Talk:Comparison of file archivers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Wanted: PAR support information

The table that identifies software support for popular archive formats is missing a column for PAR (parchive) format. Should we include it here? This also implies adding applications like SmartPAR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon lynx (talk • contribs) 17:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shell integration?

This column in the "Archiver features" table has different meanings for different operating systems, and they seem to have been used inconsistently. Under UNIX-like systems, the integration is usually provided by a third program (such as File Roller), so most archivers would have "shell integration" there. But under Windows, each archiver needs to provide the integration by itself. IMO there should either be some definition of the "shell integration", or the column should be removed. --Crashie 17:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 7-Zip should be 7z?

On both Reading and Writing, shouldn't it say 7z instead of 7-Zip on the table header? Because 7-Zip is the program while 7z is the format. If you don't get what I mean I'll show you in these tables (I only include one entry to save space):

ZIP TAR gzip bzip2 7z RAR LHA ACE StuffIt StuffIt X
7-Zip Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No

instead of

ZIP TAR gzip bzip2 7-Zip RAR LHA ACE StuffIt StuffIt X
7-Zip Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No

--ReCover 20:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I fixed it. --Karnesky

[edit] RK and WinRK

We should probably add RK, it currently has the highest compression of the commercial archivers, and seems to be compatible with everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.105.65.5 (talk • contribs)

It appears that it has been added by User:202.89.139.117. --Karnesky 20:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WinRAR

How come there is no entry for WinRAR?

Because the contributors don't use it / don't know information about it / don't want to add it. Want it? Be bold and do it yourself. --Minghong 12:27, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just added it. --Davitf 11:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note, that file repairing is advertised for WinRAR, but I've tried several times, unsuccessfully, to repair RAR archives - the application just stood in a tight loop for a few days, wasting CPU cycles, until I killed it. (For the record, the archive merely had some blocks full of zeroes, with the header intact.) Should a footnote be created about it, or should it be marked as no support?

since we aren't really supposed to do original research and since the merits of a repair function are something that can be proven quickly and easilly i think we should just add a disclaimer along the lines of. "repair features are hard to test objectively, this column merely indicates that such a function is present not how well it works". Plugwash 7 July 2005 02:47 (UTC)
Not to mention that WinRAR's archive repairing works just fine - I've several times used it to recover archives several hundred megabytes in size that had been corrupted when downloading. Sounds like the anonymous contributor has either been rather unlucky, or has been expecting the impossible. Haeleth 21:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Also Wikipedia is an encyclopedia would World-Book Say that? We should only talk about features as they are described by official statements from the producers. ------- this my be a bit extreme Oxinabox1 08:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WinACE and the ACE format

As the RAR format did, ACE could also deserve to be inserted in this entry. Because we would then need another column for format support, I'm just putting this into the discussion. --213.7.160.98 16:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Done, done and done. —deanos}{ Ł }{ 12:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Non-compressing Archivers

Using the Wikipedia definition of file archiver, an archiver is an application that makes many files into one file, without necessarily compressing them. So Unix tools like tar, cpio, etc. should be added to the comparison. If that's done, then a Compression column should be added to the Features table. Also, readers would probably want a comparison of typical compression ratios for each archiver, as difficult as that is to state with any certainty or authority. Thoughts? -- Needs a Wiki account....

That will be another article, like "comparison of file archive format", which compares compression ratio, compression speed and decompression speed, which are hard to be done as not all archivers are available to an OS (have to compare under the same hardware). However, if everyone want to do that, it should be nice. :-) --Minghong 12:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm starting to work on this. I've linked "GNU tar" to the tar archive format, which is not ideal but the best so far. Not sure when the first public release was; the earliest reference I can find to GNU tar (as opposed to some unnamed tar used to distribute GNU software) is 1989. -- Ibid.

