Guest

WinRAR 5 WOW!

20 posts in this topic

****! Look at the difference.

lFsZRPJ.png

I compressed an XP installation that's on my second hard drive. Set everything to maximum in WinRAR on both runs. Obviously used the WinRAR 5 format for WinRAR 5.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how unimportant tens of megabytes difference is in today's world, this is an impressive result.

I am actually waiting for the moment I have extra money so I can get WinRAR legally at last and get back to it. I was using it pretty much since early 2.x versions, and switched to 7-zip about two years ago after feeling guilty. That program might compress well, but the GUI is crap, and the whole development process is a joke.

Edited by TheWalrus
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

****! Look at the difference.

lFsZRPJ.png

I compressed an XP installation that's on my second hard drive. Set everything to maximum in WinRAR on both runs. Obviously used the WinRAR 5 format for WinRAR 5.

Thanks for the report!

Any other changes worth considering? Features missing, GUI differences, licensing?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update, 7-Zip still beats it but WinRAR 5 got better. I left some maximum settings off. I turned them on and redid it.

Here shows 7-Zip and the new WinRAR 5 size.

rErGRIU.png

Old one again...

lFsZRPJ.png

@CharlotteTheHarlot, here's the changelog. GUI is the same. A lot of people hate it's dated look but I don't mind it.

It just nags you if you haven't purchased it I guess.

