WinRAR ver 5.60 - pogadanka

[spamtrash]

 

[jasonX]

You can see the previous "edition" of this review here:

Zaloguj lub Zarejestruj się aby zobaczyć!

, which was rewritten in some parts, while remaining in others.

Furthermore, I did not seen the RAR 5.60 giveaway yet on tweakbytes, but looking on the path, present on one of the screenshots being Z:\Drive(Y)\TBT_ETC\1_Software Sponsorship\WinRAR\Winrar 2018\2_WinRAR56_Images for Giveaway Page\Menu2 - I would not be surprised if one would be announced.

IMHO - the presented above file path exposes too much of the server structure info, but... the review is actually pretty good, underlining pluses and minuses of the soft.
To my personal flavour, one thing is missing: RARLab still did not resolved incompatibility issue with some archives created by 7zip which, while decompressed with RAR, may show with CRC error as a result of it.

You can see the previous "edition" of this review here:

Zaloguj lub Zarejestruj się aby zobaczyć!

, which was rewritten in some parts, while remaining in others.

That was a giveaway page only and only a tip of a review for a giveaway page. It isn't an "overview" either as there are contents not seen in the official overview of that version. Other's claim to write a "review " but if you check it out is just a mere "overview". Even the devs I interact with tell me this.

Have you compared that version 5.50 to the other existing reviews (or giveaway page) done from elsewhere? Can you show me the links here...?

It was not "rewritten" but "amended" as there were in some parts "confusing" to the would be reader when I delved into it. Like , say, the File management / Archive Management Mode portion. But again it is not a review like this one. That one was just for the giveaway page. It had the same contents when I hosted it here if you missed it,

Konkurs PZD - Giveaway - WinRAR 5.50 New Year Giveaway
https://programyzadarmo.net.pl/thre...way-winrar-5-50-new-year-2018-giveaway.34216/

Furthermore, I did not seen the RAR 5.60 giveaway yet on tweakbytes, but looking on the path, present on one of the screenshots being Z:\Drive(Y)\TBT_ETC\1_Software Sponsorship\WinRAR\Winrar 2018\2_WinRAR56_Images for Giveaway Page\Menu2 - I would not be surprised if one would be announced.

-- No approval yet from the dev and I FRANKLY am STILL weighing odds of another giveaway at Tweakbytes Forum. I may or may not continue hosting there. But here, in PZD there are some that are lined-up and already approved by the sponsors.

What the dev approved was the review and hosting it here (at PZD) along the locations it (the review) will be posted. The dev actually requested this review because of the reviews she has seen in other forums there were not very much information there to see except what was already posted in their site. She admitted that writing review takes a lot of time and effort the reason why some reviews arent that informative thus her request for more in a review. The request was open-ended and I can agree or not. As one who have been sponsored I obliged. I was not keen on making one really. I just wanted to construct the giveaway page for PZD. That "ETC" there includes PZD. I only added some points and comparison with little info as requested by her. Any review I make is pre-approved by the sponsor or developer and I do not make any without one. My reviews are unbiased though not full-content reviews but in comparison to others in the forum world you will see the difference. If it was afull-content one it would look like a user manual and I do make user manuals/guides in engineering and quality control. Tons of it. Specifications, ISO standards etc.

IMHO - the presented above file path exposes too much of the server structure info, but... the review is actually pretty good, underlining pluses and minuses of the soft.

-- IMHO...? Hmm..not at all there. "imho" is farce not knowing the main reason behind it. Frankly that was just a mistake owing to the numerous images to edit and conversion to gifs. Conversion to gifs were done to not barrage the review with a whole lot of images. Threads have a minium and it would be quite long for the average reader to check out. For your delicate sensibilities I will make some adjustments you just have to wait on it.

My use of my file path is my choice and there is no-one that will tell me to use another just for the sake of someone's opinion. I place all data/info there in just one partition with all my sponsors here and elsewhere. This is only when it comes to giveaway/contests. The other reviews I make are categorized whether it be CAD, Engineering or animation per se. I just missed blurring that folder path but for your delicate sensibilities I will make some adjustments.

To my personal flavour, one thing is missing: RARLab still did not resolved incompatibility issue with some archives created by 7zip which, while decompressed with RAR, may show with CRC error as a result of it.

-- That is one thing for WinRAR support. You are correct there that "that" issue" is still unresolved. Perhaps you can send them a ticket and ask them yourself then share it here. Also in the spirit of fairness, have you pointed out "your personal flavour" to other reviews of WinRAR ver5.60...?

The review does not underline the past issues unresolved. It is concentrated on ver5.60 only (product walkthrough and "what's new" parts). The comparisons are there for the purpose of "literal comparisons of changes and differences". I never use a software exclusively I use a lot for a job done and see what will I prefer. I also use 7Zip, BandiZip and Peazip and quite frankly I love using them. Previously I was with HaoZip for the better part of 2008-2010 till I used portables versions of the 3 above.

The sponsor and the devs know that it (the review) is posted live. I'll just wait and see if they will comment on your support points one of this days. If they do everyone here will be informed.

Cheers!

 

[spamtrash]

 

[jasonX]

1. Yup, I never said otherwise. However, a simple text comparison is allowing to recon that the 5.50 was the source, what is obvious as you are an author of both and no one shall blame you for using the parts of your own work. Actually, smart reuse is something what I appreciate as I hate people rediscovering America and claiming credits for this. So: overall good piece of work.

-- Yes version 5.50 is the source and when I compared it to docs from version 5.60 it was the same also. And thanks for the appreciation there.

