Paid for WinRar? Join the club!



  • A subreddit where people can send proof that they paid for WinRar. They are entered into the hall of fame, get a flair and are, of course, enshrined into the annals of history as an exemplary human being.

    Shadow14l paid for WinRAR. Reason: Shadow needed a reason to live. WinRAR gave him that reason. Just one of many miracles WinRAR is capable of. Praise be to WinRAR.

    <!-- -->

    quintios paid for WinRAR. Reason: The Pope needed a birthday present...and I mean, what do you get the Pope!? WinRAR. You get him WinRAR.

    <!-- -->

    SRS-SRSLY paid for WinRAR. Reason: You know who didn't pay for WinRAR? Hitler. We can now say with certainty that SRS-SRSLY is nothing like Hitler.

    The list is just long enough to not overstay its welcome.



  • I switched to 7z years ago, which doesn't even ask. But I did pay for xpadder!



  • :retching laugh:



  • You know, I have no idea how much WinRAR even costs. I guess I'd pay maybe $5 for it, given it's only marginally better than 7zip...

    *checks website*

    THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARYDOOS?



  • Why anyone would use WinRAR over 7Zip is beyond me.



  • Masochism.



  • The same goes for Sublime Text.


  • mod

    Sublime is horrible at unzipping!



  • There's a plugin that's supposed to let you browse the contents of a zip file, but it doesn't seem to work.



  • There was a time when we didn't have download managers.

    So having 100 parts to the zip, made it possible to download gigs without being frustrated that it failed at 900 megs.



  • noshit.png

    Why would you keep using WinRAR was the implication there.



  • Where I work, IT installs WinZip on all the machines. WinZip.

    Instead of double clicking a standard zip file and simply opening it in explorer, like windows has been able to do for the last decade, you have to wait 30 seconds for a weird custom UI to load, and then figure out how it works.



  • Because some of Fallout3 mods are compressed with winrar.

    Oh wait, 7z does that too.



  • Ignoring that in the time before download managers, downloading a gig of anything was almost unheard of, why would WinRAR be better in that situation anyway? It didn't turn your one-large-file downloads into multi-part ones, and I think multi-part zips were widely supported outside of WinRAR.





  • Don't know.

    I'm not sure why anyone used rar.

    Did it have compression superiority at some point?



  • Well, you can concatenate it to a JPEG and it still works as both, so there's that.



  • @Magus said:

    Where I work, IT installs WinZip on all the machines. WinZip.

    The company I work for resembles that remark...



  • @Magus said:

    Instead of double clicking a standard zip file and simply opening it in explorer, like windows has been able to do for the last decade, you have to wait 30 seconds for a weird custom UI to load, and then figure out how it works.

    You don't have to. The Windows feature doesn't disappear once you install WinZip.



  • @xaade said:

    Don't know.

    I'm not sure why anyone used rar.

    There never was any good reason, except being able to brag how "1337" you were because you have to install some obscure bullshit to see it.

    @xaade said:

    Did it have compression superiority at some point?

    Who gives a shit? The size savings are offset by the time/annoyance/bandwidth of having to download a client for it. It's a net-loss to use anything except .zip.



  • If memory serves me, the RAR "exploded" due to its ability to nicely split archives into 1.4mb (or however large) chunks, so you could copy them to floppies or download them from BBS-s or buy them from pirates more easily.

    Not sure if zip didn't have the feature, or wasn't easy to use or whatever. I just don't remember ever seeing a multi-file zip archive, ever.



  • @hungrier said:

    I think multi-part zips were widely supported outside of WinRAR

    I don't believe I've ever run across that for anything other than rar, and that was the primary reason it was used, that I remember.

    If other software supported it, they didn't advertise the feature as well as rar did.


  • sockdevs

    @xaade said:

    If other software supported it, they didn't advertise the feature as well as rar did.

    zip files support it as well.

    or at least if you use winzip.

    they're a right arse to make in winzip if i recall correctly though, and are completely worthless without the master archive file (unlike rar which can extract the files at are completely contained within an archive part in the absence of other archive parts)


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @cartman82 said:

    If memory serves me, the RAR "exploded" due to its ability to nicely split archives into 1.4mb (or however large) chunks, so you could copy them to floppies or download them from BBS-s or buy them from pirates more easily.

    zip files did it too. I think it's a combination of both reasons, 15-20 years ago: rars could be a percent or two smaller, which mattered a lot more on dialup, and it was more leet for who knows what reason. I mean, shit, why did we have yEnc?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @accalia said:

    or at least if you use winzip.

    pkzip's sitting at home feeling unloved.



