Posts: 127
Threads: 9
Joined: Oct 2004
I prefer ZIP. I allways package my programs in ZIP files, whenever I use RAR my inbox is filled with "How do I use RAR files" mails from newbies. Plus, XP has built-in ZIP support.
If swimming is so good for your figure, how do you explain walruses?
Posts: 1,080
Threads: 87
Joined: Feb 2002
As the walrus said: XP has built in zip support.
...But I'm on ubuntu that greates something called tar.gz (gzipped tarball?) so...
/post]
Posts: 719
Threads: 72
Joined: Mar 2003
i use WinRAR, which also supports ZIP, and will uncompress most of the common file formats
RAR 1s t3h 1337357
oz~
Posts: 1,025
Threads: 44
Joined: May 2005
Quote:Mine's definitaly rar :-)
me too
Posts: 495
Threads: 29
Joined: Sep 2005
.tar = tarball
.bz2 = bzip
tar.bz2 = bzipped tarball
Anyways, I prefer to use 7zip for saving my disk space, but I use zip for anything else, since it is sort of a universal format...I don't use Debian Linux that often, so I don't compress using tarballs and bzip2
Posts: 1,439
Threads: 15
Joined: Apr 2003
I've heard from a few different sources that bz2 and rar compression are essentially equivalent. I personally prefer WinRAR's Windows Explorer integration over a command-line tool ilke bzip2 most of the time, but objectively, I like bz2 better for licensing reasons.
I'm not sure where the assertion that RAR is slow comes from - my computer is nowhere near "high end" (Athlon XP 1700+ with 512 MB of RAM) and I find WinRAR to be nearly instantaneous for decompressing anything up to a dozen megabytes or so... I'm happy to wait a few seconds for the considerable bandwidth and storage savings I get from such a format.