#so i'll upload in higher quality when able - more as a backup

[loftwinglullaby]

okay so like.. 428: shibuya scramble is my favourite game ever actually and y'all should have the playlist I've been hoarding with all the lil bonuses and behind the scenes stuff i can find

[amongwd]

Why you don't need WinRar on Windows 11

Let's find out what analog you can use instead of buying paid WinRar.

Why is it so popular?

It has been long time and a lot of Windows users got used to this application a lot. Since filesharing sites epoch, you know - those that let you upload a file up to 100 mb and then asking for a money to download it in higher speeds. I guess we all are happy that those sites are almost not used now during to clouds and the free space in clouds also has grown up to 50GB on some services and even more!

Though this doesn't mean that you don't need to be able to open archives in different formats nowadays. So, unfortunately, a lot of cloud shared files or old music archives that you probably have somewhere are in RAR format.

Is this format obsolete? Well, yes and no. This archiver is not Free and even if you can use it without any limitations to open files and just ignore the 40 day expired trial warning, it is almost ok, but that means that you actually do illegal thing! So, that means that you should decide if you want to buy WinRar or no after 40 days of usage, and, if you decided not to buy - just uninstall it. This will give you karma.

So, as it goes to the RAR format, it is old but WinRar is always updated and there are new formats available now - RAR4 and RAR5 (RAR5 is actually RAR4, which was old and replaced and renamed to RAR4).

Free analog

And that means that you actually need WinRar... or wait a minute - isn't there a free software to open all these stuff? Well, actually it is and for some reason reason many people don't know about it. It is called 7-zip (seven zip) and can be downloaded on official site.

So, I suggest to download the stable version though if you want to have more format support it is definitely better to download the newest possible.

Look, it even has version for Mac OS X! But it is only console version (on the screenshot). If you want GUI version, you can go ahead with Keka

It is the same 7zip console version that just has beautiful interface.

So, is 7zip better than WinRar? It is actually a difficult question, on the one side we have opensource archiver which will not have any problems with support as any developer can take the source code and compile a new archiver app. But on the other hand we have pros of WinRar - nice icons (custom themes can be downloaded) and the most important - performance. Well, 7zip is effective but slower than WinRar, but does it really matter today, when HDD prices are too low? Probably not, at least if you create backups a lot and open a lot of rar archives. This is not the case of most of the users today.

And about compression, let's perform a test: download the world's largest text file - "Leo Tolstoi - Wolrd and War" and try to archive it.

So, the original file size was 3.6 MB, and default zipped file is 1.4 MB, which is the worst out of the archivers. For 7zip filesize on Ultra comression is 1 MB, so we gain almost 4 times for disk space here. And rar4 and rar size is almost the same, it differs only in few kilobytes and actually the size of 7z is the smallest here, though the difference between 7z and rar4 is just a 70 KB, it is not the main pros for the WinRar - let's say we compress 460 MB of text files with 7zip. It took 1 minute and 08 seconds for me to add text files to archive. Result file was 1.6 MB. But WinRar with rar4 compressed the same directory just in a 3-5 seconds! Blazing fast, and the size was 2.3 MB. Slightly more, but much much faster.

Conclusion

WinRar pros:

Fast

Pretty icons

Everybody get used to it

Opens pretty much every archive formats

WinRar cons:

Not free

No binary for linux/mac

Can't create archives in xz, tar and etc.

7zip pros:

Free (Open Source project)

Opens a lot of formats (including rar)

Can create linux format archives

Available on Linux and Mac (as a p7zip packages for each distro)

High compression rate

7zip cons:

Can't create rar archive

Slower compression/decompression speeds

Summary: WinRar is good when you use it a lot for purpose (creation of archives). But if you are just a casual computer user and surfing internet it is better to use 7zip because it is free and powerful.

P.S:

Not all the files are compressed equally well. The best compression is done for text files, but if you will try to compress a docx file - the size of result will be the same because docx is actually a zip archive (really, just open it with 7zip). Also, video, audio and pictures (jpg) also have their own compression applied already, so adding them to a rar/7zip archive will do nothing for them. Though, for example, TIFF files can be well compressed to rar/7z with lossless quality (it is good for high resolution scans - saving space and not losing quality).

P.S.S:

And for experiment purpose I'll write here my configuration: Ryzen 5900x (stock) with DRAM 2666mHz (stock) and all the actions were done in a ramdisk, so we don't have a disk bottleneck in this experiment and also I created the archive 2 times. When Windows reads a file for the first time and if there is some room in RAM, the file will be COPIED to RAM and the second read of the same file will be done directly from RAM. That means that you DO really use all of your PC ram, so more ram is always better.