PDA

View Full Version : Difference between WinZip&WinRar



nenuma
08-21-2009, 01:31 AM
The title says it all.
I dont know what Im using for some of my downloads and stuff that's why I wanted to know. Thanks
Also, in your opinion, which is better?
Oh, and this is kinda off topic but I dont want to post another help thread, so how do people in here do the spoiler thing?

Thanks.

Gr1mmy
08-21-2009, 02:00 AM
Simply put, WinRAR is much better than WinZip. I've used both of them and in my experience WinRAR is just the better choice. The free trial goes on forever, and all they say is that you have to uninstall it. Yet, you can still use it. How nice.

If you're using WinZip, your icon would look like this:

http://www.winplanet.com/img/screenshots/icon-winzip.gif

If you're using WinRAR, your icon would look like this:

http://www.winplanet.com/img/screenshots/icon-winrar.gif

For more confirmation, grab a random .zip or .rar file. Then right click it. You should see something that says "Extract Here" with a purple blue green book thingy next to it. If you use those to extract files, then you're using WinRAR

----

And to use spoiler tags use this:

*spoiler goes here*[/spoiler ]

Take out the spaces and it should look like this:

[spoiler]*spoiler goes here*

----

I hope that helped! If you have any other questions feel free to PM me or post it here.

IFS
08-21-2009, 02:05 AM
I agree with gr1mmy winRar in my opinion is much better, the way it works looks and feels, I think winzip is just for minor things and if you want to do more complicated zipping you would go for winRar

nenuma
08-21-2009, 12:33 PM
Okay thanks Gr1mmy and Ryushin!
I feel like abusing the spoiler now...
XD

Kishiro
08-21-2009, 01:08 PM
Simply put, WinRAR is much better than WinZip. I've used both of them and in my experience WinRAR is just the better choice. The free trial goes on forever, and all they say is that you have to uninstall it. Yet, you can still use it. How nice.

If you're using WinZip, your icon would look like this:

http://www.winplanet.com/img/screenshots/icon-winzip.gif

If you're using WinRAR, your icon would look like this:

http://www.winplanet.com/img/screenshots/icon-winrar.gif

For more confirmation, grab a random .zip or .rar file. Then right click it. You should see something that says "Extract Here" with a purple blue green book thingy next to it. If you use those to extract files, then you're using WinRAR

----

And to use spoiler tags use this:

*spoiler goes here*[/spoiler ]

Take out the spaces and it should look like this:

[spoiler]*spoiler goes here*

----

I hope that helped! If you have any other questions feel free to PM me or post it here.

That was pretty much a useless post, sorry.

The difference between the two is that WinRAR is an older archiving method than WinZip. They are basically the same, though the newer version of WinRar has some enhanced features, and is typically used for more diverse and often more complex archiving. WinZip is primarily used for just .zip files, while WinRar can handle .rar, .zip, .7z, .gz, CAB, ARJ, LZH, TAR, BZ2, ACE, UUE, JAR, ISO, and Z archive formats.

But I'm sure you won't be using most of those, I've only had to deal with the first four myself.

Both WinZip and WinRar can be encrypted. Though I believe .rar archives are a bit of an issue for Mac users, as to where they can use WinZip just fine. In fact, to unarchive rar files ona Mac, you must use MacRAR, a similar mac version of WinRar, though I don't think that it's put out by rarlab (the people whom distribute WinRar).

So now you know the difference.

WinZip (or compressed folders) comes standard with Windows, you have to actually download WinRar. If you're not a computer noob, go ahead and use WinRar. If all you need to do is use .zip files, just stick with WinZip or the compressed folder feature.

Khanxay
08-21-2009, 05:02 PM
WinZip and WinRAR are just programs that help you handle compressed archives such as .zip and .rar files. They handle pretty much the same formats. WinZip is somewhat* easier to use. That's really all you need to know.

Really, it's preference. I've used both and for some reason I don't like WinRAR. Maybe because it adds like 7 things to your right click menu. I prefer using 7-Zip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7-Zip).



*Depends on how high your computer skill levels are.

Gero50
08-21-2009, 07:54 PM
There is no real difference other then WinRAR supports more file formats and is more widely used.

Miss Digital Moonlight
08-21-2009, 08:41 PM
I've used both in the past, but I found an even better (and much simpler) one that I use now, which supports all file formats that are archived (.zip, .tar. .gz, .jar. .iso, etc.)

With Winzip though, I found it easier to repair the files of a corrupt archive, but I think that's it.

Shin Natsume
08-22-2009, 01:19 AM
WinRAR supports lots of file formats. Thats the biggest difference in my opinion. Other than that, most of what I download, whether it be source code or some *coughotherillicitthingcough* is usually compressed nicely into a .rar, 7z or .gz file.

I do know windows comes standard with WinZip but you have to download WinRAR.

On my Ubuntu Distribution, I can unarchive both by default. Not exactly sure of the software name.

Eris
08-22-2009, 12:24 PM
Winzip is sort of redundant, isn't it? Windows has been able to extract zip files automagically for quite some time.

Compression is most of the time quite pointless. The only thing it really makes sense to compress is plain text, but plain text files are typically so small it only saves you a matter of kilobytes. (It makes sense to compress massive source code packages though, as they can go from several hundred megabytes to a couple of dozen) Most everything else: Images, Video, Audio and Software is typically so inherently compressed through their file format that you only see a couple of percent in size reduction. Which really isn't worth the time it takes packing and unpacking them.

