beta VCRs were better than VHS too...I still don't want to own one though... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PitViper 0 Posted October 2, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Oct. 02 2002,04:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And Beta VCRs were better than VHS too...I still don't want to own one though... <span id='postcolor'> you are dodging valid criticisms: 1) Zips only do multiple volumes by spanning. it then names each volume the same. it basically only works for floppy disks. Winrar/winace have this area thought out well. You can adjust the size of the volumes. 2) its stupid to make a 350megabyte file single volume. if you get a CRC error, the whole volume is corrupted and must be redownloaded. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cpl_BOB 0 Posted October 2, 2002 winRAR is a royal pain in the arse, it always corrupts after a few uses, it then gives me error messages when i try to extract things,, winzip, is bug free and reliable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
second_draw 0 Posted October 3, 2002 Winzip has native support on XP. Period. No messy programs. xip has a good chance of being available on any machine unlike rar. I haven't yet needed rar. So why bother getting rar support? WinRAR may be a good program but a suitable compressor to reach the entire net it is not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edc 0 Posted October 3, 2002 I agree, use zip files. EVery thing later than Windows ME can open it like a folder. Why put them in a format that most people can't open? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Major Fubar 0 Posted October 3, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Oct. 02 2002,20:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Oct. 02 2002,04:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And Beta VCRs were better than VHS too...I still don't want to own one though... <span id='postcolor'> you are dodging valid criticisms: 1) Â Zips only do multiple volumes by spanning. it then names each volume the same. Â it basically only works for floppy disks. Â Winrar/winace have this area thought out well. Â You can adjust the size of the volumes. 2) Â its stupid to make a 350megabyte file single volume. Â if you get a CRC error, the whole volume is corrupted and must be redownloaded.<span id='postcolor'> The point I was trying to make was that even if they are a better format, the fact of how widespread and commonly accepted the format is should be a factor also. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
second_draw 0 Posted October 3, 2002 Major fubar 1 - Pit viper 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PitViper 0 Posted October 3, 2002 if you have more than 40 megs worth of files to compress, Â using zip is stupid. zip is the most common for day to day though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted October 3, 2002 I think a utility like Zipnall will create multiple volumes properly. I don't know what kind of corruption problems one of you was having, never happened to me (with right version) and I have gone through thousands of .rar files. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, no one can possibly win anything here! (I know you guys like to win stuff) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
