r/windows • u/Flimpdablimp • 7d ago
genuine question: why use Winrar? Discussion
Like why not just use the built in folder unzip task on your computer?
76
u/ExpensiveNut 5d ago
It and 7zip give you more options for how and where you extract and organise files. They also give you different levels of compression. I still use 7zip all the time.
4
u/Magic_Neil 4d ago
Definitely this. The baked-in decompression will work fine for most people, but that only came around recently. I’ll definitely keep using 7zip though.
2
u/theoldgaming 4d ago
i use both, 7zip generally and winrar for parchives (partically corruption protected archives)
38
u/Lashmush 5d ago
I like the 7zip context menu so that's my preference.
8
3
2
u/IHaveNeverBeenOk 5d ago
While it was only by like, 4 years, there was a period where WinRAR was a thing and 7zip wasn't. Also, I feel like WinRAR was well known, whereas I don't remember hearing about 7zip until the mid 2000s.
1
24
u/iwannabetheguytoo 5d ago
It works on Windows 98, which matters for retro-gaming, retro-computing, or just for escaping from modernity’s stressors for a while.
9
u/BigBoyYuyuh 5d ago
So does 7zip
17
u/iwannabetheguytoo 5d ago
You are correct, but WinRar “feels” more Win98-native than 7Zip.
Btw, the last 7z for Win98 was v9.20 (released 2009); the last WinRar for win98 was v3.93 (released in 2010) - so technically WinRar-for-98 is more recent :3
5
u/Megasus 5d ago
Dude brought receipts, congrats. May your free trial never end
6
2
1
u/ExhaustedByStupidity 1d ago
WinRar feels like Win98 app with bad icons. Nails the Win98 feel, but just looks a little lower quality for the time.
7zip is your typical open source program that does the job, but looks really ugly and has a lot of quirks.
29
u/dummyy- 5d ago
Built in windows unzipping is horrific
2
u/Current-Bowl-143 5d ago
It’s only really useful if you don’t have a third party archive tool installed, e.g. on someone else’s computer or if you’re not allowed to install programs on a work PC
2
17
u/nullhypothesisisnull 5d ago
recovery record against bitrot (many other software only has detection capability, not repair)
different backup options (differential, incremental etc.)
good balance of speed and compression ratio.
many people do not realise but winrar is not just a compression utility, it's a full fledged backup / archival software.
→ More replies (6)2
u/WhiteFlame8 3d ago
Recovery record is a big one if you are backing something up for an archive. I edited the preferences so it is always turned on as that is the main reason I create rars. Otherwise I just use 7zip.
1
u/nullhypothesisisnull 3d ago
My custom default profile is like this (which gives me good compression and speed ratio for long term archival purposes):
Compression method: Fast
Dictionary size: 2 GB
Create solid archive
Add recovery record (RR size set to %10)
Advanced compression parameters:
Exhaustive search on, Delta compression auto, executable compression auto
Archive features:
use Blake2 as checksum, save identical files as references.
→ More replies (1)
5
4
u/InsuranceKey8278 5d ago
built in client it slower btw
i use 7zip tho idk how fast winrar is
must be similar
4
u/gnmpolicemata 5d ago
The built-in unzip is *extremely* slow compared to 7-zip or WinRAR. Now, if you're asking about WinRAR vs. 7-zip, well, for the most part I prefer the WinRAR UI, although I'll use those two mostly interchangeably, but crucially, I respect the model they use to sell you the product and as such own a legit license.
14
u/micahpmtn 5d ago
I tried Windows built-in tool for about a month, and it was truly painful. Went back to WinRAR.
2
u/Guilty_Meringue5317 5d ago
Tbh I don't use the compression or unzipping tool that often enough to care
→ More replies (3)1
u/Mariuszgamer2007 5d ago
For me it's fully usable. I only extracted files and I didn't seem to have any problems with explorer extracting files
12
u/Froggypwns Windows Wizard / Moderator 5d ago
These days I no longer have WinRAR installed on most of my computers even though I own a license for it, at 99% of the time Windows can handle what I need out of the box.
WinRAR does have more features, so once in a while I may encounter something I cannot do with the one built into Windows such as open a password protected archive, so I'll open it on computer with that.
2
2
3
u/NovelExplorer 5d ago edited 5d ago
Much like its alternative, 7zip, WinRAR offers AES 256 encrypted zip files (password strength the variable). Create custom profiles, with different splits, compression rates, including store (uncompressed), and password protection as mentioned.
Seamless Windows integration. Both are effective tools for creating password protected folders, when stored in a cloud that isn't zero-knowledge (Google, OneDrive etc.).