:I've reverted it. These non-compressing tools are basically another category of software. (Seen the mess in mixing audio player and video player in comparison of media players?) Can't compare at all. --Minghong 12:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I haven't seen the mess in the media players article, but file archivers doesn't limit archivers to compressors, and doesn't even mention compression until the fifth paragraph. In fact, it includes ar, tar, and cpio as examples. Either the two articles should consider the same scope of archiving tools, or this article should use its own and state the criteria up front. In the latter case, I'd suggest a notice to the effect of, "This article compares full-featured file archiving programs that combine multiple files and compress them using multiple formats. For simpler archiving tools, see list of file archivers." Then we'd have to get rid of Infozip and PKzip, too, as each only knows one format. Is that option worth pursuing, or should the article be left as is?
Just leave it as it is. It should be fine. --Minghong 21:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No, this article doesn't seperate the archivers from the compressors. Those are two completely different things! This is like the crap you read in pc magazines, not an encyclopedia.
Thing is in MOST cases a format combines archiving and compression and this is the model users have come to expect. The main exceptions are tar on the archiving side and gzip and bzip2 on the compression side. Plugwash 08:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tar

What does "seperate" in "file repairing" mean? --minghong 05:21, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also wonder what that column means. Most formats don't even have any support for file repairing, or require it to be enabled proactively (such as RAR), so why is it “Yes” for so many archivers? Or is “repairing” simply ignoring errors in the archive? --Crashie 17:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Batch conversion

What is meant by "batch conversion"? I think an explanation of the most obscure features would be helpful. --Davitf 11:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Never heard of it [1]? Basically it means that the software can convert a batch of archiver files from one format to another format. --minghong 11:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] tar/gzip/bzip2

tar is nearlly always used and shipped together with gzip and/or bzip2. how is supporting compression by working closely with an external executable any different from doing it by calling say a dll? imo its very misleading to put a categorical no in support for compression with tar without explaining this. Plugwash 21:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have corrected this; GNU tar does support both gzip and bzip2 compressions and you would need to delete files in /bin yourself to disable this support. And, yes, GNU tar has full gzip and bzip2 support when installed with cygwin and mingw32's msys on Windows. Samboy 03:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The table says gzip can _write_ TAR files (and bzip2 files). Seems a bit confusing if not misleading -- the version of gzip I have installed with cygwin cannot directly generate bzip2 or tar files. Perhaps adding some footnotes would help.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.76.218.2 (talk • contribs)

bzip2 isn't even listed in the tables. Given that they can each only read and write to their own formats (and that this is rather obvious), I'd propose removing them from those particular tables. --Karnesky 21:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Operating systems?

Why are the operating systems on this page limited to Windows, MacX, Linux, BSD, and UNIX? I also use ZIP compression on IBM, both mainframe and midrange?

Because these are the more widely used ones. --minghong 9 July 2005 07:26 (UTC)

[edit] RAR on UNIX

Windows Mac OS X Linux BSD Unix
WinRAR Yes Yes3 Yes3 Yes3 No

Mac OS X and BSD are Unices so RAR can run on Unix.

I guess what is meant is with Unix is other Unixes (Solaris, Irix, etc. p.p.)--Hhielscher 11:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Real-life comparisons

[edit] 7-zip vs IZArc vs TUGZip

What's the "real" difference between 7-Zip, IZArc and TUGZip ( ... besides the differenciate development streams)? --(non en Wikiped account reg'd)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.93.77 (talk • contribs)

7-Zip is LGPL and very complete feature wise. IZArc and TugZip are very complete too but are proprietary. Personally, I use 7-Zip, because if there's a open tool and a closed tool that both do the same jobs, I would use the open tool. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 18:41, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Compression ratio, speed, and "efficiency"

What about adding bzip2, gzip, as mentioned earlier and making a comparison more like real-life use. I mean compression ratio of various data, compression speed. One could then decide what archiver is the best for him.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.28.7.81 (talk • contribs)

That should be compared, but should be compared in something like "comparison of file archive formats" --210.17.225.138 04:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that, while such information is useful, it would be original research. Maybe we can just report the research places like this and this have done. Samboy 03:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The efficiency of the archivers should be compared not only the features.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.25.247.191 (talk • contribs)

