I want to create backups of my important data using 7z
what version should i use ?
mr.Igor stated that 9.30 should not be used for this
so should i use the "Stable" 9.20 or the 9.25 alpha ?
i would use the stable version but did the 9.25 alpha fix any important bug in 9.20 ? (i read the change log but did not find anything like this) other than stating - Some bugs were fixed.
i searched but could not find any Definitive answer.
btw, im on windows 7.
You can never be sure that the program has no bugs, be it "alpha", "beta" or "release". I suggest you to use 9.30, since it has useful features and does not have critical bugs that affect data integrity (as far as I know). Anyway, you should test your archives right after creation. Should an error occur, you will be able to detect it and re-create your backup with some other program.
If you want to migrate to a newer version later, I suggest you to use both in parallel. If no errors arise with the new version after a number of times, it is sufficiently safe to migrate to.
P.S. If I understand it right, "Some bugs..." means non-critical ones. If a bug is discovered that makes an archive broken, it is usually reported in details.
100% agree with shell - there are lots of people fussing about which version to use. IMO latest beta, is best. Any big bugs in the basic compression/decompression would've been noticed by now. It been around for some time, so use it with the safeguards that shell has suggested. J
I still can't understand why 9.20 is the last 'Release' version.
As I know, today, most reliable versions are 9.25 and 9.30, much more stable and with less bugs than 9.20.
Instead of this, thousands of people still using v. 9.20 only for his NAME, cause in a corporative enviroment, people can't use a Beta version altough that version could be better...
I know a newer version is near, but while we wait for it, can't change his name? I think it's so easy to do, and could solve a lot of issues with users. i know concrete cases, in wich people is changing to competitor's software because 9.20 has a bug, solved in 9.25
and company policies don't permit to install alpha/beta versions.
Remember than most users want 7zip ONLY for a basic use (compress/uncompress archives, and most times without any options): 9.25 is good enough, but 9.20 has a critical bug (at least for about 20.000 users).
All this issues could be solved if somebody would like to change the NAME of '9.25 Alpha' , or '9.30 Alpha' to '9.25' , '9.25 Stable' , '9.25 Final'... Wathever, but this simply action could solve a massive issue solved in 9.25 version.
[quote]but 9.20 has a critical bug (at least for about 20.000 users).[/quote]
what is this bug ? can you specify ? i used 9.20 for many archives. please tell me.
That's solved in 9.25 . Is relative to executing archives whitout uncompressing before.
In our case, it happens when user tries to execute an xml directly from the compressed folder:
(As I know from the forums)
7zip creates a temp folder, and monitorice it, when the associated program opens the file, 7zip deletes the temp folder, but in this case, another process opens the file before excel, and then, when excel tries to open the archive, the file is already deleted, giving an error "file not found" or something like that.
How can you speak of 9.25 and 9.30 when clearly (looking at the Files section) 9.22 is the latest version?
Why not release if they exist?
if you search a little, you'll find 9.25 and 9.30 versions (there are more versions like 9.26 etc, but that are the most stable).
About the release, i think is about they are alpha versions, but in mi point of view, i think are better than older versions, so they should be added as releases, not beta.
you can get the lastest versions from here
i dont know why 9.22 is the lastest in the files section.
@stdesktopbs thanks for your explanation.
Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:
You seem to have CSS turned off.
Please don't fill out this field.