                WinRAR - What's new in the latest version   Version 5.00   1. New RAR 5.0 archiving format. You can use "RAR 5.0" option      in archiving dialog or -ma command line switch to create      RAR 5.0 archives.            Older software including older WinRAR versions is not able to      decompress RAR 5.0 archives, so if you plan to send an archive      to other people, it is necessary to take the compatibility issue      into consideration. You can select "RAR" instead of "RAR5" option      in archiving dialog to create RAR 4.x archives compatible with      previous WinRAR versions.   2. Changes in RAR 5.0 compression algorithm:      a) maximum compression dictionary size is increased up to 1 GB         in 64 bit WinRAR. 32 bit WinRAR version can use up to 256 MB         dictionary when creating an archive. Both 32 bit and 64 bit         versions can unpack archives with any dictionary size,         including 1 GB;      b) default dictionary size for RAR 5.0 is 32 MB, typically resulting         in higher compression ratio and lower speed than RAR 4.x 4 MB.         You can use "Dictionary size" archiving dialog option or -md<size>         switch to change this value;      c) -md<size> switch syntax is modified to support larger dictionary         sizes. Append 'k', 'm' and 'g' modifiers to specify the size         in kilo-, mega- and gigabytes, like -md64m for 64 MB dictionary.         If modifiers are not present, megabytes are assumed,         so -md64m is equal to -md64;      d) RAR 5.0 format includes Intel IA-32 executable and delta         compression algorithms, but RAR 4.x text, audio, true color         and Itanium algorithms are not supported. These excluded algorithms         are not efficient for modern data types and hardware configurations;      e) RAR 5.0 decompression can utilize several CPU cores.         Though not to same extent as in compression algorithm,         it improves the decompression speed on large files         with poorly compressible data or when using BLAKE2 checksums.   3. Changes in RAR 5.0 archive format:      a) file times are stored as Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)         instead of former local time, making file exchange among         several time zones more straightforward;      b) file names and archive comments use UTF-8 encoding.      4. RAR 5.0 recovery record is based on Reed-Solomon error correction      codes. If recovery record size is large enough, 5% and more,      the new error correction scheme provides much higher resistance to      multiple damages comparing to RAR 4.x recovery record.      Smaller record, such as 1 - 2%, or less random damage type would      result in less difference between 4.x and 5.0. For single continuous      damage 4.x and 5.0 efficiency is about the same.      Additionally to usual data erasures, the new recovery record      is able to detect deletions and insertions of much larger size      than in previous RAR versions. Maximum insertion size is several      megabytes. Maximum deletion size depends on the damage type      and in some cases can be as large as the recovery record size.            Still, the best recovery performance and efficiency is achieved      if no deletions and insertions are present, so all data including      damaged sectors preserve their original positions. Thus, if you use      some special software to copy an archive from damaged media,      it is better to choose the mode, when damaged sectors are filled by      zeroes or any other data instead of cutting them out completely      from resulting file.      RAR 5.0 recovery record is more resistant to damage of recovery record      itself and can utilize a partially corrupt recovery record data.      Note, though, that "Repair" command does not fix broken blocks      in recovery record. Only file data are corrected. After successful      archive repair, you may need to create a new recovery record      for saved files.      New recovery record is not based on 512 byte sectors anymore       and incorporates more complicated data structures. So it is impossible      to specify its size in sectors. For RAR 5.0 archives the parameter of      -rr[N] switch and rr[N] command is always treated as a percent of      archive size regardless of presence of % character. Typically N%      recovery record can repair up to N% of continuously damaged data      and increases the archive size by only slightly more than N%.      Ability to fix multiple damages is proportional to N.      We used "Screaming Fast Galois Field Arithmetic Using Intel      SIMD Instructions" paper by James S. Plank, Kevin M. Greenan      and Ethan L. Miller to improve Reed-Solomon coding performance.      Also we are grateful to Artem Drobanov and Bulat Ziganshin      for samples and ideas allowed to make Reed-Solomon coding      more efficient.   5. "Test" command verifies validity of RAR 5.0 recovery record.      Recovery record is tested after processing all archived files.      If corrupt archive contains the recovery record, it might be possible      to repair it even if recovery record validity test is failed.      "Repair" command attempts to utilize even a partially damaged      recovery record. So treat the negative recovery record test result      as a reason to re-create the archive if original files are still      available, but not as a reason to avoid "Repair" command.   6. Changes in RAR 5.0 encryption algorithm:      a) encryption algorithm is changed from AES-128 to AES-256 in CBC mode.         Key derivation function is based on PBKDF2 using HMAC-SHA256;      b) special password verification value allows to detect most of         wrong passwords without necessity to unpack the entire file;      c) if archive headers are not encrypted ("Encrypt file names" option         is off), file checksums for encrypted RAR 5.0 files are modified         using a special password dependent algorithm, to make impossible         guessing file contents based on checksums. Do not expect such         encrypted file checksums to match usual CRC32 and BLAKE2 values.      7. RAR 5.0 archives allow to utilize 256 bit length BLAKE2sp hash      ( https://blake2.net ) instead of 32 bit CRC32 as a file checksum.      Enable "Use BLAKE2 file checksum" option in "Options" page of      archiving dialog or specify -htb command line switch to use BLAKE2      checksums.      While producing slightly larger archives, BLAKE2 can be used      for file contents identification. If two files have the same      BLAKE2 value, it practically guarantees that file contents      is the same. BLAKE2 error detection property is also stronger      than in much shorter CRC32.   8. Features removed:      a) authenticity verification feature did not provide the required         level of reliability and was removed;            b) switch -en (do not add "end of archive" block) is not supported         by RAR 5.0 archives, which always have the end of archive block.         This block helps WinRAR to safely skip external data like         digital signatures appended to archive;      c) old style extension based arcname.rNN volume names are not         supported by RAR 5.0 archives, which use only arcname.partN.rar         volume names;            d) file comments are not supported anymore both in RAR 4.x         and RAR 5.0 archives. Console RAR 'cf' command is removed.         It does not affect the archive comment support, which is present         in both versions of archive format and is not planned for removal.   9. "Set password" command and "Dictionary size" option are moved to      "General" page of archiving dialog.     10. You can use "Save symbolic links as links" option on "Advanced" page      of archiving dialog to save and restore NTFS symbolic links      and reparse points as links, so their contents is not archived.      Command line equivalent of this option is -ol switch.      Similar option for NTFS hard links is "Save hard links as links".      Its command line equivalent is -oh switch.      Both options are available only for RAR 5.0 archive format.     11. Added extraction only support for XZ archive format.     12. Changes in recovery volume processing in RAR 5.0 archive format:      a) maximum number of RAR+REV volumes in RAR 5.0 format is 65535         instead of 255;      b) recovery volume operations are faster than in RAR 4.x;      c) additionally to recovery data, RAR 5.0 REV files also store         service information such as checksums of protected RAR files.         So they are slightly larger than RAR volumes which they protect.         If you plan to copy individual RAR and REV files to some removable         media, you need to take it into account and specify RAR volume         size by a few kilobytes smaller than media size.    13. Maximum path length for files in RAR and ZIP archives is increased      up to 2048 characters.    14. Command line RAR returns the exit code 11 if it can detect that      user entered a wrong password. This code can be returned only      for RAR 5.0 archives. It is impossible to distinguish a wrong      password and data damage for RAR 4.x archives.  15. 'v' and 'l' commands display archived file names in the end of line,      not in that beginning as before. Also some fields previously      available in 'l' and 'v' output are now shown only by 'lt' and 'vt'.            'vt' and 'lt' commands provide the detailed multiline information      for every archived file.      'vta' and 'lta' also include service headers into list.   16. Now the default charset for filelists in commands like       'rar a arcname @filelist' is ANSI for both WinRAR and console RAR.       In previous versions it was ANSI for WinRAR and OEM for console RAR.       You can use -sc<charset>l switch to override this default.   17. Internal WinRAR viewer can detect and display files in UTF-8       and UTF-16 little endian encodings.   18. UTF-16 little endian encoding is used in RAR and WinRAR log file       rar.log, so Unicode file names are stored in the log correctly.       WinRAR automatically truncates the old rar.log file in non-Unicode       format to avoid mixing different encoding in the same log file.       In case of console RAR you need to delete the old rar.log manually,       otherwide RAR will append UTF-16 messages to existing rar.log.       You can use -sc<charset>g switch to change the default log file       encoding, such as -scag for ANSI encoding.   19. Command line 'r' (repair) command can include an optional destpath\       parameter defining the destination folder for repaired archive:       rar r archive.rar destpath\
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm.