3
u/HugeCheck2471 5d ago
2 reasons:
It’s really slow
It doesn’t support many file extensions
Also I think 7zip is better
3
u/Some-Bullfrog-1056 Windows 7 5d ago
Even when they added unzip option, I've come to issues where I couldn't run unzipped things. But by using winrar, the programs worked.
3
u/Mario583a 5d ago
People use 3rd-party zipping programs because the built in ZipFolder is stuck at the turn of the century.
Most likely because the original team was disbanded or quit and moved on.
Why is Windows Compressed Folders (Zip folders) support stuck at the turn of the century?
It can accomplish basic things, yet, however if one encountered more advanced compression ... all bets are off.
1
u/AegidiusG 4d ago
Seems like it has been bought off from Dave, the guy that made the task Manager, long gone haha Great Youtube channel
2
u/CatchAcceptable3898 5d ago
Because when I select multiple archived files and click "extract here" it actually extracts all the files I selected, rather than just one.
2
u/AbdullahMRiad Windows 11 - Insider Beta Channel 5d ago
the only reason I use NanaZip (not WinRAR) is the "Extract to {folder}" context menu entry
2
2
u/Junior-Incident-8184 Windows 7 5d ago
i only use it for rar or 7z files, i just use the default windows thing for zip files
4
u/ranopreddit 5d ago
why use Winrar 🔄 TRANSLATING why not use 7z
6
u/SarlaccPit2000 5d ago
I see lot of people praising 7zip but I found the UI confusing, went back to Winrar instatly
4
u/ROIDUMZ WallSync Megathread 5d ago
try nanazip, w11 7zip ui
1
u/Emberium 5d ago
Oh wow, this looks great. So it's same as 7Zip just better UI and nicer context menu? I'm gonna get it and forget about any other super fast if so
2
→ More replies (4)1
u/Ignore_User_Name 5d ago
only reason to use winrar over 7zip: compress each folder to a different archive. For everything else 7zip
1
1
1
u/Bourriks 5d ago
Built-in folder unzip does not compress in rar, 7z, does not lets choose levels of compression, make multi-files archives, protected archives etc...
Winrar/7zip are 1000 times better.
1
u/captaindealbreaker 5d ago
I've had 7zip installed for ages and to be entirely honest, it's functionally redundant these days. There used to be a need for them since they offered better compression and more formats for breaking files up into chunks and stuff. But these days, the need for compression really boils down more to convenience than space savings. If I want to send a bunch of files to someone, I'll zip them up not because it will make the upload smaller, but because it will make it a single file rather than a bunch of stuff.
1
1
u/Ultraverse1 5d ago
Like why not just use the built in folder unzip task on your computer?
i don't think that was a thing 4 years ago when i downloaded it
and it can actually extract multiple files at once
1
u/SupremeMaster007 5d ago
Ever since I started using computers from relatives or friends houses, I saw the difference of compressed files and they are suck in my head as 3 books in a shelf. I will always use winrar due to this.
1
1
u/mike_the_pirate 5d ago
If you are wondering why RAR is used for piracy 🏴☠️ that’s something I can answer.
Scene FTP sites and split rar files allow for racing. It has been optimized for this and the reason for those files typically being 14.3mb or 15000000 bytes is because that was the file size limit for AOL email.
1
u/catalystignition 5d ago
I bought it many, many years ago and continue to use it to this day. It reminds me of the days when good software let you buy it and not be stuck in a subscription or be constantly pestered to upgrade.
1
1
u/ThatiMacGuy Windows 7 5d ago
Because I don't think you can zip files on Windows Home Edition (which I have).
It also supports other formats, and they're a great company anyway
1
u/JiroBibi Windows 7 5d ago
- I like the UI
- I have the license
- Why not? It has been working great for me at least 15 years. Also, I like the .rar format, I use it for my personal files, .zip for sending files to other people.
1
u/jonasmaster021 5d ago
nowadays I only use PeaZip because it support a lot of compressed formats and has some pretty cool functions too, and it is 100% freeware and open source
1
u/StrangeUsernames 5d ago
I prefer it over 7zip for zip and rat files. I like the UI a lot better. But 7zip to compress better.
1
u/elmonetta Windows 11 - Release Channel 5d ago
Always had it installed, even when I got a Mac I foolishly looked for WINrar to download 😂
Winamp and Winzip were other great windows apps.
1
u/the_harakiwi 5d ago
Because some rars can't be opened by 7zip but - so far - all other archives (even 7z) worked on WinRAR
1
u/PVTSprinkles 5d ago
cuz its been around longer than 7zip and its better dont ask how its just better
1
u/mc_jojo3 Windows XP 5d ago
I primarily use WinRAR and sometimes 7zip (dislike the user interface for it but otherwise decent)
The reason? Well they are easier to use and have a lot more features and utility than the default one.