If the purpose of compression is just to pack them in a way that you can ship them as a single file, the uncompressed tar format is much faster.

DeMoNoFtHeFaLl666
08-22-2009, 12:37 PM
i really hate winzip its so confusing. Winrar FTW

Manhattan_Project_2000
08-22-2009, 12:49 PM
Winzip is sort of redundant, isn't it? Windows has been able to extract zip files automagically for quite some time.

Compression is most of the time quite pointless. The only thing it really makes sense to compress is plain text, but plain text files are typically so small it only saves you a matter of kilobytes. (It makes sense to compress massive source code packages though, as they can go from several hundred megabytes to a couple of dozen) Most everything else: Images, Video, Audio and Software is typically so inherently compressed through their file format that you only see a couple of percent in size reduction. Which really isn't worth the time it takes packing and unpacking them.

If the purpose of compression is just to pack them in a way that you can ship them as a single file, the uncompressed tar format is much faster.

There are all sorts of fun things you can do with zip files, like hide information in image files or audio files. If you want you can hide your pr0n collection on a public computer inside a working copy of Celine Dion's My Heart Will Go On and only the most observent will notice that it's 18gb, and even fewer will actually understand what the deal is.

Eris
08-22-2009, 01:24 PM
There are all sorts of fun things you can do with zip files, like hide information in image files or audio files. If you want you can hide your pr0n collection on a public computer inside a working copy of Celine Dion's My Heart Will Go On and only the most observent will notice that it's 18gb, and even fewer will actually understand what the deal is.

If that is your aim, there are more powerful forms of steganography. Pick any lossless format, and hide all the information you want in frequency space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_domain). Most everyone without a background in signal processing is going to see a noise at best. It won't hide information from the law, but it is meddling teenager-proof.

Manhattan_Project_2000
08-22-2009, 10:12 PM
If that is your aim, there are more powerful forms of steganography. Pick any lossless format, and hide all the information you want in frequency space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_domain). Most everyone without a background in signal processing is going to see a noise at best. It won't hide information from the law, but it is meddling teenager-proof.

Why so binary? None of this will fool the CIA, but you can always, say, 256 bit encrypt the information, hide it in the frequency domain of a short red herring audio file which is in turn hidden in a zip file attached to the beginning (or was it end?) of an MP3. Then it could only be discovered by someone that knows about frequency domain, hiding zips, and can defeat your encryption.

Eris
08-23-2009, 08:20 AM
Why so binary? None of this will fool the CIA, but you can always, say, 256 bit encrypt the information, hide it in the frequency domain of a short red herring audio file which is in turn hidden in a zip file attached to the beginning (or was it end?) of an MP3. Then it could only be discovered by someone that knows about frequency domain, hiding zips, and can defeat your encryption.

Bad strategy. What's from keeping someone from torturing you in a prison in Durkadurkastan/making you listen to this guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGd3zi-pbR0) until you reveal how to extract the information?

Shin Natsume
08-23-2009, 10:14 AM
Wow Eris/Angerbag you know about steganography too? I know that you could hide information in headers of packets! have you ever created such a program that works in that way? Or have a packet re-sent with your information instead. But then again that's not proper TCP, now is it?

I don't know much about frequencies. But you could just simply change the file extension and the icon changes as well for the file. O.O And besides, wouldn't hiding information in this "frequency space" ruin the quality of the music/audio file?

Eris
08-23-2009, 12:48 PM
Wow Eris/Angerbag you know about steganography too? I know that you could hide information in headers of packets! have you ever created such a program that works in that way? Or have a packet re-sent with your information instead. But then again that's not proper TCP, now is it?

I took a class in cryptography a couple of years ago, so I have a decent understanding of cryptography and steganography up to about ~30 years ago.

I haven't dealt a lot with network programming, though I would probably use UDP if I wanted to send covert information. I think it should be possible to encode data in packet timing (sorta like Morse code).


I don't know much about frequencies. But you could just simply change the file extension and the icon changes as well for the file. O.O And besides, wouldn't hiding information in this "frequency space" ruin the quality of the music/audio file?

Frequency space is basically what a spectrum analyzer shows you (most MP3 players have those in one form or another). If you are using a lossless codec, you can hide very faint signals in the inaudible range of sound using the same algorithms cellphones use to communicate with towers (it's called Phase Shift Keying), making it virtually undetectable to the human ear.

There's also a pretty neat trick with images. It turns out that the human eye isn't particularly good at seeing blue details of an image, which means you can have pretty heavy distortions of the blue channel without it being immediately visible. See attached image (the last one is a bit hard to spot, it's basically noise -- how encrypted information would appear)

Shin Natsume
08-23-2009, 01:16 PM
That is pretty neat. And whats different in the blue area from the normal section in the image? Looks the same to me.

Eris
08-23-2009, 01:45 PM
That is pretty neat. And whats different in the blue area from the normal section in the image? Looks the same to me.

Left is unmodified.
Center is blurred.
Right is grainy (if you look really close, you can see it).

FlashD
08-24-2009, 06:24 AM
Hmm ... this thread went offtopic too much.
*closed*