2. Of course. I must admit that your reviews are more (much more in some parts) comprehensive. So: see last sentence of 1 above.

-- Thanks again for that. I do strive to make any of my review different from the norm of others. As in my engineering/QC work I see to it that facts are the to be seen from a test based from an existing standard. My work involves equipment and process standards qualifications and audit. When I see or determine a negative along the course of my work I always see to it that I point it out and have the facts at hand. If it fails or "NG - no-good" by quality standards then period. I am not biased. I take that practice to my reviews. I do not kiss-ass with developers.

3. I did not missed it. I referred to source, as on tweakbytes it was published some week and a half before publication here, on PZD. For the rest: see 1 above, in whole.

-- The scheduling of both contests was agreed upon by the sponsor/developer. Tweakbytes was the first in line and PZD second. OK on that.

4. And here the stairs are beginning. You see... I do not actually appreciate the "dev approved" reviews publications. Per se, such cannot be neutral. Furthermore, any dev can REQUEST a review to be published here and there (work to be done, in case of your review: see last sentence of 1 above) from an employee. From anyone other - it is just a pure job/task order.

5. Yup. See 2 above, but combined with 4.

-- Not all dev approved reviews are biased. In the past I made reviews that were not liked by the developer/sponsor but nonetheless "they" approved publication/posting it live. A developer may approve publication of a review even it is detrimental to him or his product. There are devs and sponsors like that. Ashampoo and Panda are examples. Take the case of the Panda Dome Essential Review at Tweakbytes Forum. There was a bit more negatives there like you cant export the settings/config and later import them thereby giving the user the pain of making all those rules again when he needs to re-install. The Panda developer/sponsor approved that because it is room for them to grow and those points identified as negatives will aid them to have a better product next time or in the near future.

Ashampoo Backup Pro 10, Steganos Privacy Suite 18/Password Manager 18, Wondershare Filmora to name some had some info there that proved detrimental to the "giveaway/contest". The reason was the review contained negatives that opened the eyes to the reader but placed the product in a weak position. Still the review and the giveaway/contest push-through. As a result I had to take down the Ashampoo Backup Pro 10 and Steganos Password Manager 18 because NOBODY literally joined even if I have padded the contest with a Steganos VPN license as bonus. I just gave them away as freebies last Easter.

Such ("dev approved" reviews publications) cannot be neutral...? You are wrong there my dear Sir. Perhaps in your experience. Not ours. The Panda Dome Essential Review we have at Tweakbytes is one example out of many.

There are tons of reviews out there who kiss-ass the developer/sponsor for something in return. I bet you have seen most of them the reason you have concluded "per se" that most are. You have been immersed with this review behavior.

When I started doing reviews I researched and compared reviews from many forums and blogs and I admit most sugar-coat a product even if it not as sweet. BUT NOT ALL. There are no-holds barred reviews out there that show the true negatives and then point towards a premium product alternative. There are some that do not kiss-ass and we as individuals should be fair in "not" labeling all as "cannot be neutral".

To state that "dev approved" reviews publications, per se, such cannot be neutral.." is an outright arrogant / maligning behavior towards any reviewer.

A review assignment to an employee or member of an organization for their own product isn't that credible as there is the something that he will miss. Or as you may want to point out will "only" highlight the good points of their product to kiss-ass the boss.

A review done outside an orgnization has more credibility because it is an outside source and is independent of the organization. Thereby is independent from internal influencing. This is sort of a check and balance or in engineering/QC world, an audit. You will always need a 3rd party (or a 4th for that matter) to properly have a balanced derivative or any product. Manufacturer's like Proctor and Gamble, Toyota, Volvo, Intel, Ford always goes through rigorous checks and balances via ISO certifications / Quality Management System techniques and industry standards in order to validate their product and processess so everything will be in order with the currently good manufacturing practices. It is rigorous especially in the automotive industry because lives are at stake. How may times have we seen "recalls" and car models immediately stopped because of safety issues...there are many. Those were end products of such "checks and balances". Even in software we have "beta-testing" to grade the product, check it out and in the end help develop the product towards improvement.

Any restaurant owner has invited critics to dine in and taste their menu so they will know what's the score in terms of their food, ambiance etc. A waiter working in that very same restaurant may be tasked to be that critic but as you actually put it..."I do not actually appreciate the "dev approved" reviews publications" --- the waiter, may be tempted to kiss-ass. Take note of "May" so it's "may or may not". He may or may-not kiss-ass.

We (to be fair) should not directly judge him as "cannot be neutral" because we still do not have the facts of the waiter's critic on their own food, ambiance, etc.

Thus the need for an independent or outside entity to do it. The explanation above is given based on your "Furthermore, any dev can REQUEST a review to be published here and there (work to be done, in case of your review: see last sentence of 1 above) from an employee. From anyone other - it is just a pure job/task order." and not to cement your "per se, such cannot be neutral" belief. to make all see and understand that what you stated.

...all "dev approved" reviews publications. Per se, such cannot be neutral" My dear Sir, you are wrong to state that even when using "per se". That is an arrogant statement. Because there are in existence reviews that are unbiased. Some neutral.

There are some in this forum world that STILL make reviews that are unbiased and neutral. There may be more. You may be surprised.