  • I heard that if you repeatedly make a .zip file of a .zip file, eventually you'll get a file which is just a single byte in size, containing all your original files. How does that work?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @tar said:

    just a single byte in

    Right, because the zip file format specifies that it starts with the two ASCII characters PK.



  • No no, wrong way



  • @FrostCat said:

    Right, because the zip file format specifies that it starts with the two ASCII characters PK.

    Well, obviously; it's compressed!



  • @swayde said:

    No no, wrong way

    42.zip


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @tar said:

    Well, obviously; it's compressed!

    If you compress it to one byte, where do you put the two-byte header?



  • @FrostCat said:

    If you compress it to one byte, where do you put the two-byte header?

    If you compress two bytes by 50%, then you only need 1 byte of storage for the compressed result.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @tar said:

    the compressed result.

    which, by definition, would not be a zip file. If that's OK, then fine.



  • Did you know you can upload small files here?

    42.zip (41.8 KB)42.424242 KB



  • But once uploaded here, there's no longer a 42 in the file size, according to the kibigods.



  • Fixed.



  • @tar said:

    If you compress two bytes by 50%, then you only need 1 byte of storage for the compressed result.

    And can you then compress the resulting byte 4 more times, ending up with just a single bit?

    Bytes are a legacy construct



  • What happens if you compress a bit?



  • You will get a nit, which can only hold the value 0 and takes no space.



  • I can reduce the size of your 0-space data structure by up to 50% or more!



  • @JazzyJosh said:

    Why anyone would use WinRAR over 7Zip is beyond me.

    RAR5 offers better compression rate on most common data types. But it's very new - so new that 7-Zip guys didn't reverse-engineer it yet. When they do, WinRAR will become useless again.

    @xaade said:

    There was a time when we didn't have download managers.

    So having 100 parts to the zip, made it possible to download gigs without being frustrated that it failed at 900 megs.


    Back in those times, there weren't any 900 meg things to download on the internet to start with. I mean, GetRight was made in 1997.



  • if guess a qubit. After all, the result of a quantum computation is the correct answer, ava other possibilities are not observed.



  • @hungrier said:

    I think multi-part zips were widely supported outside of WinRAR.

    They weren't supported in Info-ZIP unzip. Still aren't, in fact, you have to cat the parts together then use zip to repair the result.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @FrostCat said:

    pkzip's sitting at home feeling unloved.

    I remember using that specifically for its ability to do multi-disk archives easily. I've probably still got those floppies in a box somewhere, though not so many machines that can read them any more…



  • @cartman82 said:

    If memory serves me, the RAR "exploded" due to its ability to nicely split archives into 1.4mb (or however large) chunks, so you could copy them to floppies

    That’s what we used ARJ for, before everybody suddenly started using ZIP.



  • tar cJf jbo.tar.xz *.jbo


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    For a long time, WinRAR's compression was superior to zip files, mostly because of the solid factor - much like tarring the files first then compressing to get the benefit of finding common patterns between files, but this negates the ability to extract parts of the archive.

    Multi-volume zips were also a colossal PITA usually because it would require the disk's label as the "disk x of y" label and insertion in the wrong order would usually cause the whole thing to just fail because this is clearly not a recoverable situation. WinRAR also did have some voodoo around adding protection records into the archive so you could recover even if one disk failed.

    But with modern Internet, modern transfer capabilities (thumb drives etc.) this is just so much less of an issue and 7zip has comparable performance in both speed and size to WinRAR so there's really little need to do WinRAR unless the new format is substantially better than either the old RAR format or LZMA which seems unlikely.



  • @ben_lubar said:

    tar cJf jbo.tar.xz *.jbo

    <obligatory xkcd>



  • tar

    Maybe it's the autism thing, but I've never had trouble remembering tar options.



  • @ben_lubar said:

    did you know that autism is gluten-free and contains zero calories?

    You know what else is gluten-free? Zyklon B.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.