First impression on unpacking the Q702 test unit was the solid feel and clean, minimalist styling.
- Easy to use, Small download
- Too slow
WinRAR comes in handy when trying to open .rar files but isn’t recommended as our compression program of choice.
Price$ 28.95 (AUD)
Buy now (Selling at 5 stores)
Have you ever scoured the internet for a file you need only to find it an RAR archive? There have been so many times when we have encountered RAR that we figured it was about time we put it through its paces to see if it's really worth downloading.
WinRAR has a very straight forward interface which is extremely easy to use. Files can be added with the click of a button or with drag and drop capabilities, where the user can simply move files into the open archive. Users of WinRAR can also choose to create WinZip files as well, making RAR far more flexible.
The most popular compression program on the internet is easily Winzip (.zip files) so in our tests we have compared the compression times and rates for WinZip and WinRAR. WinRAR offers tight compression making huge files manageable in minutes but we found that WinZip did it faster. We tried two file sizes and while the compression speeds were vastly different, the level of compression was fairly similar, if not slightly in favour of WinRAR.
We compressed a 95MB file with WinRAR and in 1min 20sec the program produced a 90MB file. WinZip produced a 90.1MB file in only 25 seconds. We next tried a 1GB source file and both programs produced a 980MB file. However, while WinRAR took 18min 23sec to do the job, again WinZip proved to be superior by creating the file in only 7min 45sec. These are vastly different speeds, making WinRAR woefully below par and a questionable choice in compression software.
WinRAR can be downloaded via an evaluation trial or purchased from the WinRAR website but in all honesty, based on our tests, we believe you would be much better served by a copy of WinZip
Latest News Articles
- Michaels says breach at its stores affected nearly 3M payment cards
- IT security is national security -- but you're not alone
- Exclusive: Google's Project Loon tests move to LTE band in Nevada
- Enterprise who? Google says little about Apps, business cloud services in Q1 report
- Samsung teams with GlobalFoundries on 3D chips
Most Popular Articles
- 1 Top 5 reasons to hate the Samsung Galaxy S5
- 2 What's the difference between an Intel Core i3, i5 and i7?
- 3 Windows 7 Home Premium vs. Windows 7 Professional
- 4 Laser vs. inkjet printers: which is better?
- 5 How do I connect my TV to the Internet?
GGG Evaluation Team
For work use, Microsoft Word and Excel programs pre-installed on the device are adequate for preparing short documents.
The Fujitsu LifeBook UH574 allowed for great mobility without being obnoxiously heavy or clunky. Its twelve hours of battery life did not disappoint.
The screen was particularly good. It is bright and visible from most angles, however heat is an issue, particularly around the Windows button on the front, and on the back where the battery housing is located.
My first impression after unboxing the Q702 is that it is a nice looking unit. Styling is somewhat minimalist but very effective. The tablet part, once detached, has a nice weight, and no buttons or switches are located in awkward or intrusive positions.