If you are looking for "tight" compression, try a few "tight" compressors (command line only), like those PAQ8 based or Nanozip.

http://dhost.info/paq8/

http://www.nanozip.net/

Or, if you *need* the GUI the (Commercial) WinRK is still the tighter compression available:

http://www.msoftware.biz/products/winrk

Comparison:

http://www.maximumcompression.com/data/summary_mf.php

but do check also compression and decompression times, overall I do use 7-zip because it is Free and it doubles as an (almost) orthodox dual pane file manager, but if I had to make a choice today it would probably be FreeArc:

http://freearc.org/Default.aspx

http://www.maximumcompression.com/data/summary_mf2.php

We will need to wait some time for those comparisons to take into account WinRAR5, but since it has some better compression, I doubt that it has become also faster. :unsure:

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These exotic programs might compress better, but I would say they are only good if you need to compress something as much as possible for your own needs. Good luck using them outside of that. WinRAR is very popular, and yet vast majority of people would still be clueless how to open such files :D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These exotic programs might compress better, but I would say they are only good if you need to compress something as much as possible for your own needs. Good luck using them outside of that. WinRAR is very popular, and yet vast majority of people would still be clueless how to open such files :D

Sure, if you want to "share" a compressed file with the "rest of the world", the most popular format is still ZIP, which is much less tight.

Second comes 7-zip, who got a lot of popularity being Free and Open Source and cross-OS, as it is available - in command line form - for *nixes and it is compatible (can decompress) WinRar files (up to the previous version, but probably will be updated soon to take care of the newish release too).

WinRAR has the limits of being Commercial (but a Free command line UNrar exists for almost any OS on Earth):

http://www.rarlab.com/rar_add.htm

The not-so-trifling difference is that a number of organizations/people that do respect intellectual property and Commercial licensing schemes won't use WinRAR, because you have to get a license for it (the fact that most people consider the use of the trial after it's expiration as just a "nag" is another thing).

As said, besides Unrar, you can use 7-zip to decompress a .rar file, but if you want to make one you need the "full" Winrar or rar.exe (licensed).

It seems to me like the "more relevant" News about the new format is not the tighter compression, but rather some other of the nice new features, like preserving hard links, added solidity about the file structure and password protection.

-X-, can you try checking what happens when you open a WinRar 5.x file with a previous version?

Which error/message/warning does it come out with?

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jaclaz, just saw the last line of your post. Maybe you added it in your edit.
Don't have a copy of pre-WinRAR 5 laying around to try.

Anyways, I came back to this thread because I discovered something interesting that I'm sure is old news to some of you.

I was doing my daily backups and my 2 x 1 TB drives are to the brim. My one dump partition is like 900 GB and have about 1/2 to 1 GB free. So I've been running into copy issues lately when working with big files like my VM drives. I decided to make some space by re-compressing a gazillion ZIP and RAR archives to RAR 5 format and packing all my never used folders and files to same.

During my backup / drive contents comparison, I discovered that some files I had re-compressed where actually larger.

Turns out UPX compressed files are best compress with plain ZIP. Nothing in my arsenal beats ZIP.

Check it out...

UPX.png

Notice also that RAR 5 does worse than regular RAR.

Edited by -X-
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RAR5 compression is great and I regret that it's not that popular (yet). So far not that many users actually know about RAR5 let alone its benefits. And, unfortunately, there are so little tools that can actually unpack RAR5 files - WinRar itself and B1 Free Archiver (at least that's what I've found).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never hardly distribute files to anyone so I have no issues using the RAR 5 format. I just pack things for storage.

EDIT: Well that's not entirely true. I do serve up my UDC script on my site xdot.tk and sometimes send people to my dropbox for some other thing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like WinRAR, but truth be told, even with the new format, it's still nothing awesome (but then again, it's not a problem for me). I use it solely because of the interface. If you absolutely need better compression, 7-Zip is the winner hands down.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely not hands down. I was packing some setup files I have on my D drive before I backed up two days ago.

7-Zip did better with the Flash installers and WinRAR did better with the Java installer.

Win_RAR5.png

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...bearing in mind the Uncompressed Source may (will in any Installer Source) have some form of compression that, to further compress, could require a different Compression Program to get better, as demonstrated in the last post. You could randomly insert n-Characters into a TXT file then do the same number of n-Characters into another TXT file, compress the two with the exact same Compressor and get different sizes. IOW, "it all depends on the source". ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, the source is the key. 7-Zip beats WinRAR 5 by not that big a margin but it's definetly no where near being always the case.

Just look at my previous post with UPX packed files. ZIP beat them all!

There were some ZIP settings I didn't try so I might have been able to shave a few bytes but don't know.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I really care about is recovery options. i have a load of damage Winrar files.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.