Efficiency in what?--Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 21:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Presumably this refers (again) to the compression ratio. Even if it doesn't, nearly anything else that could have been meant would need the same kind of OR or the use of biased/controversial/limited sources as these things.--Karnesky 20:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Software version used for measuring performance

With some archivers (like RAR) the version of the software that is used greatly influences the performance values, both in speed and acquired compression ratio (not to mention platforms it was run on, both hardware and OS-wise, as these results may have been acquired on different platforms, there is no way to tell). --213.84.89.224 13:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Tag

Since I see no section about the merge tag, and since I believe that this merger is pointless and unnecessary, I am calling for the removal of the merge tag. Anybody second me? HoCkEy_PUCK, 23:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. The request of a merge seems to be in every other comparison/list article, e.g. Talk:Comparison_of_e-mail_clients#Merge_from_List_of_e-mail_clients.--Hhielscher 03:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I placed the merge tag there & haven't yet had the time to do the merge myself. I think it would be productive to merge the list to here--the list attracts more link spam & is ultimately less useful than the comparison. Ideally, the comparison would be a superset of the list & would deprecate it. --Karnesky 17:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Remove the tag. the article is long enough and informative enough for a standalone version. Vivek 01:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I reluctantly acquiesce. I continue to believe that a merge would greatly benefit both this page and the list (and the list ISN'T a good standalone article, which is why I'd like it merged to here). However, I haven't had time to perform the merge myself & don't see a lot of effort in this area. Please consider removing only the mergefrom tag & not the mergeto tag. --Karnesky 03:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Since everyone is in agreement I will remove the tag. (Bjorn Tipling 21:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC))
A list and a comparizon are two different things - one may need the one and not the other - a bad article should not be merged, deleted , etc but amended - are you really willing to compare all the progs listed ? In short untag it :) The Ubik 03:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative Proposal

How about merging this article into file archiver (as a section) as that article is quite short and it seems strange that it doesn't any examples of archivers. One could then put a template:main link to Comparison of file archivers in that section. Just an idea.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 12:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] File Chopper

I was hoping this article would help me pick an application to help me chop a file. IE break it into pieces small enough I could email them. Mathiastck 17:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think archiving is intimately related to splitting. If we start getting more articles than Split (Unix), perhaps a new comparison article would be appropriate. --Karnesky 18:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AlZip

AlZip (Alzip?) deserves inclusion here. It's capabilities are up to the best of them, including being able to read most of the formats on the chart. It's apparently a Korean program. 2006-08-18 15:33

I agree on this. ALZip supports most of the file formats in the tables, is freeware, and has system integration. It run only on Windows. Mariano(t/c) 11:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Originator of Infozip

Should Phil Katz be listed as the originator of Infozip? Granted that he invented the file format with Pkzip, he didn't originate the source code of Infozip, did he? --Richardthiebaud 19:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. According to the Info-ZIP article, "The first version of what would become Info-ZIP was published by Samuel Smith in March 1989, complete with the source code in both Pascal and C forms. In September he released 2.0, including support for the new "implode" method that had been added to PKZIP 1.01. A port to Unix was released by Carl Mascott and John Cowan in December." While the man page says "Copyright (C) 1997-2005 Info-ZIP; Copyright (C) 1990-1997 Mark Adler, Richard B. Wales, Jean-loup Gailly, Onno van der Linden, Kai Uwe Rommel, Igor Mandrichenko, John Bush and Paul Kienitz." Anyone know the reason for the man page not to have copyright info for 1989? Should Samuel Smith be cited as the creator? --Karnesky 20:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The license tells all --Karnesky 20:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archive format support and program version

The table would be more helpful if it would include the number of the version that could read/write the format first. Like in Comparison of layout engines (XHTML).--Hhielscher 09:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There's one archiver missing in the list. I miss the UC and UC2 tool.

