Why do mod authors choose RAR over 7z?

[DoubleYou]

Why do mod authors choose RAR over 7z?

 

I have yet to understand this.

 

Take, for example, Expanded Towns and Cities. The main file is roughly half a gb in a RAR file. Why? I do realize internet connections are better than they used to be, but Nexus is not the greatest place to download big files from.

 

I just re-archived it as a 7z using solid and ultra settings and reduced the filesize to ~350 mb. That's a whopping 30% decrease in filesize. If you bought something for 30% off, you would think it was a great deal.

 

Now I do understand the reasons between using non-solid versus solid compression, but still, compressing it with non-solid brings it to ~390 mb, still a more than 20% reduction.

 

The only other thing I can think of would be the possibility that this mod, being so big, and also being a fomod, using the best settings could cause the NMM installer to crash (?). Of course, this isn't the case with the Mod Organizer internal fomod installer, because it is better optimized for performance. But could that even be a concern for this mod? 7z states that only 66 mb of ram would be needed for decompressing it, so I really doubt it would crash even the NMM installer.

 

Or is it habit? Or just simply not realizing the better compression that lzma2 has to offer?

[Aiyen]

I have only used rar files since I first got the program back in the dawn of time... Back then I checked various things, and when I did not see any difference then I simply used the most lightweight and convenient program to the task. And last when I checked in more recent times then this was still the case.... it something I return to about every 7-10 years I guess! :) 

 

Also used to use it as a counter for how long it was since I formatted my computer... since it always had that nice days counter saying you had been using it for X amount of days without registering. But if I ever actually open the program then it is most likely by mistake since I always use the right click function to just extract and compress.. Never had a reason to open it. 

[DanielCoffey]

I use 7z set on the very highest compression level for BCS and have had two users out of quarter of a million complain about it not working. It turns out they had an old version of 7z that didn't support the newer compression level.

 

I try my very hardest to make the mod file as small as possible, even if it takes an age to uncompress in MO.

[DoubleYou]

I use winrar at times, but rarely for creating archives. 7zip has a comparable context menu addition. Indeed, I like it better, as it only takes up one slot rather than like 4 for WinRAR for useless things like "compress and email."

[Kelmych]

Like DoubleYou, I prefer 7-zip for compression performance and ease of use. I don't own a winrar license since I always preferred 7z once it came out.

[phazer11]

I have both. I find 7zip to be slightly more compatible when creating .zip archives (for opening on mac b people who don't have a special archiver...) and the number of compressions options make it the king. I'd completely remove WinRAR it if it weren't for the fact that WinRAR has a nicer context menu (don't have to go into a submenu to select something) and I can just click extract to...___________ (______ being the file name of the archive and subsequent name of the new folder).

 

Also, who actually has a WinRAR license?

[CovertSlinky]

I have both. I find 7zip to be slightly more compatible when creating .zip archives (for opening on mac b people who don't have a special archiver...) and the number of compressions options make it the king. I'd completely remove WinRAR it if it weren't for the fact that WinRAR has a nicer context menu (don't have to go into a submenu to select something) and I can just click extract to...___________ (______ being the file name of the archive and subsequent name of the new folder).

 

Also, who actually has a WinRAR license?

Extremely relevant question. Show of hands please. Anyone....no....oh, yes one over there....oh no he was just yawning, ok.

[fireundubh]

I don't use RAR. I think the people who use RAR don't have, or don't know about, 7-Zip.

 

In the end, I blame Nexus and similar sites. They CAN allow users to upload ESPs and BSAs and then compress those files on their end. They CAN also convert archives between formats. They just choose to not do so because compression requires processing time and power which can get a bit expensive.

 

However, I don't see why Nexus disallows uploading ESPs or BSAs, other than a neglectful unwillingness to improve their system.

 

Most of my mods are small enough that compression actually makes the file sizes larger.

Edited August 15, 2014 by fireundubh

[EssArrBee]

I have WinRAR license. Got a lot of stuff I didn't need while working for the Gov't. I have licenses for all kinds of custom software from IBM, Redhat, Oracle....  all the big guys. I have never used most of it, probably 99% of it including the WinRAR license. Tax dollars at work.

 

I think that this is the whole compression vs container argument. Usually something reserved for the blackhole that is the Videohelp.com forums since it matter more there than anywhere else. You see children, file transfers weren't as efficient when our systems lacked bandwidth and power, so we had to come up with a system that allowed us to only transfer things in pieces, so RAR came out with the ability to split up archives into multiple parts so if one part was incomplete then it could be redownloaded. That has mostly been solved with much faster download speeds and CPUs that don't take an hour to decompress a videogame, so those split RAR files are a thing of the past. RAR became very popular and because of that people still use it. Creature comforts or something.

[DoubleYou]

But 7z can be split up into different parts too!

[CovertSlinky]

Correct you are, but I think it boils down to what has been said already. Most people just don't know, or hell maybe they don't even care. Partly because this isn't a topic that really ever gets any attention on the internet, so the average user is oblivious to RAR vs 7z. Unless you are seeking for the information of which is better, if you are a user who knows nothing more than you need an archive/extraction tool, you will probably run into winrar first.

 

Ok, had to test that last sentence, so I typed in "file compression tool" and 7z was first on the list. So I am wrong, unless I am going about this wrong to begin with. "archive tool" had 7z come back second on the list. List, I mean google search list. So, seems like 7z should be majority of what people have. WinRAR never popped up on that search either time. Idk...I digress.

Edited August 16, 2014 by CovertSlinky

[hishutup]

I have use win rar for a long time now and have finally decided to switch. Why...? Well, its simple, its the most known, shell integration because I cant get 7 zip to work and I am most comfortable with it.

[Shadriss]

It's even simpler than that guys - WinRAR is packaged with most Windows installs (or at least did as of my last WIN7 install). Why go looking for something you already have?

[CovertSlinky]

It's even simpler than that guys - WinRAR is packaged with most Windows installs (or at least did as of my last WIN7 install). Why go looking for something you already have?

WHAT??? Where are you getting that idea from? Don't fall subject to thinking that because there is 'Win" in the name that it is a Microsoft product. By default, windows comes with NO archive/compression tool.

Edited August 16, 2014 by CovertSlinky

[fireundubh]

You've been able to create compressed CAB archives natively since Windows 2000/XP.

 

Type "makecab" in a command prompt.

Edited August 16, 2014 by fireundubh