7-Zip 9.34 Alpha

 7-Zip

7-Zip is a open source file archiver with a high compression ratio. The program supports 7z, XZ, BZIP2, GZIP, TAR, ZIP, WIM, ARJ, CAB, CHM, CPIO, CramFS, DEB, DMG, FAT, HFS, ISO, LZH, LZMA, MBR, MSI, NSIS, NTFS, RAR, RPM, SquashFS, UDF, VHD, WIM, XAR, Z. Most of the source code is under the GNU LGPL license. The unRAR code is under a mixed license: GNU LGPL + unRAR restrictions. Check license information here: 7-Zip license.

You can use 7-Zip on any computer, including a computer in a commercial organization. You don't need to register or pay for 7-Zip.

The main features of 7-Zip are:

  • High compression ratio in new 7z format with LZMA compression
  • Compression ratio for ZIP and GZIP formats: 2-10 % better than the ratio provided by PKZip and WinZip
  • Strong AES-256 encryption in 7z and ZIP formats
  • Self-extracting capability for 7z format
  • Integration with Windows Shell
  • Powerful File Manager
  • Powerful command line version
  • Plugin for FAR Manager
  • Localizations for 74 languages

What's new after 7-Zip 9.33 alpha:

  • The BUG in 9.33 was fixed:
  • Command line version of 7-Zip could work incorrectly, if there is relative path in exclude filename optiton (-x) and absolute path as include filename.
  • The BUG in 9.26-9.33 was fixed:
  • 7-Zip could not open some unusual 7z archives that were created by another software (not by 7-Zip).
  • The BUG in 9.31-9.33 was fixed: 7-Zip could crash with switch -tcab.

Download: 7-Zip 9.34 Alpha | 7-Zip 64-bit | 1.3 MB (Open Source)
Download: 7-Zip Theme Manager 2.1
View: 7-Zip Website | Announcement

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Mp3tag 2.60

Next Story

Images of 5.5 inch screen part for iPhone 6 leaked

14 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Good question. Its been a really long time. When a new stable build finally does come out, it better be impervious to falling over.

I know...bad joke. I need to get some sleep. :)

I asked that on their forum and got the usual "there is nothing wrong with the alpha builds!!! You should use them" response, would be nice to have an up to date stable build, but I wouldn't hold out any hope

If there's "nothing wrong" with them, why the feck do they have the Alpha tag on them?

I refuse to roll out software branded as Alpha to thousands of clients in my organisation.

sanctified said,

Actually, what's unstable about these 'alphas'?

Twist that question back around onto the developers... if they were stable and they had confidence in them, why would they be stamping them as "Alpha"?

TCLN Ryster said,

Twist that question back around onto the developers... if they were stable and they had confidence in them, why would they be stamping them as "Alpha"?

A question already answered many times by them: As processor, operative system and memory technologies progress constantly they are always finding ways to to improve compression and decompression algorithms. They cant commit to a stable number version because the algorithms is constantly improving.

But those factors have been true of technology since it began. Its like saying you won't upgrade now because something better will come out next month. They could just do like browsers, keep the Alphas in the Dev Channel and release a "Stable" based on one of the alphas every few months. Otherwise it will be 2025 and they will still be in Alpha.

Sadelwo said,
But those factors have been true of technology since it began. Its like saying you won't upgrade now because something better will come out next month. They could just do like browsers, keep the Alphas in the Dev Channel and release a "Stable" based on one of the alphas every few months. Otherwise it will be 2025 and they will still be in Alpha.

It will. It's not unlike Google's former commitment to the beta label: a constant remainder that things could be better.

If this says alpha does not mean it is alpha quality.

sanctified said,

A question already answered many times by them: As processor, operative system and memory technologies progress constantly they are always finding ways to to improve compression and decompression algorithms. They cant commit to a stable number version because the algorithms is constantly improving.


That didn't stop them declaring 9.20 as stable. Besides, the very problem you describe is why such things as branching/forking exist. Draw a line in the sand, make a release fork and test the hell out of it before declaring it stable, all the while continuing development on your dev branch. It's basic software development for dummies 101, and the fact that the 7-Zip devs seem incapable of doing this sends a very clear message in my opinion.

TCLN Ryster said,

and the fact that the 7-Zip devs seem incapable of doing this sends a very clear message in my opinion.

And still you cannot find a better compression (size ratio) than this. So, what message could that be?

sanctified said,

And still you cannot find a better compression (size ratio) than this. So, what message could that be?

The message is that those controlling the releases are incompetent and/or they only want hobbyists and enthusiasts using the later versions. I'm not attempting to debate the merits of the software itself as I agree the compression ratios are great, only its version numbering and release mantra.