RAR File Format

Suicide Junkie · #1 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.

Arkcon · #2 December 23rd, 2004, 02:58 PM

Suicide Junkie said:

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."

Well, If that's true then, I stand corrected. RAR is a superior format, and is pretty popular as well. Well worth it for anyone to add to their toolchest.

Instar · #3 December 23rd, 2004, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Suicide Junkie said:

2) XP is icky

Upgrade to 98.

Boooo!

Arkcon · #4 December 28th, 2004, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Suicide Junkie said:
2) XP is icky

Upgrade to 98.

Now this is a bit of a threadjack on my part here, but its already happened twice, so no harm in it happening again.

Many people have panned WinXP, and I dunno, I kinda liked it. But it has some seriously bloated code, and some of Microsoft's improvements are just security holes. (have you heard the latest one over at /. )

I went from Win95 that came with my Pentium III, to Win98, to WinXp. I skipped Windows 2000 because many people had problems when it came out. Now I hear (from some dubious sources) that its the same as XP, just without the bloated desktop. Anyone like Win 2000 enough to comment?

I'm jonesing bigtime for my graphical games. Even more than Diablo II, I miss playing Malfador's Starfury. All this talk about SE5 makes me seriously want to blow up some pirate spacecraft. So I may switch back to Windows ... for a little while.

Fyron · #5 December 28th, 2004, 08:26 PM

Win2k is nowhere near XP in terms of bloat... There was a ton of garbage piled on top of Win2k to make WinXP, with very little in the way of actual improvement of the OS. The only way you could praise XP is if you skipped Win2k, really... Win2k will probably be the Last "decent" OS from Microsoft. It is all downhill from here (not that it was ever at any particularly high point). The only games I have ever had any trouble running in Win2k are old DOS games that require "features" (read: bugs) of Win9x that are not present in the WinNT line. A partition of a few hundred megabytes with Win98 on it works well for such games.

Rasorow · #6 December 29th, 2004, 09:39 AM

My system always runs better with the Win2k image then the XP image. If you have some knowledge of 2k its easy to lock and strip stupid stuff. XP is just a nightmare and I hate the fact that I have a hassle with XP evertime I do a system upgrade. Its stupid for someone like me who constantly builds and upgrades their system to have to mess with that. In addition my system runs slower with XP then 2k and my emulators dont work as well.

Rasorow

(Why then do I run XP currently? because I have some programs I spent ALOT of time to trick into running on XP that will not run in Win2k..... due to those Win9x "bugs")

(note statement about running slower is based off the presence of performance issues in games on WinXP that do not exist in Win2k. statement about emulators is related to emulators that work in 2k not working in XP or ROMs for emulators that work in 2k not working in XP)

Aiken · #7 December 29th, 2004, 10:26 AM

I use w2k too. Compared to XP it's a clean and simple OS. And it's much more controllable that XP. It almost free of crappy 16bit legacy of 9x line (unlike XP, which include legacy code for better compatibility). And it definetely will be my Last MS OS, because there's no 64bit XP yet (and it's rumored that MS decided to skip this edition for the sake of Longhorn).

Gandalf Parker · #8 December 29th, 2004, 12:06 PM

Everything has its pros and cons. The same discussion of toys vs bare-efficiency comes up with unix vs linux. Im not about to get too fanatical on either side of the line. I just go ahead and keep one of each. If one is a bare-bones workhorse secure server arrangment, and the other is a dont-sweat-it load lots of toys and pretty stuff desktop, then I dont have to bang my head on trying to get one to act like the other. Those were Sparc/Solaris and Win98se, now a bare bones GNU Linux and a WinXP desktop. Im debating a BSD or MAC for server, and a fully GUI Linux for desktop. I have access to W2K servers as telecommute admin work and I dont think I will go that route any time soon.

But in any case its all pro and con. The only way to decide which is better is to decide which advantages/disadvantages you prefer.

Suicide Junkie · #9 December 29th, 2004, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Rasorow said:
(Why then do I run XP currently? because I have some programs I spent ALOT of time to trick into running on XP that will not run in Win2k..... due to those Win9x "bugs")

2k isn't a 9x... its one of the NTs