6. A "mistake" is the word which clarifies it, and I was supposing such. But, pls see 7 below.

7. Obviously, placing files here and there, the folder structure etc is totally up to you. Announcing this to the world is totally up to you, as well. It is actually nice, because whoever would try to hack your computer will have better understanding where to look for what. Not to menton that by the name, it discloses details about potential giveaway, so peoples knowing you, your activity here and on tweakbytes can just observe your presence more carefully to gain benefit in case of, for example, limited to a few, given on the first come first take, giveaway. One could actually make assumption that if you'd be a mod on one or more forums, you may have influence on the files/folders structure on a server, making any penetration testing easier. But, as you have said, it is up to you, and therefore I have started with: In My Humble Opinion, not trying to convince you to change your habits.

-- You supposed something that is correct in your conscience but took the extra effort to make a fuss about it...hmmmm...and then make something out of it via your IMHO and then make more out of it stating it is unsafe and may etc etc etc....Huh...?

A PM is just a click away. Surely if you were that "truly concerned" (or perhaps just plain concerned) you may have thought about it.

I remember very clearly there was someone way back who did something similar (PM) as I missed/erred blurring an email address in one of the giveaway/contest winners announcements made here. He (in true concern and gentleman like manner) called my attention via PM. As result I corrected it. He is now a friend and someone I very much trust here.

Concerned about what will happen because of it? Hmmm...or just want to make everyone see how a guru you are in pointing that out? For starters you even do not know my set-up. This may or may not be an encrypted-external expansion drive or encrypted internal drive not always plugged-in or plugged-in always. This may be attached to a lone rig or to several. This system is for forum only. Other work are done on 2 other rigs which serves a different purpose and are secured. Now you may state that "not all are really secured" but then again...you are pointing something which you see as irregular and suggesting (even for a just a teeny-weeny inch) to consider changing a habit or something because you are what? Truly concerned?

You supposed something that is correct in your conscience but really took the extra grand effort to make a BIG FUSS about it and then make out something out of it via your IMHO and then make it MORE credible stating it is unsafe and may etc etc etc...Huh...?

What kind of "humble" is there...? Where is it..? There isn't anything close to a "humble" there because you took the extra effort to make the mistake so grand and then poke at my habits.

Is that "humble" enough by your "humble opinion" standards Sir...?

The "IMHO" usage is getting way out of line because more than often the peculiarities where it is used does not warrant a "humble" scenario. It may be just to avoid or make the person a bit meek/mild, not very technical or not well informed of the subject at hand, place a bit space for a waiver/evasion/deniability or making a statement kinder, or self-efface or trying to be modest or just plain using it because it was fast becoming a norm.

You Sir, are in a different league / class I cannot even ponder. You are way out of line.

You made a BIG FUSS of a clear mistake (you, yourself supposed and felt in your gut and conscience "was" a mistake).

You "glorified" that mistake, made it BIG and made it more credible by poking at my habits...?

You are way out of line as this is "clearly" VERY "far out" of that "mistake"...

There isn't anything close to a "humble" there too!

8. Yes and no. Certainly it is somethng for their support, from pure technical point of view. However, again in my opinion, it should be contained in any neutral review that there are some incompatibilities and that WinRAR cannot be used as an universal packer-unpacker, because some 7zip archives cannot be correctly unpacked. This is some disadvantage, similar in its sound to the size comparison you made, where for large floder size of WinRAR generated archive is a bit bigger than the one created with tis competitors.

-- You were looking for something that as I have "already" stated not considered.

The review was for version 5.60 -- product walkthrough and parts of "what's new". My dear Sir, isn't that clear and self-explanatory?

"However, again in my opinion," -- well that does not cut it there. I already stated -- product walkthrough and parts of "what's new"

My dear Sir, isn't that clear to you? It's as clear as rain.

You could have asked if it was considered? But then again it was not. And that is also clear as rain.

Because plain and simple (as stated), the review was for version 5.60 -- product walkthrough and parts of "what's new".

You point out an issue that is previously unresolved (as you put it and have stated been sent to WinRAR from 2013 - 2015) and you are now here stating that it should have been contained in the review which was for version 5.60 (-- product walkthrough and parts of "what's new" only).

For the record, WinRAR did not even state that in the "What's New" list. Thus it was not even considered.

Moreso even WinRAR has not considered it (as you attest by them not replying to your tickets since 2013). Why? You surely do not know. Especially me!

The product descriptions of WinRAR ver 5.60 do not contain it. Nor did the WinRAR ver 5.60 version changes.

How may I be able to "include" or "consider" that which is not in the "What's New" list of WinRAR version 5.60..? HOW? Pray tell..

9. Thanks for the suggestion. Actually, if someone from the devs is looking here: could you guys reply to the tickets related to this issue, which I have sent (if my memory is not failing me, I can digg in my mailboxes upon request) in 2013, 2014 and 2015, because after that I simply gave up sending the feedback, please? Thanks in advance. Not to mention that resolving the problem would be nice as well.

-- I meant that. Also the professional way to do it is go send (again) and follow-up whatever issues you have with WinRAR.

Do not do it here under the guise of "However, again in my opinion, it should be contained in any neutral review..." because clearly that statement is maligning and very plainly calling this review "not neutral". You are way out of line my dear Sir.

IN THE SPIRIT OF FAIRNESS,

Have you pointed this "unresolved issue" in other WinRAR ver5.60 reviews in OTHER forums...?

Have you took the extra effort to point that out to any reviewer of WinRAR ver5.60 in OTHER forums?

Or,

you just singled this out to try and tell here that you have discovered something that is still unresolved and have been neglected by WinRAR...?

How I would love to see what the comments will be like in that different scenario....



