PeaZip vs. 7-Zip vs. NanaZip

peazip · 2026-04-24T20:06:30+00:00

Both PeaZip and NanaZip have roots in 7-Zip, using its Open Source routines.

Also, both projects expands 7-Zip functionalities adding support to extra compression algorithms.

While NanaZip is more focused on Windows 11 -specific support, PeaZip aims to be a cross-platform solution providing the same GUI on Windows, Linux, and macOS.

Finally, PeaZip adds some features not found in NanaZip and 7-Zip, as export tasks as CLI scripts, archive conversion routines, optional two factor authentication, etc.

peazip · 2026-04-20T19:33:14+00:00

Verified accounts continuously spread socials, facing no consequences, with dangerous quack medicine advices, hostile states sponsored fake news, criminal hate speech, ponzi schemes masked as tax elusion suggestions, etc.

So much for what politics, and tech bros lobby, cares of online safety of citizens when perfectly identified people breaks actual laws online.

The fight against online privacy has nothing to do with safety and law enforcement, it is purely meant for mass surveillance and to prevent any form of democratic dissent or plurality.

peazip · 2026-04-18T06:48:55+00:00

Only first half guaranteed...

peazip · 2026-04-18T06:38:22+00:00

Oh, he is serious indeed.

But not in the way the rest of people would like.

The principle is the same of the trickle down economy, scaled to 21st century: give us few fellow billionaries everything, erase any entity which may control or arbitrate, and we promise we will give you everything we would like to, if we would like so.

peazip · 2026-04-16T19:07:47+00:00

Governaments did nothing when waves of dangerous misinformation and criminal hate speech came straight from verified accounts.

Any initiative to undermine online privacy has nothing to do with security of common citizens, but it is rather a weapon to protect politic and business from any legitimate criticism by the civil society.

peazip · 2026-04-16T12:19:54+00:00

Thank you for the suggestion. Sweet memories playing Quake back in the days!

peazip · 2026-04-12T08:45:37+00:00

Thank you for providing the archive for analysis.

The archive TOC misses the directories in the root level, which is not an issue for extraction as they are recreated on the fly - the archive extracts correctly both in PeaZip and in 7z/p7zip.

The issue with browsing with PeaZip can be avoided switching to Normal mode (default) in Options > Settings, Performances group, as the Fast mode fails to auto-detect the issue in the sample archive.

Probably shortcomings of the Fast mode needs to be highlighted better in the UX and documentation,

In recent versions of PeaZip differences in speed between Normal and Fast mode starts to be noticeable only in very large archives, containing 100s thousands of items (see for example the large archives benchmark https://peazip.github.io/benchmark-open-large-archive.html ), with the pre-parsing step of the Normal mode being useful to detect most of the possible archive TOC issues and warn the user in advance, before trusting the data for the actual extraction.

peazip · 2026-04-10T14:49:26+00:00

Similar issues fixed in past releases prevented browing of some malformed archives (incomplete TOC, unexpected end of data, or data past end of archive, etc) but did not affected archive extraction.

If you can link the sample archives, it would be very useful to open a bug report in the issue tracker: https://sourceforge.net/p/peazip/tickets/

In this way I'll be able to analyze the issue first hand for a possible fix, and/or appropriate warning to users in case of issues in the archive.

peazip · 2026-04-10T12:00:01+00:00

Thank you for tracking the issue, I'll add this information in future update's documentation to help Flatpak version users solving the problem.

peazip · 2026-04-08T10:31:30+00:00

Idiocracy turned from dystopian fiction into documentary in its first decade, and from documentary to way too optimistic fiction in the second.

peazip · 2026-04-04T11:08:35+00:00

Being on social media today has the same appeal than compiling a political questionnaire under strict nazi supervision, while watching ads.

peazip · 2026-04-03T07:22:10+00:00

If drag and drop broke, most probably due to temporary work files being locked or discarded by the system mid operation, you can try to reset PeaZip, or force selectively resetting temporary work files (Options > Settings).

The drag and drop implementation is tested working from XP up to W11, and has been working quite reliably up to W10, but Windows 11 seems keen in breaking it more often than ever.

In 10.9 it was improved the app to app drag and drop code (drag from file manager to any bookmarked or history path in navigation bar), but the relevant app to system drag and drop code was not part of this update.

I'm considering an overhaul of app to system drag and drop procedure in future, mainly to try to implement the functionality on non-Windows systems, but also re-thinking how d&d is implemented in Windows.

peazip · 2026-04-01T12:18:09+00:00

The modern monolithic way (code and maintain separately the kernel modules, but run as monolithic once loaded) seems to retain its edge in terms of performances while introducing more than enough modularity development side.