[edit] compression time vs compression rate

This page needs a table on the actual efficiency-related comparisons (what I expected when I came to this page). I'll try to find some, but those would be much more useful than comparison of anything else. Fresheneesz 03:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] StuffIt Expander is not an archiver

StuffIt Expander does not archive anything. It cannot create or modify any kind of archive. It just expands / extracts archives created by other things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spoon! (talk • contribs) 01:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree. Since the main topic is "file archivers", it means softwares that create archives. The StuffIt Expander is indeed just an archive extractor. I also found that Zipeg is only an archive extractor. Therefore, I am suggesting for a removal of both StuffIt Expander and Zipeg from this article. --Jaelanicu 14:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unusual Support Expansion

A list of programs would be nice. Plus a small discussion on the .exe format, as well as other formats. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 04:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supported OS

I think we can't say that e.g. winrar "runs" under Linux. It runs only on 32bit Intel/AMD/... CPUs, which is only one out of 20(!) architectures which are supported by Linux (unless you think that running in 32bit Mode under x86_64 means that architecture is supported). Moreover most Distributions don't include it, because of it's unfree/closed-source. It's the same with some other compression and BSD OSes and other Unixes. 62.47.128.92 18:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UHA

How about adding the UHA file format and the UHArc software to the list.

[edit] Winrar and ISO images.

As of winrar 3.5, Winrar has supported .iso cd images. And yet it is listed as not supporting it on the table. Unless you mean by creating the archives, I think this should be corrected. --70.114.39.158 20:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JZip article nominated for deletion

Please discuss on its AfD page. --AVRS 12:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UNICODE FILENAMES?

In our age a good file archiver should support Unicode file names. (Worldwide the majority of the people uses Unicode file names / path names nowadays.) Good old ZIP is quite obsolete in this respect, while 7-zip and WinRAR can handle it. I think it should be included into the comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaborV (talk • contribs) 13:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.
Also good to mention would be file owner/group and permissions, support which may differ between platforms. --AVRS 11:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I've added a new column in the archiver features section. It was added as an anonymous user. I forgot that I already have a wiki account (I'm very new at this). Last update added several achivers. Then I add PKZIP after I logged into wikipedia. I hope the new column will be helpful for everybody.
I'm currently testing several other archivers. Hope I could add them to wiki also. --Jaelanicu 18:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please consider also adding info like "supported folder nesting depth", "maximum filename length", "maximum path length" ... Thanks, --Xerces8 (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UltimateZip, FreeZip, ICEOWS, QuickZip

Is there a reason why Ultimate Zip and FreeZip (reviews on that page and here) and ICEOWS and QuickZip are missing? They're free and very good and have different advantages. --Espoo 06:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Basic Zip?

Where is the website for Basic Zip? I've Googled it but couldn't find it? Thank you in advance. --Jaelanicu 20:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit: I also couldn't find the Beezer archiver. --Jaelanicu 20:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tar Should Point to GNU Tar and/or Have It's Info Corrected

In the table of archivers, the tar(1) entry points to the article on the file format, but the rest of the information in the table refers to GNU tar only. In particular, tar wasn't invented by the GNU project. Either the info should be changed to give proper credit to whatever old school UNIX hacker really invented tar, or the link should go to GNU tar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.87.200.131 (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] inclusion of Squeeze?

There is a file archiver called Squeeze (not to be confused with Squeez) for Xfce... I was wondering if someone could get it's stats into this article? I would, but as of yet, my knowledge about it is too limited to be very useful. However, I do know, factually, that this is not the same archiver as Squeez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.173.174.235 (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LHA?

I know it's not supposed to be an exhaustive list, but what's happened to the middle section of each of those tables, between K and P? I thought someone had vandalised them all at first, but it must have been a very autistic vandal. LHA/LZH used to be pretty widespread inasmuch as I remember, and you've gone to the trouble of including it in the final table (where it puts in a sadly poor show, but only by a small percentage behind ZIP), why not the others?

meh :-/ 77.102.101.220 (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)