Comments on: The RAR Argument http://scenelingo.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/the-rar-argument/ What's a BDRip? What's x264? Who's aXXo? These questions and more, revealed in this blog! Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:53:11 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: John http://scenelingo.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/the-rar-argument/#comment-174 John Wed, 15 Apr 2009 05:43:42 +0000 http://scenelingo.wordpress.com/?p=268#comment-174 RAR sucks! RAR sucks!

]]> By: carpefile http://scenelingo.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/the-rar-argument/#comment-99 carpefile Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:24:13 +0000 http://scenelingo.wordpress.com/?p=268#comment-99 How 'bout this? The scene doesn't much care how bit users like their file format, they don't even want p2p to get them. How ’bout this? The scene doesn’t much care how bit users like their file format, they don’t even want p2p to get them.

]]> By: RPGSpree http://scenelingo.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/the-rar-argument/#comment-97 RPGSpree Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:26:06 +0000 http://scenelingo.wordpress.com/?p=268#comment-97 It's fine if you want make a case for both sides of an argument, but your justifications in favor of RARed torrents just weren't very compelling. Even if I didn't use fractional scores, it would still come to 3:6, which isn't stellar. I have had torrents that seriously needed to be compressed though, and would definitely have be able to torrent as many of them otherwise. It’s fine if you want make a case for both sides of an argument, but your justifications in favor of RARed torrents just weren’t very compelling. Even if I didn’t use fractional scores, it would still come to 3:6, which isn’t stellar. I have had torrents that seriously needed to be compressed though, and would definitely have be able to torrent as many of them otherwise.

]]> By: Scene Lingo http://scenelingo.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/the-rar-argument/#comment-96 Scene Lingo Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:09:29 +0000 http://scenelingo.wordpress.com/?p=268#comment-96 RPGSpree, thanks for reading and sharing your in-depth analysis. The aim of this article is not to come down on either side in particular, and your scoring system takes into account only your personal experience - I think it's impossible to put ratings to each factor, because they affect different people by different amounts. The aim of the article is to help people consider the pros an cons, so they can decide for themselves. I'll add your helpful points to the article. :) RPGSpree, thanks for reading and sharing your in-depth analysis.

The aim of this article is not to come down on either side in particular, and your scoring system takes into account only your personal experience – I think it’s impossible to put ratings to each factor, because they affect different people by different amounts.

The aim of the article is to help people consider the pros an cons, so they can decide for themselves.

I’ll add your helpful points to the article. :)

]]> By: RPGSpree http://scenelingo.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/the-rar-argument/#comment-95 RPGSpree Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:24:58 +0000 http://scenelingo.wordpress.com/?p=268#comment-95 Seriously, those pro-RAR arguments are fairly week at best. Here's how I'd score them: Archive Compression Ratio: .2 This is nearly a moot point. It's only valid IF the files aren't compressed to begin with, and most are. Disk Fragmentation: .1 This a marginal issue these days. Besides, your internet connection is still going to be FAR slower than your hard drive. FAT 32 and old filesystems: 0 Since they can't handle large files anyway, you'd be better off using a file system than can, or getting a new computer. I always thought that it was stupid for OEMs to ship XP PCs with FAT32. Just STUPID! Portability to other trackers: 0 A completely moot point. If there was no other good reason to RAR it, the other trackers shouldn't have either. SeedBoxes and FTP: 0 Well, Xjph already nailed that one. FTP really is NOT the best way to deal with large files anyway. File-Hosting Sites: .01 This is a really fringe case scenario that clearly doesn't outweigh any of the negatives. Besides, good luck finding those pieces! PAR: 0 Seriously!? I have yet to see them used outside of worthless binary newsgroups. Besides, if the person that managed to download ALL of those pars actually bothered to verify the RAR archive, then they would have the uncompressed files and would have no other excuse to not seed them instead! Pre-Times: 1 (in favor of unRARed!) Again, this is another bogus excuse. Either the person generated the files him/herself, or there were received from a second-hand source. If the files were self-generated, such as a recompressed HDTV recording, then it would actually waste FAR more time to RAR compress or encode them than it would to just seed the files. If the files were second-hand, then just as with pars, the person should have tested the files and would thus already have the uncompressed files anyway. So you'd rated it about 6.5:4 in favor of using RAR. After judging the merits of your argumens however, I'd give it about a .31:5. Adding Epyx's comment about passworded RARs, it would be .31:6! Given that, it's quite clear that RARs should ONLY be used for files that can be compressed, otherwise don't. Seriously, those pro-RAR arguments are fairly week at best. Here’s how I’d score them:

Archive Compression Ratio: .2
This is nearly a moot point. It’s only valid IF the files aren’t compressed to begin with, and most are.