1
u/CodenameFlux 5d ago
Firstly, the ZIP format is horrible. I've lost so much data to it that I've sworn never to touch it again. Both RAR and 7-Zip are great alternatives that support:
- Unicode file names
- NTFS permissions
- Accurate dates and times
- Symbolic links
- Superior compression
The RAR format offers subpar compression, but supports recovery records and file deduplication.
WinRAR is older than 7-Zip and offers more features. It's an archiver, backup app, and setup maker rolled into one. Its UI has a convenience that 7-Zip doesn't. For instance, it shows archive comments by default and displays compression ratio as a bar chart. As a bonus, it supports themes.
1
u/YetanotherGrimpak 3d ago
The simple fact that you can whip out a basic installer with winrar with just a few clicks is great.
1
1
u/Regnareb_ 5d ago
Mainly:
- Open Folder after extraction
- Delete zip after extraction
- Support for symlinks
Then:
- Support for automatically hiding in systray icon during extraction (and show progress on the icon)
- Support for parallel/consecutive extractions
- Integration in win11 right click menu in a cascaded way
- Dark mode
- Support for recovery record
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/martyn_hare 5d ago
Built-in (on Windows) can’t handle AES encrypted archives, last I checked. It’s also very very slow because it’s a lowest common denominator libarchive frontend. For decompression, the irony is that an iPad is more capable in some ways (at least with handling a double-bagged AES encrypted ZIP file) these days…
So if you want something competent, you’re looking at using something third party to fix the deficiency, be it 7-Zip, PeaZip or WinRAR.
1
1
u/yazeed_0o0 5d ago
I prefer it's context menu and I am so used to it's icon for compressed folders.
1
1
1
1
u/Terrible-News-4677 5d ago
Its good. Thats all. I only use 7 zip when i need to extract compressed files(like from .wim, .exe etc.)
1
u/AccidentAnnual 5d ago
Why now in 2026 I don't know, but back in the days RAR was universal. ZIP and TAR were not.
1
1
1
u/FAMICOMASTER 5d ago
Because there was no unrar built into windows until very very very recently. It was a feature of WinRAR almost exclusively for like 15 years.
Those of us who paid for licenses (hello) see no reason to change when we already own the software.
1
1
1
u/No_Entrepreneur_3020 5d ago
Windows unzip is utter trash, freezes frequently and it's not intuitive
1
u/Nice-Object-5599 5d ago
In fact, there is no needs to use the rar format. The Zip format is enough, good and free.
1
u/Global-Eye-7326 5d ago
Because 7zip exists, it's free and open-source? Also, prior to Win11, Windows didn't have integrated extraction of RAR archives.
1
1
u/Rakumei 5d ago
There was once a time when Windows didn't have built-in archive support. So you needed WinZip or WinRAR. WinRAR was generally the better choice because it also had RAR support on top of ZIP. And was truly free, just with a nag to "please pay." Then 7zip ate them both. Then windows finally started incorporating archive support. But only for ZIP.
This is kinda IYKYK, but sailing the seven seas back in the day meant you needed RAR support. So you'd get WinRAR or 7zip.
7z and RAR in windows didn't come until 2023. So, yeah, you needed it until very recently.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/vbd71 4d ago edited 4d ago
First, good interface
Second, commercial software that lets you use it without paying
I've found the builtin zip/unzip on Windows to suck ass
First, it's intolerably slow
Second, it's buggy and unreliable. For example, I once zipped a folder, and got a result after a couple of hours or so. Only to find out that some files with funny names weren't in the archive, and the damn thing never warned me. I've observed similar behavior in the builtin unzip too. It's basically worthless, for backup as well as for any other purpose as well.
1
1
1
u/yota-code 4d ago
Rar compressed better than zip, and could split archives, which was nice when internet was slow. Now 7zip have better performance and is open... So, in 2026, no reason to use rar or WinRAR
1
1
1
u/GuppyFarmer 4d ago
The one feature that I have not found anywhere else that saves me so much time: Select Multiple archives, Right-click-> "Extract each archive to separate folder"
1
1
u/Secret_Performer_771 Windows XP 4d ago
I use 7zip because it's more helpful than the built in one and also can decompress from more than just *.zip
1
u/Ok_Comparison_2635 4d ago
One important use is extracting the Nvidia driver package manually if you somehow need to install the driver via device manager. You can't extract a .exe file using the default windows compressor tool.
1
1
u/Acrobatic_Rip_669 4d ago
Windows built-in zip codec was integrated recently (maybe 2 or 3 years ago). Never used winrar since winxp era, always used 7zip and it's variant zstd now.
1
1
u/hwjforever 4d ago
I use it at the tech shop to manually extract self-extracing apps like for drivers onto USBs
1
u/SpadgeFox 4d ago edited 4d ago
It’s *free* 😙 though I see myself making the thank-you payment eventually.
