Comments on: 7-Zip VS WinZip V.12 – Best compression method

By: chris

chris — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 10:52:56 +0000

the other big big issue is that the only uncompressor for zipx is winzip (oh, and bitzip). Who gives a fig in todays large data volume world about 1% or less? I’d rather have a format that I can guarantee will not be held to ransom by the commercial products.

Zip, 7zip and Rar are at least supported by the majority of all modern archivers. And even java (jar) and Windows support it. Heck, even docx and opendoc are using the bog standard zip format.

Don’t support private, closed-source vendors, who are attempting to lock you into their proprietary solutions.

By: Danny

Danny — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:19:50 +0000

I’m suprised that WinZip is better than 7-zip at compressing picture files. Also, I would rather deal with the 20% difference as long as I don’t have to pay anything.

By: Christos

Christos — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 12:13:21 +0000

A program named “Paq8px”

By: daniel

daniel — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 22:32:08 +0000

Which programs works best on digital photos? I have a ton of photos I want to compress and want to know the best zipping program for that.

By: Christos

Christos — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:11:05 +0000

Try to compress your “32 document files totaling about 54.1 MB” with a program named “Paq8px”

I am sure the compression will be much greater than Winzip or 7-zip.

I found it the best to compress JPEG’s.

Give it a try, if you may, please, and post your comment, I will be waiting also for your results.

By: MikeyVA

MikeyVA — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:24:02 +0000

I don’t think he was promoting 7-zip so much as highlighting that 7-zip (a free open source tool) outperformed a commercial tool that is $50! Even if the difference is neglible, it deflates (sorry) my expectations for the commercial tool. Why pay $50?

By: mrsleep

mrsleep — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:21:36 +0000

Seriously?
You’re excited about .02%?

With the sizes of drives today, saving 20k, or even 100k just isn’t that big of a deal.

I agree the 7zip is a great tool, but to make multiple blog posts pimping it?
I sure hope they are paying you, or you’re getting something out of it.

By: Andrius Burlega

Andrius Burlega — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:48:38 +0000

Trying to compress wav files. Will RAR be able to do something to reduce the size?

By: VahidR

VahidR — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 08:15:19 +0000

for a general purpose the 7-zip is the best choice.the new Lzma algorithm have been optimized and is much faster and more efficient. at a glance compare followed:

Speed :
1-WinRar > Zip
2-WinRar > Rar
3-7-zip > Lzma

Compression Ratio:

1-7-zip > Lzma (Ultra method)
2-WinRar > Rar(Solid-on and best method)
3-WinRar > zip

user friendly:
1-WinRar
2-Winzip
3-7-zip

but remember it’s not the whole story i tested some files that compressed better than 7-zip and WinRar by a zip archiver(general Deflate algorithm used in many formats like Cab,ace and ….) , there are lots of factors like different file type , security , recover ability , good interface , open sourceand license type,cost and …

but because Rar and 7z format are too near in comparing so the most important factors and :
1-Cost 2-Compression Ratio 3-speed
and in most 7-zip is a winner

By: Chorlonga

Chorlonga — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:00:34 +0000

Forgot one thing.

For 7zip, Winrar and new Winzip formats.

If the “other” person that will receive your file doesn’t have some of this, they’ll have to download the app or you have to send them a self-extracting which will be filtered by most of the e-mail servers. So in the end most of the times you end up with a standard ZIP.

And the most important thing is that output size always depend on the input type.

Just testing (that’s why I’ve searched for this)
14 Nintendo DS roms 488MB
7zip 215MB (much better CPU performance)
ZipX 217MB
RAR 223MB
ZIP 265MB

By: Chorlonga

Chorlonga — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 11:56:52 +0000

There are many things to consider if you plan to BUY any compression software or opt for 7z.

I became a fan of 7z because it compress like hell.

Winzip is ordinary and if you do ZIP files with it, it’s a little better result over XP own zip, with better performance.

To me is like this:
Winzip 12.1 vs. Winrar 3.9 vs 7zip 4.65

Winzip > compresses JPEG in 20%, ugly, good speed for standard ZIP format, bad for everything else. Bad splitting files.

7zip > compresses everything but JPEG better than the rest, good interface. Lacks of many tools. Best Speed. Non-Invasive, free. Good security, allows to hide the file names with password, not just the contents.

Winrar > good compression but no luck against 7zip and the new Winzip. The slowest on Best compression mode. THE BEST on Tools. Best splitting, allows to re-compress any file to the actual Winrar version. Allows to decompress a list of files, allows to compress a list of files to independent RAR files (maybe allows 3rd party too?). Non-Invasive. Good security, allows to hide the file names with password, not just the contents.

By: Hellyu

Hellyu — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 21:33:49 +0000

Hi, I’m brazillian and I like Winzip very much. I want to suggest a new test using version 12.1 of Winzip, which has implemented a new format for compression called ZIPX. The compression ratio is fantastic and I wanted to see the results with this new version. Thanks!

By: Ivax

Ivax — Sun, 17 May 2009 10:23:04 +0000

You really dont know the huffmans algorithm don’t you? Imagine 3.7GB becoming 9.28 MB… dont believe it? Search for the algorithm and you’ll see!

By: LessRam

LessRam — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:57:53 +0000

Now try it with the new Rar beta
http://www.rarsoft.com/rarnew.htm

Curious how that compares to WinZip / 7Zip

By: anonymouse

anonymouse — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 01:59:18 +0000

how about how the .zip of 7zip compares to that of winzip?