RAR File Format

Fyron · #1 December 23rd, 2004, 06:45 AM

Poll on mod release formats. RAR format is a popular file compression format. Not quite as popular as ZIP, but far superior. I'd like to know if it would be safe to stop releasing self-extracting archives and just release .rar files directly. Please vote in poll.

Arkcon · #2 December 23rd, 2004, 11:09 AM

Yeah, I noticed it was becoming popular, so I got WinRAR back in my Windows days. And I'm pretty sure I have one for Linux. My question is why. I used it to archive some MPEG's, then some JPEG's and it did only 1% compression, no better than Winzip really.

Do people like the splitting ability, the advanced repair ability, or does everyone just hate the zip format now that Microsoft started bundling it with XP?

Alneyan · #3 December 23rd, 2004, 11:20 AM

Aren't MPEGs and JPEGs already compressed formats? RAR compression seems to make quite a difference in files that can be further compressed, like text (for mods).

Gandalf Parker · #4 December 23rd, 2004, 11:41 AM

I know that its difficult to word a poll in an unbiased manner but sheeeesh....

"I am unwilling or unable"? If the poll just said rar, zip, gz, exe, or installer.. and had no other words to give any clues.. then I would probably have chosen zip.

I guess if my only choices were between RAR or EXE then I would choose rar for SEIV mods.

Fyron · #5 December 23rd, 2004, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Gandalf Parker said:
I know that its difficult to word a poll in an unbiased manner but sheeeesh....

"I am unwilling or unable"? If the poll just said rar, zip, gz, exe, or installer.. and had no other words to give any clues.. then I would probably have chosen zip.

I guess if my only choices were between RAR or EXE then I would choose rar for SEIV mods.

Zip was never an option... There was no bias. This was never meant as a general format poll; it was only meant to determine if there is any need to continue adding the self-extracting modules. I may not have made that entirely clear...

Quote:

Arkon said:
Yeah, I noticeed it was becoming popular, so I got WinRAR back in my Windows days. And I'm pretty sure I have one for Linux. My question is why. I used it to archive some MPEG's, then some JPEG's and it did only 1% compression, no better than Winzip really.

Do people like the splitting ability, the advanced repair ability, or does everyone just hate the zip format now that Microsoft started bundling it with XP?

As Alneyan mentioned, JPEGs are already highly compressed. No archive compression algorithm can do very much with a file that is already as compressed as a JPEG. Only relatively uncompressed or completely uncompressed files can be compressed very much. Compare archives of text files and bitmaps, two completely uncompressed file formats. Wave files work too. The point is that ZIP is a very innefficient format compared to pretty much all other archive formats. It is an obselete format. It is just not a proprietary format, or highly associated with open source, and it is currently the most popular format, so it is the only one that Microsoft chose to support natively in XP. Unless SP 2 added Gzip support...

The other advanced features are a plus, but there are a lot of other archive formats that have them too (such as ACE and possibly 7zip and Gzip, but I am not too familiar with those). Rarsoft just plays the marketing game better.

Gandalf Parker · #6 December 24th, 2004, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Imperator Fyron said:

Quote:

Gandalf Parker said:
I know that its difficult to word a poll in an unbiased manner but sheeeesh....

"I am unwilling or unable"? If the poll just said rar, zip, gz, exe, or installer.. and had no other words to give any clues.. then I would probably have chosen zip.

I guess if my only choices were between RAR or EXE then I would choose rar for SEIV mods.

Zip was never an option... There was no bias. This was never meant as a general format poll; it was only meant to determine if there is any need to continue adding the self-extracting modules. I may not have made that entirely clear...

Ahhh I had the impression that it was seeking a general consensus of all of the modders and download sites. That it was a personal question wasnt clear.

There are obvious pros and cons I guess. RAR's give a time-download boost for a "but you must first download and install" instruction. EXE's give less personal control on the install but can be more helpful for automating where things should go and a level of newbie friendliness. Also EXE's involve an extra layer of trust on the part of the user.

Personally I have a RAR extractor. But then I have a couple dozen different format extractors and Im always a slight bit irritated when Im told to go get another.

Suicide Junkie · #7 December 23rd, 2004, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Gandalf Parker said:
I know that its difficult to word a poll in an unbiased manner but sheeeesh....

"I am unwilling or unable"? If the poll just said rar, zip, gz, exe, or installer.. and had no other words to give any clues.. then I would probably have chosen zip.

I guess if my only choices were between RAR or EXE then I would choose rar for SEIV mods.

Option #1 is for those who have it installed.
Option #2 is for those who might install it.
Option #3 is for those who are not going to install it.

I think that covers the bases quite nicely.
Its not about your preferred format or anything, its about having RAR capability or not.

mottlee · #8 December 23rd, 2004, 02:15 PM

Some of the "Newbees" may not know what RAR is! I did not till I was in the forum for some time, there will be the tryed and true die hards for winzip too.

Arkcon · #9 December 23rd, 2004, 02:18 PM

Geez, what'd I say? OK, let me try to break it down. I think I was unclear about where I pulled the .zip fromat from and sprung it on you guys.

1). Most people who play SE4 use Microsoft Windows (whatzit, me and 2 other people using WinE?).

2). Lots (many? most? all?) of those people using Windows run XP, which includes zip support. Zip up a mod and you don't have to wonder about the need for an unzipping exe.

3). Mods are tiny text files, sometimes with large BMP files. WinRAR is not going to provide any better (well, not much better) compression then ZIP. You just use it as a package to keep files and directories together, right? So what's the diff?

I just thinking out loud here. Something I wanted was RAR packed so I got WinRAR. I'd prefer not to get a self-extracting exe, I do worry about how insecure it might be.

If you just want to keep files together, just right click, zip, and be done with it. I guess. Is maximum technology really needed for SE4 mods and Image packs?

Suicide Junkie · #10 December 23rd, 2004, 02:26 PM

1) Really no impact on the situation. Both utilities are for windows.

2) XP is icky

Upgrade to 98.

3) WinRar saves you 20% on the imagemod. 30% on Gritecon.
For my Starfury P&N-ism mod, WinRAR compresses ALL THREE campaigns smaller than zip can compress one campaign.

For anybody on Dialup, it is well worth the download.

4) With winRar, you have the same functionality.
Rightclick, "add-to XYZ.rar"

PS:
Also, it is worth noting that winRAR can make zips smaller than winzip can. Those extrasmall zips are still fully readable by winzip.
The zip values used above are winrar's extrasmall zips.