It is an unresolved issue dating back from 2013 till now (as you stated). You are still looking for answers for those tickets you opened to WinRAR.

WinRAR reviews (will clearly) not include it as most reviews focus on the revision changelog and the product usage/usability.

You also were looking if someone was that technical (as you) to have discovered what you already have.

Have you found it?

What version was that when you encountered that issue? Is it version 5.60..?

You sent WinRAR feedback (since 2013) but have been neglected since 2013...? What versions were those..?

You have an issue with WinRAR developers and support, then by all means finish it with them.

I and this review is "non-technical" and will be "non-technical" as you Sir.

You are looking for something that is "clearly" not included in version changes or known bugs from 2013.

It seems that it is only you who is the expert on this issue.



For the record, this is a reply from WinRAR devs earlier,

We use 7zxa.dll library provided by Igor Pavlov, 7-Zip developer,
to decompress 7z archives. I am not aware of 7z archives which
cannot be unpacked with this library. But bugs are always possible.
If somebody has 7z archive which can be unpacked with 7-Zip and not
WinRAR, they are welcome to send an archive or link to such archive
to dev@rarlab.com We'll check this and fix bugs in WinRAR if any.

Please dig up those mailboxes of yours and get all those tickets ready (from 2013 to 2015) and send them to,

dev@rarlab.com

They are informed about the issue as they have read your replies here. State that this is an "unresolved issue from 2013-2015" pointed out in this review (include the link) so they will be reminded.

They will be waiting.


They will need ALL those tickets (from 2013 to 2015) to see what has happened.



When I did this review, I pointed out that I encountered issues also,

Specifically #12 and #20 in What's New -- (see "Re-enter password prompt (RAR)" and "Megabytes as default units for volume size" above)

I sent WinRAR those archives so they could test them out and see why I did not have the same result as them. That paved the way for more info I included in this review.

You will see in their reply (it's there very clear) they will be needing that "some 7zip archives that cannot be correctly unpacked" archive sample so they can verify and check out what is wrong.

Prepare it and please send it to them.

I have asked the developer to keep me informed on the developments of the matter at hand:

(1) When they have received your email with all the pertinent tickets with archive sample

and,

(2) What's the score with it.


I will post here whatever info is pertinent from the issue at hand.


You should open a thread about it as you and WinRAR tackle that "technical issue that is unresolved" since 2013. There may be technical people interested as to the resolution of this issue (since 2013). This thread will be very informative and the discussion that will surface may contain more data for the members of this forum. There will be always tips and ideas worth of adapting.

10. hope dies last, I believe that they do know about the incompatibility issue... But, lets see.

-- They do not as seen in the quoted reply I posted from WinRAR developers.

Overall: pls refer to last sentence of 1 above

-- Yes, thanks again.

To state that "dev approved" reviews publications, per se, such cannot be neutral.." is an outright arrogant / maligning behavior towards ANY reviewer. If you were immersed with such behavior then sorry for you. There are still good people. Even when I see a review elsewhere that seems a "kiss-ass" I always give the benefit of the doubt and do not point it out "point-blank / outrightly" as not neutral. Because making a review is a tedious thing even for non-technical people. We should be fair.

Settle what you need to settle with WinRAR (which you stated has been since 2013). Prepare all tickets and archive samples and send it to them. So you can rest your case and not look for it (flaunt your glorious find) in further/future reviews. Open a thread with regards to your interaction with WinRAR concerning your neglected issue from way back 2013 so members will be informed of the issue or bug and fix.

 

[jasonX]

This just came in just now via email,

We do not have a ticket based system. Rarlab.com "Feedback" section
mentions:

"if you have found a bug in RAR, you can report it to developers",

where "developers" is a link to dev@rarlab.com email. Everything sent
to dev@rarlab.com goes directly to my mailbox and I always reply to
bug reports, even if I cannot reproduce or fix them. Either he submitted
his reports somewhere else to a wrong address or it was not delivered
because of some technical issue. Anyway, if he has 7z archive which
cannot be unpacked with WinRAR, he is welcome to send it to
dev@rarlab.com now. If archive is larger than 20 - 30 MB, it is better
to send a link to be sure that email is not rejected because of
possible size restrictions somewhere on its way.

So what tickets were you talking about then...?

Anyway, dig up those mailboxes of yours and get all those tickets ready ( which you said you sent from 2013 to 2015). Attach the archive so WinRAR dev can check it out. The dev waiting isn't just a developer tech but one of the founders and is waiting on you.

Do not forget to quote the PZD review and link in the email you will be sending.

I will also be informed by the dev about this status.

Cheers!

 

[spamtrash]

 

[jasonX]

Ok, to go quickly to summary, to end the conversation.
4 and 5: for obvious reasons, devs will not approve some bits here and there. Presumably, that was a reason behing why you did not mentioned the inability to use the WinRAR as the exclusive and alone archiver on the machine, because it is remaining (for years) incompatible with some other, very popular archive formats in full. Because that would show not the problem which may (or not) be relatively easy to resolve, but the negligence in resolving by dev - I doubt if that part would be approved. Therefore, I doubt the neutrality.

-- Devs approve only to post or not. I do not enter into any agreement to post this "only" or post something "only". Its either to post the review as a whole or not. In the past Steganos has pointed out some negatives they want to be removed but I did not oblige. It is as I have said "I do not enter into any agreement to post this "only" or post something "only". Its either to post the review as a whole or not." Sales reiterated they want it removed so I did not post the Steganos Password Manager Review and just junked it. Offered to give back the licenses to them. In the end they offered it as free license. The review I still shelved.

