Talk:WinZip

This page was proposed for deletion by Yeeno (talk · contribs) on 25 April 2021.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Open a winzip file

how do you open a winzip file? include it in the article --66.122.241.122

As the article says, WinZip uses PKZIP format files. How to open these depends on the software you are using, so it's outside the scope of this article. (I assume you didn't mean how to open them in WinZip, as that should be obvious.) If you meant to ask what software to use, then 7-Zip (Windows only) and Info-ZIP work well. --Zundark 07:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

stub?

Why is this article a stub? What additional information is desired? -- Mikeblas 16:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the stub tag. Wikipedia:Stub mentions that stubs are 3 - 10 short sentences, more if the topic is complex enough, and this article currently has 11 average-length sentences. That said, there's always room for expansion. --Interiot 16:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WinZip supports bz2?

Version 10.0 supports the bzip2 and the PPMd compression algorithms, allowing smaller archives at the cost of a potential increase in compression and extraction times (especially when using PPM).

Does this mean that WinZip can open bzip2 files? A little clarification on this matter would be nice. --Aeon17x 23:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7z support?

The article 7z#Implementations claims that WinZip supports 7z, but Comparison_of_file_archivers#Reading states it don't. Which one is correct? --Hhielscher 10:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite rather extensive searching on WinZip's web site, I found no evidence for this. I deleted the reference on 7z (independent of/before seeing your comment). Nysin 03:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incompatability of new compression strategies

It seems that something should be mentioned about the fact that the bzip2 and the PPMd compression algorithms introduced in version 10.0 may create zip files that are unable to be opened by most other compression programs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.129.228.234 (talk • contribs) 20:33, September 1, 2006 (UTC)

Actually, those algorithms were documented in .ZIP File Format Specification around the time WinZip 10.0 was released. In the case of bzip2, it had been used by PKZIP (and subsequently published by PKWARE) for several years. - 142.150.48.203 (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links section

Hi,

anyone else thinking the link to "a proper review" should go? —Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 00:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History

A short history of the development and use of winzip? Think outside the box 10:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement incorrect

"WinZip has 45-day free evaluation period. However, it continues to work even after this period of time."

This statement is incorrect as of version 11.1 (build 7466) it continues to work for awhile after 45 days, but than soon after the "Use Evaluation" button never lights up again causing you to not be able to use the software. Can someone else change this in the wiki in a better way than what I can explain it or even confirm that I am 100% correct and that my software is just not messed up?

Thanks --Matt1888 05:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is the version on my old computer (running Windows XP, so I guess a circa 2003 version) never ran out. You just had to wait for the days/number of archives to count up a bit. However, version 12 stopped for me after the trial period. But that might be because I hadn't opened enough archives in the 55 days it had been installed (just 5, apparently). U-Mos (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:WinZip icon.png

Image:WinZip icon.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free alternatives

I've again removed the "free alternatives" section, as it's completely redundant to the "comparison of" article, which also includes commercial alternatives. -- Mikeblas 04:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right here. The article that specifically addresses alternatives is the place for discussion of alternatives. And per WP:NPOV, we're not supposed to be advocating [F|f]ree software over commercial software. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonHawk (talk • contribs) 14:45, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

JZip article nominated for deletion

Please help discuss that on its AfD page. --AVRS 16:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that WinZip is not free, I disagree with deleting the Free alternatives selection. This article seems to be surprisingly clean of alternatives to Winzip. I think that producing a section on alternatives would actually be good for Winzip in the long run. I understand the issues around brand names, such as Kleenex. Speaking of cleaning - is someone scrubbing this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.235.85 (talk) 02:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Section

There is lots of valid criticism of WinZip these days, I don't see why no one has added a criticism section, various points are:

Shell integration not necessary as the primary target for this software already has in-build zip support.
Compared with most other archivers, low format support.
Doesn't support multi-archive spanning?? (Not sure about that one)
Free alternatives??

RustyBadger (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism sections are inherently non-neutral, and have to be very carefully worded to avoind breaking the policy. Notice the bullet point on Unicode filename support in the article; it's baccked up with two references, and it's still valid as of v11.1, as far as I know. Your comments on shell integration, though, seem to be more opinion than fact. WinZip offers several shell integration features that aren't present in XP and Vista (and yes, the OSs do offer some features, like viewing a Zip file in Win Explorer, that WinZip doesn't). See the above sections on this talk page before adding any free alternatives to this article. We're not here to advocate for free software. We simply present the facts of the case, link to other software packages in the genre (via the Comparison of file archivers page) and let the readers decide for themselves. — EagleOne\^Talk 18:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The biggsest criticism would be the "system utilities" which are simply scam (as confirmed by major security companies like Malwarebytes). However my edits were reverted because some people think that only big newspapers are a valid source... This way the article remains being advertisement for scam. Sad. --B00nish w4rs (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're responding to comments that are more than 10 years old. - MrOllie (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lossy or lossless?

Which one? --72.197.202.36 (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WinZip Encryption Vulnerabilities

I remember reports of vulnerability of WinZip encryption. One I could find now is at http://eprint.iacr.org/2004/078, stating that "WinZip's latest encryption scheme, dubbed "Advanced Encryption-2" or AE-2 and shipped with WinZip 9.0, is insecure in a number of natural scenarios". I think that should be included in the history section. What is the present status, is there a current analysis? 62.178.201.201 (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Like Advertisement

It seems that this page is from an advertisement pamphlet rather than from an encyclopedia. Could anyone refine the language and omit unnecessary details and replace them with objective and relevant information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.131.180 (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

latest release

Now build 10096 is the latest, but I don't know when it was released. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is also now a TrialPay version. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds Like An Advertisement

Does this article read like an ad? Family Guy Guy (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also the program's installer has a PUP or Potentially Unwanted Program, in it's installer. It's checked by default and can be unchecked, but still.... Family Guy Guy (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page deletion?

There is a deletion request on this wiki page, however I'm not sure if it's simply just on the talk page (if that's even possible). The actual wiki page on WinZip should definitely not be deleted. It is a fairly notable computer program. Yeeno What are you trying to do here? The wiki page should simply be improved, rather than deleted imo DreamlessGlare (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DreamlessGlare: It had been previously, that's why its tagged in the talk page. I've found some better sources for the page now so its not as bad as it was before. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 03:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeeno Nice, thanks for saving the page :) DreamlessGlare (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Zip functionality being built-in to Windows by Microsoft

The ZIP (file format) article mentions this so why not here too?

“

Microsoft has included built-in ZIP support (under the name "compressed folders") in versions of Microsoft Windows since 2000 (Windows Me).

”

Topher67 (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It can certainly be included here if there is an independent reliable source that covers both WinZip and that fact, which I'm sure there is. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]