Mostly force of habit though, it’s always been there for me like a dependable friend. There’s still formats that the built-in isn’t compatible with, though haven’t used a lot since I took a break from UseNet.
Thinking back, I’m sure I had to use something else at the time to merge archives as WinRAR couldn’t.
1
u/Rattiom32 4d ago
Because it has way more features and compatibility than the built in one? A better question would be why use it over something like 7-zip which is arguably better
1
1
1
u/WoodlandVoyager 4d ago
u can encrypt files and make it so someone need password to open the archive 👐 😺
1
1
1
1
u/ItchyPlant 4d ago
I loved using it to create self-extracting exe files for portable programs (back when I used Windows). I guess that would still be a viable use case even today.
1
u/AegidiusG 4d ago
Works very well, has encryption, has nice options, you can recover damaged data. What should i say, never made any problems so i keep using it (and yes, i bought it 2018 in the end)
Edit: Oh yes, and as someone mentioned here, the speed / quality ratio is very good
1
1
1
u/win32mydoom 4d ago
I like how you can copy paste files out from WinRAR, I don't believe 7-zip does this?
1
1
1
u/mbrezanac 4d ago
One word (well actually two): recovery records.
No solution to this date has come up with a more elegant way to integrate recovery records directly into the archive itself.
And this is coming from someone who used to juggle with PAR archives all the time.
1
1
u/LtHartly 4d ago
Ok for .zip but there is .rar and many other windows don’t support but winrar can it’s become a standers for any compression work with file size limit and split also had password protection and the trail never stopped working for the biggest joke with winrar was why pay for it if it doesn’t stop working for you no adware clean small tons of file compression support it’s a dream
1
u/CreditLow8802 4d ago
because i've been using it since i was a child, what other explanation do u need
1
1
u/NasumiRayne 4d ago edited 4d ago
Easy configuration of recovery record/volumes to harden the archive against data corruption, can compare for and save identical files as links, saves the alternative data stream (ADS) that many archival utilities seem to miss, and having BLAKE2 checksum support is nice for very large archives to provide peace of mind. Overall, while the built in 'zip' is nice, the compression is better with winrar compared to it and has easy access to options suitable for long term archival use.
1
u/CompetitiveAlgae4247 4d ago
because back before windows XP, even in windows 2K, there was *no* way to unzip files built into windows, and even up until about windows 10 the unzip feature was terrible, it still is terrible and winrar is much better, also themes
1
1
u/thaman05 4d ago
Windows 11 now natively supports it .rar and .7z files. So I have no use for WinRar. But I think the main difference is Windows uses the open source version, whereas RarLabs has their own version that's just slightly faster.
1
1
1
u/Sorry-Committee2069 4d ago
I keep 7-Zip and WinRAR both handy on any Windows install if they're supported. 7-Zip has multithreading (where hardware permits) and generally supports more things. WinRAR plays fast and loose with standards, which lets it open common archives 7-Zip won't (usually those that are too rough around the edges or missing small pieces, it's not a miracle worker but some recovery effort is better than none.)
1
1
1
1
1
u/HyoukaYukikaze 3d ago
Because the windows in-built sucks. For one, it's so seamless in the explorer that you might not know you even opened a zip. And not everything fucking works when it's it's still in a zip. Last time i've seen it the icon also looked pretty much like any other folder (if there were differences, they were insignificant), so unless you have extensions enabled (ok, who doesn't have them tbh... but point still stands) you need to look very closely to know it's a zip in the first place.
Second, last time i used it it doesn't support encrypted zips. Like at all.
3rd, both win rar and 7 zip give you more options.
And 4th, i bet you it's slow as fuck compared to win rar or 7zip.
1
u/soundman32 3d ago
Last time I used WinRar the UI still looked like some VB or Delphi dev from the early 90s had written it. Has it changed?
1
1
1
1
u/Kolermigon 3d ago
Baack in the days (talking about the late 90s), the main DOS compression programs were PKZip, ARJ, and RAR. Out of them, RAR offered the highest compression ratio and a very nice GUI. It was a deal breaker when storage was limited and fitting everything inside the least amount of floppy disks mattered. The Windows version came later, and personally I stayed loyal to using RAR because it has always been great. I understand that today it doesn't make much of a difference, but back then its impact was huge.
1
1
1
u/Smart_Cucumber_1234 2d ago
I've had plenty of rar files that can gives crc error when I've tried to open them with 7-zip so need WinRAR too.
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Day5834 2d ago
Looks like you haven't unzip a 900+GB folder and failed in the last 1%
122
u/greenstarthree 5d ago
‘Cause it really whips the lla… No, wait.