AGAIN YOU ARE WAY OUT OF LINE BY ASSUMING WRONGLY. This is a classic example of how you judge without facts and then tailor it make you more credible

6 and 7: Yes, if it would be a personal data then certainly you would have a PM. Yes, if I'd spot that you are providing the link to live net resource which can be exploited, you would have a PM. Presumably with hardening config recommended. These were your local files, which presumably may reflect some web resources partially, as it could simplify the transfer. Well... I could potentially check the config and look for locations, assuming that you are using the similar structures elsewhere, but instead I just provided you with the tip - In My Humble Opinion.
Actually I decided to provide this tip not only to you, because actually I do not care where you are placing your files, but to others who may take a 5 minutes to read it, as the recommendation and demonstration how the easy to make mistake can lead to more serious consequences.
In my opinion it was better than to perform... a penetration tests (and I really do not have a time to it now even with your "poke" speeded motivation [ by the way, where you have learned to use such a language in a public conversation? Don't answer, I know, poke culture, poke standards, poke speech...], but some scripto kiddos certainly could).
I am really sorry that you do not see the potential consequences but again: it is up to you where you are placing your files and to whom you are showing their locations (which of course may be same for the forum server) and I am not paid to priovide you with basic education...
I do not wish you to change your habits, I do not wish to change the level of your assurance that such exposure will not have other consequences if you will continue this road....

-- NO. That does not cut it. Your line of reasoning there is unaccepted as it is clearly just to make yourself some kind of a guru so technical that we all should follow your beliefs. NO SIR, that does not cut it at all!

Do not assume that even for a moment that I will accept that as it is clear that your way of "pointing out/providing a tip" is ONLY to give you more credibility. Credibility that you made a BIG FUSS about a clear mistake that you were itching to point it out to the people who read the review.

Your intention was to make it known to all the readers of the review that I erred and made a mistake and want them all to know I did it. Make them see that the review that some "liked and appreciated" was flawed (by your standards).

You wanted them to recognize that and pointed out that it was "lacking" and was itching to add the very unresolved issue you discovered.

You want them to see how very technical and great you are to have saw the "clear mistake" and then added injury by ineserting your unresolved issue thing.

You wanted to make all those who "liked and appreciated" the review a bit embarrassed for doing so.

You really took the extra effort to tell them that AND make yourself credible and glorious for it. I bet that you even smiled/happy/contented when you see mistakes here and there in anything you delve into. The "feeling" of elation is sooo addictive to you. Glorious..huh?

Speaking about the wording, I believe that the English is not your native language based on the fact that you seem to be unable to use the spoken language and synonyms... and use too much of "poke". Anyway, I'd recommend you to seek for humble synonyms.

-- NO SIR THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE AT ALL. That is again a classic example of how you judge and malign people just to cover up your wrong, how you deal with people for your personal glory.

You are indeed in a class/league that is far-out arrogant.

There isn't anything closely resembling the "humble there TOO! Even now you continue to make your maligning behavior credible.


--

8. Well... you are right. Thanks for admitting that you have included only what is in the product description and in the "whats new" section. This explains my doubts. But, not necessarily about the bug present for years.

-- It has ALREADY ADMITTED that in reply#11. Do not make it look like that I just admitted it just now.

But, not necessarily about the bug present for years. This statement clarifies however some of my doubts, these related with the "neutral" review....

Cetrainly, (using your own words): if the review is containing ONLY "product walkthrough and parts of "what's new" only", ignoring anything what is not in the product description or/and in the wahts new list - it cannot be unbiased. For example, clearly whats new does not covers the known but unfixed bugs.

-- I and this review is "non-technical" and will be "non-technical" as you Sir. I am not that techical to delve into the other details because (as stated) I am not technical. It may simply not technical to you but on me it was. The reason I mentioned "parts".

Parts that for a non-technical guy like me understands and can show it to the readers. I already ALSO mentioned that this was NOT a full review.

I am not a guru so well endowed with knowledge and full of English understanding to delve into every inch of the software. You are making your assumptions to make you more credible by AGAIN making me look stupid to those who appreciated the review.

You generalize that if this review did not tackle that which is technical for me then it is biased? That is a lot of bull there. For the parts of the What's New that were (to me) non-techical and showed examples I did my best to showed examples and info for the reader. Well even you stated that,

So: overall good piece of work.

2. Of course. I must admit that your reviews are more (much more in some parts) comprehensive. So: see last sentence of 1 above.

But such compliments are nothing compared to how you directly malign me as the reviewer.

That is the kind of person you are and have shown the readers here.

I and this review is "non-technical" and will be "non-technical" as you Sir.

But let's end up with the "neutrality" digression and return to what's included and what's not. Sadly, I have to disagree with your above statement. If you would refer to the

Zaloguj lub Zarejestruj się aby zobaczyć!

page, you certainly could find the point 22 a) and b) but I am actually struggling to find any reference to it in your review...

So, we have got to the conclusion that you did not even implemented the "Whats new" in full.

Being pointed by you and looking closer, it seem to me that you've just picked out from the "Whats new" description the elements convenient to you...

-- AGAIN, I and this review is "non-technical" and will be "non-technical" as you Sir. I am not that techical to delve into the other details because (as stated) I am not technical. It may simply not technical to you but on me it was. The reason I mentioned "parts". Parts that for a non-technical guy like me understands and can show it to the readers. I already ALSO mentioned that this was NOT a full review. I am not a guru so well endowed with knowledge and full of English understanding to delve into every inch of the software.