Disk Fragmentation: .1
This a marginal issue these days. Besides, your internet connection is still going to be FAR slower than your hard drive.

FAT 32 and old filesystems: 0
Since they can’t handle large files anyway, you’d be better off using a file system than can, or getting a new computer. I always thought that it was stupid for OEMs to ship XP PCs with FAT32. Just STUPID!

Portability to other trackers: 0
A completely moot point. If there was no other good reason to RAR it, the other trackers shouldn’t have either.

SeedBoxes and FTP: 0
Well, Xjph already nailed that one. FTP really is NOT the best way to deal with large files anyway.

File-Hosting Sites: .01
This is a really fringe case scenario that clearly doesn’t outweigh any of the negatives. Besides, good luck finding those pieces!

PAR: 0
Seriously!? I have yet to see them used outside of worthless binary newsgroups. Besides, if the person that managed to download ALL of those pars actually bothered to verify the RAR archive, then they would have the uncompressed files and would have no other excuse to not seed them instead!

Pre-Times: 1 (in favor of unRARed!)
Again, this is another bogus excuse. Either the person generated the files him/herself, or there were received from a second-hand source. If the files were self-generated, such as a recompressed HDTV recording, then it would actually waste FAR more time to RAR compress or encode them than it would to just seed the files. If the files were second-hand, then just as with pars, the person should have tested the files and would thus already have the uncompressed files anyway.

So you’d rated it about 6.5:4 in favor of using RAR. After judging the merits of your argumens however, I’d give it about a .31:5. Adding Epyx’s comment about passworded RARs, it would be .31:6! Given that, it’s quite clear that RARs should ONLY be used for files that can be compressed, otherwise don’t.

]]> By: angryshot http://scenelingo.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/the-rar-argument/#comment-60 angryshot Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:13:16 +0000 http://scenelingo.wordpress.com/?p=268#comment-60 sorry - there is no reason to RAR compression - all RARs i get have 0% compression split - unless you are downloading entire DVDs or BRD then not relevant frag - this is not a serious problem - who worries about this anymore? portability - this wouldn't be an issue if no body RARed (which as we can see they shouldn't) seedboxes - this wouldn't be an issue if they used the torrent system to transfer file hosting - we are talking about torrents so this is irrelevant pre-time - RARing is two extra steps minimum therefore it can only add time to the end to end process sorry – there is no reason to RAR
compression – all RARs i get have 0% compression

split – unless you are downloading entire DVDs or BRD then not relevant

frag – this is not a serious problem – who worries about this anymore?

portability – this wouldn’t be an issue if no body RARed (which as we can see they shouldn’t)

seedboxes – this wouldn’t be an issue if they used the torrent system to transfer

file hosting – we are talking about torrents so this is irrelevant

pre-time – RARing is two extra steps minimum therefore it can only add time to the end to end process

]]> By: Xjph http://scenelingo.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/the-rar-argument/#comment-50 Xjph Mon, 22 Sep 2008 02:33:07 +0000 http://scenelingo.wordpress.com/?p=268#comment-50 The point under "Seedboxes and FTP" about redownloading isn't really valid. You can just recheck the files and hop back on the torrent, and it will only redownload segments that were corrupt, which are very likely smaller than the rar parts would be. The point under “Seedboxes and FTP” about redownloading isn’t really valid. You can just recheck the files and hop back on the torrent, and it will only redownload segments that were corrupt, which are very likely smaller than the rar parts would be.

]]> By: Epyx http://scenelingo.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/the-rar-argument/#comment-48 Epyx Sun, 21 Sep 2008 23:18:39 +0000 http://scenelingo.wordpress.com/?p=268#comment-48 Another problem with RARs on torrents is that they are frequently passworded, and the password often gets lost. Another problem with RARs is that they are sometimes used to hide fake torrent releases. The bottom line is that RAR makes *no* sense on torrents. The file content should *always* be extracted before uploading. Another problem with RARs on torrents is that they are frequently passworded, and the password often gets lost. Another problem with RARs is that they are sometimes used to hide fake torrent releases.

The bottom line is that RAR makes *no* sense on torrents. The file content should *always* be extracted before uploading.

]]> By: dvallej http://scenelingo.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/the-rar-argument/#comment-44 dvallej Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:29:39 +0000 http://scenelingo.wordpress.com/?p=268#comment-44 thx, i was wondering exacly that thx, i was wondering exacly that

]]> By: Anonymous http://scenelingo.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/the-rar-argument/#comment-32 Anonymous Wed, 27 Aug 2008 07:12:30 +0000 http://scenelingo.wordpress.com/?p=268#comment-32 meh- I have a small hdd & use file hosters so rar all teh way 4 me! meh- I have a small hdd & use file hosters so rar all teh way 4 me!

]]>