file zip tool preference / suggestions?

[queenlives]

folks,

in a couple of weeks i'll be releasing for download a pdf that is ~1mb in size. i'd like to reduce the size by zipping it and would appreciate any / all suggestions re your zip tool of choice, especially from an end-user perspective.

thx for any / all feedback.
hal

 

[flaminio]

First of all, the built-in zip in Windows XP/Vista/7 isn't that bad. I'd go with that one first, for maximum compatibility (at least with Windows systems).

For a third-party app, 7-Zip is about the best. It has a nice clean interface, is fast, compresses well in zip and also has its own ".7z" format which compresses files even more. It will also uncompress just about every format except .ace (which no one uses anyways).

Programs like WinZip and WinRar were the titans of the past, but those days are gone.

 

[queenlives]

First of all, the built-in zip in Windows XP/Vista/7 isn't that bad. I'd go with that one first, for maximum compatibility (at least with Windows systems).

For a third-party app, 7-Zip is about the best. It has a nice clean interface, is fast, compresses well in zip and also has its own ".7z" format which compresses files even more. It will also uncompress just about every format except .ace (which no one uses anyways).

Programs like WinZip and WinRar where the titans of the past, but those days are gone.

great feedback, thx - i'll give each a try. (my web guy says the same about winzip)

 

[Eclipsed]

I use winRAR mostly, it handles just about any compressed format out there.

rarsoft.com

 

[queenlives]

I use winRAR mostly, it handles just about any compressed format out there.

rarsoft.com

thx for this, too. i'll test it out w/my stuff.
hal

 

[flaminio]

I use winRAR mostly, it handles just about any compressed format out there.

rarsoft.com

Honest question: what's so great about RAR?

When I started in the computer biz, everyone used ARC, then the people behind ARC turned into buttheads and thanks to Phil Katz (r.i.p.) everyone switched to ZIP, and then about a decade ago for reasons unknown most of the online community switched to RAR. But why? It compresses a little better than ZIP, but not so much as to make a sea change. WinRAR isn't free, which is usually a big impediment (it is for me, at least -- I'll always pick a free tool like 7-zip over a pay one like WinRAR).

I just don't get what people like about RAR.

 

[0ctan3]

I just don't get what people like about RAR.

It seems to have better encryption, file spanning and error recovery than ZIP does.

 

[flaminio]

It seems to have better encryption, file spanning and error recovery than ZIP does.

Maybe so, but IMHO all of that is trumped by the universal compatibility of ZIP.

If I sent my client a RAR file, I'd be on the phone with him for half an hour walking him through how to un-RAR it. He already knows how to do ZIP files.

 

[0ctan3]

Maybe so, but IMHO all of that is trumped by the universal compatibility of ZIP.

I totally agree, but it seemed to catch on mostly through the support of the warez scene, which probably liked it even more for it's esoteric nature.

 

[jond]

I would say just use the free windows built in .zip.
Outside that, most end users will be making phone calls to get it open.

Also, you can't compress a .PDF. It's already compressed.

 

[queenlives]

Also, you can't compress a .PDF. It's already compressed.

interesting thought... i use an encryption tool on the file so that may / not cause a hiccup. we'll test thoroughly on a variety of target platforms before posting for download.

thx to all for your feedback, much appreciated.
hal