Convenient...(suitable is the term for I am not that intellectual as you) to me (non-technical) because it is only where I can explain and show it correctly.

But not as convenient as you who continue to malign me to show the readers that they were wrong to have appreciated the review.

Truly you are an example of a class of person endowed with all the knowledge and skill who brag about it for whatever elation and glory it gives.

Has already been mentioned many times and as clear as rain. Surely you as a better class of person have seen it.

your superiors/reviewers from RARLab and placed it under the "neutral review" envelope.

-- NOW THIS ONE IS REALLY THE GOLD HERE. THIS IS "HOW" JUDGE PEOPLE.

You MALIGN MY MISTAKE BY MAKING A BIG FUSS OF IT MAKE IT MORE CREDIBLE BY SHOWING MORE OF IT, GLORIFYING IT SO THE READERS WILL KNOW HOW THEY ERRED IN THEIR APPRECIATION OF THE REVIEW. (MAKE THEM FEEL GUILTY THAT THEY DID)

THEN FOR THE LOVE OF GOD...."MY SUPERIORS".

They are NOT. They are my sponsors BUT it stops there.

HOW DARE YOU STATE THAT?

YOU SIR ARE WAY OUT OF LINE.

I earn NOTHING from them (I don't even need a license as I have my own perpetual one way back from a blog win) as with my other sponsors here and a Tweakbytes Forum. I DO ALL OF THIS FOR THE FORUM AND FORUM MEMBERS (those who join giveaways). I DO ALL OF THIS FOR FREE! I started this giveaway/contest endeavors for guardian who is my friend and mentor when we resurrected Tweakbytes Forum. He too encouraged me to join here and start doing contests here. I asked permission from the Admin and they agreed. I am doing this to honor the friendship that guardian shared with me even when he has moved on to other endeavors. Even when the Admin at Tweakbytes Forum seems to have left all alone there, we, the loyal members strive to at least keep something up in the contents. That is how we honor/respect each other there. I too carry it here and I see to it that the respect is shared towards Admin/staff.

You have maligned almost everything I did in this review thread and go the extra mile to label me further like a slave to a master.

This is how you show all the readers here HOW arrogant, maligning and self-important person you are. This is the kind of person you are.

How glorious of a behavior for one who has been here since 2014....

I wonder how many people, friends or family have you so eloquently downtrodden ...just to get that elating feeling of victory/glory.

Glory at the expense of others.

This is HOW you make a BIG FUSS of anything and I bet even in life.

How many have you offended or "humbly" humiliated...with this behavior of yours...just to get that elation or just to make you more credible as an intellectual person? Think about it....deeply.

Surely with what you have shown here someone (some people) has already pointed that ill behavior of yours before. This is how "humble" you are. How modestly you use "IMHO" but really have no intention of showing even a tiny bit of humbleness/modesty.

Humbly offending..humbly humiliating...

By what you have shown here (you may not know it or won't accept it) you have ALSO humiliated yourself.

Last but not least, in spirit of fairness. I believe that the herbs fumes can be dangerous, based on your imagination that I am crawling the whole internet to look for winrar reviews, especially for ver 5.60 on all forums available across the internet as a hobby.
I am a member of this forum, contrary to others, and I do not need to populate it elsewhere.

If you would like to see the "comments elsewhere", please feel free to read it under, for example, an interesting article from 2014 (which refers to re-discovery of the issue from 2009) here:

Zaloguj lub Zarejestruj się aby zobaczyć!

First paragraph describes breifly the nature.
It is (contrary to the statements like: "we're use TP dll library, if there is any error it is there. No, 7zip is not vulnerable because implementation differs. Implementation itself can and WILL change the outcome, as it is stated in the recommendation included in the last section of the cited by me article: "Jak uniknąć zagrożenia? W tym wypadku wystarczy nie korzystać z WinRARa do otwierania plików ZIP."
Feel free to use a Google Translate.

The nature of problems I could see in my case while (relatively rare, but still, I do have a license) I am using the WinRAR to open the zip files, points to similar cases.

It shows there "from 2014" and "from 2009".

I was asking,

IN THE SPIRIT OF FAIRNESS,


Have you pointed this "unresolved issue" in other WinRAR ver5.60 reviews in OTHER forums...?

Have you took the extra effort to point that out to any reviewer of WinRAR ver5.60 in OTHER forums?

WinRAR ver5.60 is 2018. HAVE YOU....?

Or you just singled me out..?

What's stopping you from going there, joining the forum and do what you did here? Grade and de-grade the review and reviewer there too...AND LETS SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

Have you found it? - Yes, please refer to above article and its sources.
For other: feel free to insert in Google: RARLab CVE. And yes, because "WinRAR - What's new in the latest version" (

Zaloguj lub Zarejestruj się aby zobaczyć!

) does cover rar/unrar (pls refer to pint 7 of the version 5.20 for example, I know that it is somehow lack of rar-winrar split, but it is not my decision to put them together) - please pay your attention to CVE-2012-6076, CVE-2014-9983, CVE-2017-12938, CVE-12940 to 12942 and CVE-2107-14122.

"You are looking for something that is "clearly" not included in version changes or known bugs from 2013." and "It seems that it is only you who is the expert on this issue."