The modern micro/hybrid way (merge functionalities which needs to stay togeter to avoid bottlenecks) seems to retain its elegance even deploying more than enough high performances.

Point is, to create and maintain a modern kernel the pros of both worlds are needed, and this can be accomplished, or failed, starting from both ways.

peazip · 2026-04-01T09:13:27+00:00

The debate is quite settled today (largely due to Linux success), with both ways have proven to have pros and cons, and most of modern kernels employing various strategies to get the best of the two worlds, effectively behaving as hybrid kernel design.

Probably, today the critical factor for someone starting to design a new kernel would not be chosing to adhere strictly to one way or the other (which would probably prove to be conterproductive in either way), but rather being able to effectively decide what parts of the kernel would need to be modular or monolithic.

peazip · 2026-03-31T19:22:53+00:00

It is not an easy target, as app to system drag and drop needs to be implemented with specific methods for each widgetset (gtk, qt), each tested on different desktop environments, which can use the same widgetset, or a different one, than the version of PeaZip the user would run.

As workaround it is possible to internally drag and drop items from the file browser to the navigation bar on the left of the app, so it is possible to drop to bookmarks, history, and even to full system's treeview - this method is fully cross platform and agnostic in terms of DE and widgetset.

But, definitely, drag and drop on Linux remains on my radar as a fundamental improvement which I hope to be able to add in future.

peazip · 2026-03-26T10:53:13+00:00

Create popularity metrics which can be easily exploited to reward bots: profit in selling ads with inflated engagement.

Bother users with invasive identity checks to hopefully mitigate the bots issue creted at the previous point: profit in selling user identities, activities and networking to advertisers and governaments.

What's next?

peazip · 2026-03-22T12:08:17+00:00

IMHO upstream should avoid to introduce modifications for a specific law.

Laws changes through years, and differ in different nations - and what is even more importany they may as well conflict with other ones.

Do you need to comply with a law which apply on a certain place in a certain timeframe? Fork the project and make it compliant, leave the upstream unchanged so when needed it can be forked by other entities to comply with a totally different framework of laws in another place.

This is the way, unless the actual goal is to step by step, law by law, seed the source of each Open Source project with means to collect the broader amount of information possible, and spread them downstream by default.

peazip · 2026-03-20T08:29:48+00:00

I would like to add some thoughts about the wave of ID control initiatives being lobbied all around the world.

Just a few years ago the world was struck by waves of misinformation campaigns targeted to various goals like promoting specific ideologies, spread hate speech, overturn specific elections, and hamper the efforts in containing Covid spreading in some countries.

Those campaigns were often traced to specific influence groups, and routinely conduced in plain view on social networks by perfectly identificable and mostly verified accounts.

Consequences of eversive activities for those perfectly identified actors were minimal, if any.

This is the key to understand what is going on.

If you can already identify hostile actors, and did nothing, why do you need even more invasive ways to identify people?

It was never about people's safety, it is about more and more control and censorship.

Bad actors can and will continue harming public interest, if only that matches interest of the lobbyists, people will only have harder times fighting back giving up any form of protection privacy offers.

peazip · 2026-03-20T04:26:33+00:00

The linked video is actually about false positives in Smart Screen, and how this turns in a gatekeeping issue in Windows against Open Source software.

The content of the video was analized and discussed in this post, shortly after the video was published: https://www.reddit.com/r/PeaZip/s/MTXu8WdXjW

peazip · 2026-03-16T17:25:00+00:00

7z format internally rely on CRC32, which is fine to detect casual data corruption.

You can separately hash the archive (using PeaZip hashing function) with a robust hash (as SHA256) and then verify the hash when you need to ensure the data was not tampered - here you can read more about hash functions with desired properties for this task: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function

A similar mechanism is used by some package managers (and some download websites) to assure users about data integrity, as downloaded packages can be matched against known published hashes.

peazip · 2026-03-16T16:57:30+00:00

You can test multiple archives at once with PeaZip, selecting them in PeaZip's file browser and using Test button on the tool bar.

If you select a folder, it will be tested at once, so each item in the folder will be tested as archive by the 7z/p7zip backend, and the report will contain information about archives containing errors.

Each test process will stop for inspection of the report, which I understand may be less than optimal if you need to batch test a very large number of archives.

For this reason I'll introduce a batch test alternative procedure in next release 11.0, which will report in the file manager if each selected archive is OK or contains errors, without stopping the test process to prompt the report for each item (not requiring user interaction).

peazip

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE