5 ms·
> WinRAR is much easier to use than 7-zip in my experience. In what way?
by pitaj 6y ago
> WinRAR is much easier to use than 7-zip in my experience.
In what way?
- franga2000 6y agoThe big icons make way more sense and more things have icons, the ".." line is more natural than the dedicated "dir up" button, the "create archive" dialog is more organized and its options more discoverable... And when you run an executable from it, it (I think) unzips the whole archive, not just the file, so DLLs etc. can be loaded properly. Just saves some effort and thinking when you need it and doesn't make a difference when you don't
- auganov 6y agoNever compared archivers at length, cannot speak as to the actual features. But 7z has this distinct unfinished open-source GUI tool look. That's all I remember about it. It may or may not be true that it has poor UX. But the aesthetics certainly do signal this. Personally, on Windows I used 360压缩 which seems to be a better looking winrar clone without nag screens. On Linux it's "atool -x" for extracting (there's no decent Linux file explorer, so the main selling point of archiver guis is moot too).
- moistbar 6y ago> there's no decent Linux file explorer Dolphin, PCManFM, and MC would all like a word with you. Also, 7Zip is no harder to use than the built-in Windows zip extractor if you use the context menu.
- unixhero 6y agoThunar, will also want to have a say
- subsection1h 6y ago> there's no decent Linux file explorer If this is true (and I wouldn't know because I haven't had a GUI file manager on my Linux desktop since the early 2000s), it's because GUI file managers are for casuals.
- ZoomZoomZoom 6y ago> there's no decent Linux file explorer There's Double Commander, which also works great on Windows and beats sibling-mentioned Dolphin and even PCManFM hands down. There's also Ranger and nnn, if you need a CLI and don't want an orthodox file manager.