Thank you. I believe that your statement supported by RARLab Support is absolutely true, and that the sentence: " WinRAR failed to unpack files in ZIP archives compressed with XZ algorithm and encrypted with AES", placed in Section 21 b) of the 5.60 "Whats new" on

Zaloguj lub Zarejestruj się aby zobaczyć!

page was written by some amateur, who presumably hacked into their webpage?
My belief goes even further because indeed, the Section 21 a) on the same page does not refer to any closed CVE, what would be expected if written by any proffessional, not to mention the expert, as reference.

Sadly, as you have said, " They do not as seen in the quoted reply I posted from WinRAR developers." so maybe the bug was closed by someopne else on their behalf? I hope not , I hope that only the bug closure in relation to ZIP format was written by somoene else. It would be really bad if someone would messed with the software without the RARLab knowledge.

The sentences like:"They will be waiting."... well, believe me, I do learn. "They" were ignoring my emails for years. "They" were ignoring the proper implementation of ZIP files.
So, I wish them a happy waiting, while I will use the alternatives...

EOT for me in both. I do have understand better why WinRAR is an unique example of "aeternal 30days" shareware now.

You have an issue with WinRAR developers and support, then by all means finish it with them.

YOU WILL NOT FIND THE SOLUTION HERE.

You clearly have an axe to grind with WinRAR from way back. Then by all means TAKE IT TO THEM!

You used this review thread to show how very intellectually gifted you are (in terms of true knowledge/intellect AND true conceitedness).

You used us here as an example of that deep antipathy you have towards what WinRAR did (by neglecting you) and you never did held back till that "antipathy " of yours was known to all.

GO and finish it with WinRAR!

Stop explaining how you got neglected etc..etc...GO and finish it with WinRAR! (and stop stating that you were "Oh so very neglected by WinRAR for the so and so..)

By the TICKETS, I did mentioned emails sent to info at ..., which although delivered, were never responded. Normal support would:
receive the email;
record the issue in their system, assigning the TICKET or ID number;
acknolwedge reception and reply.

Sadly, in my case the company behind the RAr program struck on the step one of this procedure for three times, and never stepped beyond the reception of my email. And you can believe me or not but since RAR is not exclusive tool (and not even recommended) to work with most popular archives because of long term security and incompatibility issues (references in the spoiler below and please do refer to section 21 b of reviewed "neutrally" while concentrating on whats new) - I have simply used other tools instead of staying with the [licensed, paid] not working soft, while fighting to deserve to have my email being read.

Therefore, I am done with wasting my time for sending further emails to them.

Therefore, I am done with wasting my time for sending further emails to them.

THAT'S PLAIN BULL THERE!


WHY STOP NOW?

You already threw the gauntlet!!!! THE CHALLENGE IS ON!

GO AND PROVE THEM ALL WRONG!

PREPARE ALL PERTINENT DATA (EMAIL/ARCHIVE SAMPLES)!

SEND IT ALL TO THEM!

Surely you cannot stop now because CHALLENGE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED! They are waiting.

You should now prove to us here (and WinRAR) this "unresolved issue" you are wailing about. You already threw the gauntlet!!!! THE CHALLENGE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED! They are waiting.

An earlier email reply states,

Nothing from him yet.

WHAT'S STOPPING YOU NOW?

Don't you see the "now" in red,

Prepare ALL pertinent data(email/archive sample) and send it to them.

SEND IT ALL TO WINRAR. NOW!!!!!

PROVE THEM WRONG so as you'll get that glorious feeling of elation again you always wanted.

Or you don't have all pertinent data now with you...? (I believe you still have it..)

SO GO AND PROVE THEM ALL WRONG! SEND THE PDF OF ALL EMAILS FROM 2013 - 2015 TO WINRAR. NOW!!!!!

SEND THAT ARCHIVE SAMPLES TO WINRAR. NOW!!!!!

HAVE IT TESTED SO WE CAN ALL KNOW HOW IT GOES!

SO THAT YOU CAN STOP wailing how you were "Oh, so very neglected" (did not see how very intellectual you are etc etc)

While you and WinRAR ar at it, open a different thread with regards to this "unresolved issue" showing your interaction with WinRAR so members will be informed of the issue and what's the real score with it.

I am a non-technical. Perhaps others here are not. Others may also be non-technical. Not very intellectual. Not very good in English. But the result of this is and will be VERY INTERESTING TO READ HERE.

SO GO AND PROVE THEM ALL WRONG! SEND IT ALL TO WINRAR. NOW!!!!!

You already threw the gauntlet!!!! THE CHALLENGE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED! They are waiting.

Don't you DARE use,

Therefore, I am done with wasting my time for sending further emails to them.

It is you who started the "my personal flavour" issue. You iniated it. You threw the gaunlet. Challenge is "on". Now "challenge has been accepted". They are waiting.
DEAL WITH IT TOGETHER WITH WINRAR DEVS! They are eager to get a crack at what so say (they neglected) see the PDF of all those emails from 2013 to 2015 especially the archive samples.

Prove to us here that you WILL NOT back down from the very challenge you initiated. DEAL WITH IT TOGETHER WITH WINRAR DEVS!

So you can show the world you were right. So everyone will know and see that you are indeed the great intellectual that you are!

SO YOU CAN STOP your incessant wailing here how you were..."Oh, so very neglected" (did not see how very intellectual you are etc etc)

I applaud your outright arrogant / maligning behavior towards me, this review thread (along with the indirect maligning behavior you intentionally showed to those who appreciated the review). Nothing "humble" there even if you state it is. Just plain and simple arrogance with self-important behavior.

Thank you for your service!

 

[spamtrash]

 

[tarekma7]

Thanks jasonx for the effort you do in preparing this comprehensive review

I was thinking to comment on all points of strength and weakness in the review and add many points and criticism

However, I will only comment on one point: please you can reply to any user point by point with no need to mention other reviewers in any other website, forum or blog. We can leave this point to the developer. No need to use words like kiss-ass and similar expressions as this will add nothing to the review and to any topic.

There are many types of reviews present over the web, you are using the type which needs a lot of effort. However, this doesn't mean that it is the only correct or good type and others are just overview

Again i will not discuss anything else here.

 

[jasonX]

@spamtrash,

This is a "convenient" way for you as you yourself have evaded more important parts especially the challenge you have thrown and that has been accepted..There it is.

Actually I decided to provide this tip not only to you, because actually I do not care where you are placing your files, but to others who may take a 5 minutes to read it, as the recommendation and demonstration how the easy to make mistake can lead to more serious consequences.
In my opinion it was better than to perform... a penetration tests (and I really do not have a time to it now even with your "poke" speeded motivation [ by the way, where you have learned to use such a language in a public conversation? Don't answer, I know, poke culture, poke standards, poke speech...], but some scripto kiddos certainly could).
I am really sorry that you do not see the potential consequences but again: it is up to you where you are placing your files and to whom you are showing their locations (which of course may be same for the forum server) and I am not paid to priovide you with basic education...
I do not wish you to change your habits, I do not wish to change the level of your assurance that such exposure will not have other consequences if you will continue this road....

--The DECENT thing to do here (if YOU really wants to help or inform) is to open a dedicated thread how to construct properly a document file structure. So everyone will be guided. But what did he do here Sir..? For a simple mistake of blurring the file path YOU make me look stupid and hmiliate me MORE? This is UNCALLED FOR and way out of line!

Is that simple "blurring" mistake SO GREAT warranting humiliation and be labeled as biased short of conniving with WinRAR...? This s how "humbly conceited" you are!

Therefore, I am done with wasting my time for sending further emails to them.

Choosing not to do so is simply plain evasion for reasons unknown. Choosing not to is cowardice in itself because it is YOU who initiated the challenge that was accepted.

You should prove to this community and to WinRAR that you are correct. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS YOURS ALONE.

You should have it out with WinRAR. Man up! They are waiting!

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

@tarekma7,

However, I will only comment on one point: please you can reply to any user point by point with no need to mention other reviewers in any other website, forum or blog. We can leave this point to the developer. No need to use words like kiss-ass and similar expressions as this will add nothing to the review and to any topic.

There are many types of reviews present over the web, you are using the type which needs a lot of effort. However, this doesn't mean that it is the only correct or good type and others are just overview

I would like to seek pardon to you tarekma7 for I may have offended you. I would like to make it clear that the offense was meant to spamtrash. He started to malign and the humiliate me (point-blank) and then proceeded to further it by making it credible. The bash and attack is uncalled for. The term is not intended for your review as I have read it and liked it actually. You and I know that it takes time and effort to make a review. His comments about non-neutrality srikes at the very ones who do reviews and I will not stand for that. It is unfair to us who do it.

As stated previously along the course of the comments,

To state that "dev approved" reviews publications, per se, such cannot be neutral.." is an outright arrogant / maligning behavior towards ANY reviewer. If you were immersed with such behavior then sorry for you. There are still good people. Even when I see a review elsewhere that seems a "kiss-ass" I always give the benefit of the doubt and do not point it out "point-blank / outrightly" as not neutral. Because making a review is a tedious thing even for non-technical people. We should be fair.

Settle what you need to settle with WinRAR (which you stated has been since 2013). Prepare all tickets and archive samples and send it to them. So you can rest your case and not look for it (flaunt your glorious find) in further/future reviews. Open a thread with regards to your interaction with WinRAR concerning your neglected issue from way back 2013 so members will be informed of the issue or bug and fix.

If he has done it on you I will defend yours as I did mine.

He has only singled me out here (I dunno perhaps) for his axe with WinRAR....

Again pardon and sorry for the remark. It was meant to strike at the very foundation of how he sees it. The overview thing we have discussed previously via PM (I remember).

Thanks there.

 

[spamtrash]

 

[jasonX]

This is a statement with regards to the issue pointed out by spamtrash in the WinRAR rev5.60 Review. The developer gave permission to post it here NOT blurring his email and name. As of the moment there is no communication from spamtrash of the evidences of "tickets" via email correspondences as well as archive samples that WinRAR is waiting to test and check out.

See image of screenshot below.

This for the informaton of all readers here so they are properly informed of the matter of the "unresolved issue" pointed out
by spamtrash.


Any information as to the development of this "unresolved issue" will be posted here un-biased of whatever it is the result. WinRAR is currently waiting for spamtrash to follow through with his pertinent data.

Choosing not to do so is simply plain evasion for reasons unknown. Choosing not to is cowardice in itself because it is YOU who initiated the challenge that was accepted.

You should prove to this community and to WinRAR that you are correct.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS YOURS ALONE.

You should have it out with WinRAR. Man up! They are waiting!

 

[jasonX]

Additional information with regards to the issue of this "unresolved" claim of spamtrash. WinRAR is STILL currently waiting for data to substantiate the "unresolved" claim. No communication still that will support such claim.

Until proven otherwise or without the pertinent data sent the claim of unresolved issue is and will remain "false".

 

[jasonX]

Until proven otherwise or without the pertinent data sent the claim of unresolved issue is and will remain "false".

 

[spamtrash]