(09-24-2011, 01:37 PM)Ultimecia Wrote: [ -> ]Man, what's the problem in saving the file as .zip or .rar instead of .7z? It's just a mouse click away in my case
"It's just as easy to save as a PNG; why should I support GIFs?"
In addition to some of the things that people have been saying, yes, the file formats are compressed. However, compression also can be applied to multiple files that contain similar parts. In addition, PNGs don't HAVE to be compressed, although, they can be. I know for a fact that MS Paint exports PNGs that can easily be compressed by at least 20%.
The rationale behind adding 7z is to allow support for a higher-compression format
like RAR that isn't RAR. If you're going to support RAR, support 7z, too. Otherwise, just use ZIP.
I hardly use zip, only rar. And compressing images into rar, zip or 7zip doesn't make much difference, only a couple KB. Any good compression program allows you to pick your method, from 'just put them together' to 'ultra'.
But in gif and png format you're trying to compare a format which allows 256 colors to one with true color AND alpha. THIS is a difference in this case, or at least one huge technological gasp. Downloading something 10-100kb bigger isn't going to burn your hard drive to cinders, right?
I only use .ZIP myself. I also like archiving my files in ZIPs because that's all I've ever used really and they're really simple to work with for someone like me.
(09-24-2011, 02:57 PM)Ultimecia Wrote: [ -> ]Downloading something 10-100kb bigger isn't going to burn your hard drive to cinders, right?
Not really, but in bulk, it does save bandwidth and equates to smaller download times for large archives.
If you think that the size is insignificant, don't allow RAR. Only allow ZIP because it's more commonly supported and will mean that the site is consistent throughout.
Honestly, I see Rar and Zip Files as the exact same thing. 7z files are something I'd see as different, so if we don't take 7z files on, I don't see why we can't just keep both Rar and Zip files, they really are not that different at all and when I download things via uncompression, I don't even notice what of the two file extensions it is half the time. With 7z files, I actually notice it is a different file type.
It is kinda like how tSR supports PNG and GIF files but not JPG files. Should we start accepting JPG files because we support more then one filetype? I think not.
You may see 7z as a completely foreign format, but I don't. I've seen it used in many places as a replacement for RAR with similar compression.
Supporting JPG is different because it's a lossy format. 7z may be a similar format, but it's still very common - if we were to think of supporting some random image format that had similar compression to PNG but was completely out there, I'd say that we shouldn't. But in the case of 7z, we either should support it or just toss RAR out and make things just ZIP.
Why does it have to be exclusively one filetype? Just get a program that works with all three right?
Winrar does support all three. But zip is built-in with windows operating systems post XP, and thus it's almost questionable why we shouldn't use it instead. We aren't using the formats to compress data, purely just forming a way to make it possible for somebody to download a folder of files.
The only reason I ever see to use 7zip is to divide really big archives (like ISOs) in multiple parts.
(09-25-2011, 04:04 PM)Dazz Wrote: [ -> ]Winrar does support all three. But zip is built-in with windows operating systems post XP, and thus it's almost questionable why we shouldn't use it instead. We aren't using the formats to compress data, purely just forming a way to make it possible for somebody to download a folder of files.
Agreed. I find using .ZIP is much easier to use. If I was someone that was new at spriting hunting down and downloading a program to open up something might be a pain to some people. I think going to all zip formats would make it more user friendly for both the nonexperienced and the experienced.