@[email protected] to ShowerthoughtsEnglish • 6 months agoRemember 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-square79fedilinkarrow-up1232arrow-down17
arrow-up1225arrow-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.@[email protected] to ShowerthoughtsEnglish • 6 months agomessage-square79fedilink
minus-squareAwkwardLookMonkeyPuppetlinkEnglish-1•6 months agoWhat a strange take. Rar is the OG for better compression in Windows.
minus-squareNoxylinkfedilinkEnglish11•6 months agoThat claim is so vague as to be useless. Better how? Ratio? Speed? Better than what competing formats, and how?
minus-squareAwkwardLookMonkeyPuppetlinkEnglish1•edit-26 months agoI explained it in another comment on this thread. https://lemmy.world/comment/10467937
minus-square@Cocodapuflink0•edit-26 months agoSo that makes sense to use now. Rar made sense before 7z existed.
minus-squareBazebaralinkfedilink1•6 months ago7z 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?
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 (: