Most of you can skip straight to the PROs and CONs section
Why do we still use a format with a locked development, and no extra abilities ?
Because of a "Catch-22"
It is only the standard in OSs because it was popular, not popular because it is a standard part of an OS.
Spoiler
If RAR had been more popular, then that is what the OSs would all support.
RAR was also developed with OS integration in mind, and Microsoft and others, are welcome (and very capable) of integrating the free RAR.dll and UnRAR.dll into their OSs, just the same as the ZIP.dll.
Until people swap to using modern (and still developed) compression, the OS makers have no need to support it.
Therefore the educated amongst us, have to drag the industry and users forward.
The gap between the power at your finger-tips, and the ability to use it is growing, because too much is hidden from the user.
The industry loves this general level of ignorance, because it means it call sell you stuff you already have, or can have for free.
Look online and you will find many crappy companies selling ZIP-based programs, even though no one theoretically needs them as it is built in to the OS.
I imagine that in 50 years time people will still be using the old dead ZIP format, simply because they don't have to think about it.
This is the same issue as video and audio formats included in any OS that fail to be updated.
People still make GIF and single-pass AVI files because they are "standard" and the default settings work, yet fail to think that new better standards have already arrived (many years ago), but are only not yet in standard use, because of the lack of use. Again "Catch-22".
MP4 video finally became used as a standard because of mobile devices and people finally realised how good it was for streaming.
Most video you see now streaming online or in a flash player is 2-pass VBR H264/AVC MP4.
Basically everyone can play this format on almost anything, but when most people rip a movie they still use the old, non-streaming AVI container format, that does not support AAC audio
WHY ?
Oh something to do with standards.
RAR was also developed with OS integration in mind, and Microsoft and others, are welcome (and very capable) of integrating the free RAR.dll and UnRAR.dll into their OSs, just the same as the ZIP.dll.
Until people swap to using modern (and still developed) compression, the OS makers have no need to support it.
Therefore the educated amongst us, have to drag the industry and users forward.
The gap between the power at your finger-tips, and the ability to use it is growing, because too much is hidden from the user.
The industry loves this general level of ignorance, because it means it call sell you stuff you already have, or can have for free.
Look online and you will find many crappy companies selling ZIP-based programs, even though no one theoretically needs them as it is built in to the OS.
I imagine that in 50 years time people will still be using the old dead ZIP format, simply because they don't have to think about it.
This is the same issue as video and audio formats included in any OS that fail to be updated.
People still make GIF and single-pass AVI files because they are "standard" and the default settings work, yet fail to think that new better standards have already arrived (many years ago), but are only not yet in standard use, because of the lack of use. Again "Catch-22".
MP4 video finally became used as a standard because of mobile devices and people finally realised how good it was for streaming.
Most video you see now streaming online or in a flash player is 2-pass VBR H264/AVC MP4.
Basically everyone can play this format on almost anything, but when most people rip a movie they still use the old, non-streaming AVI container format, that does not support AAC audio
WHY ?
Oh something to do with standards.
Spoiler
Until recent years developers still had to pay licence, for adding GIF saving to their programs, even though the free replacement (written by the same guy) has been available since 1996.
The Amiga world took to it straight away, as most Amiga users are intelligent and handsome/beautiful with excellent taste in everything. They are also great cooks and lovers.
Every program supported it, and it was added to the OS datatypes, so if your program did not support it natively it did not matter.
The Apple world also took to it, as they are like magpies with a shiny new thing, which is why Mac owners had proper transparent PNG support in their browsers (even Internet Explorer) way before Windows users.
The Linux world took to it, as they are a wise and are used to comparing many choices. Indeed many of the Amiga PNG CoDecs were Linux ports.
In the Windows95 world, they were still trying to catch-up with a new era of multi-tasking.
I remember tying to explain to a guy who taught IT, why multi-tasking was a good thing. He did not get it. He kept insisting "but I can only do 1 thing at a time"
PNG support in the Windows world seems to be held back by peoples experience with it in Photoshop.
This is not based on my opinion, but what I have witnessed with the list of programs and level of support, on the official PNG site.
Every version of photoshop I have used has been very lacking in PNG options, so to your average user they would have no idea of the benefits.
The majority of peoples graphics experience and expectations is based around photoshop, so they will never know any different.
Most users also are unaware that PNG 24/32bit is the replacement for TIFF, so because people don't use it instead of TIFF, it will never replace it. "Catch-22".
The Amiga world took to it straight away, as most Amiga users are intelligent and handsome/beautiful with excellent taste in everything. They are also great cooks and lovers.
Every program supported it, and it was added to the OS datatypes, so if your program did not support it natively it did not matter.
The Apple world also took to it, as they are like magpies with a shiny new thing, which is why Mac owners had proper transparent PNG support in their browsers (even Internet Explorer) way before Windows users.
The Linux world took to it, as they are a wise and are used to comparing many choices. Indeed many of the Amiga PNG CoDecs were Linux ports.
In the Windows95 world, they were still trying to catch-up with a new era of multi-tasking.
I remember tying to explain to a guy who taught IT, why multi-tasking was a good thing. He did not get it. He kept insisting "but I can only do 1 thing at a time"
PNG support in the Windows world seems to be held back by peoples experience with it in Photoshop.
This is not based on my opinion, but what I have witnessed with the list of programs and level of support, on the official PNG site.
Every version of photoshop I have used has been very lacking in PNG options, so to your average user they would have no idea of the benefits.
The majority of peoples graphics experience and expectations is based around photoshop, so they will never know any different.
Most users also are unaware that PNG 24/32bit is the replacement for TIFF, so because people don't use it instead of TIFF, it will never replace it. "Catch-22".
Spoiler
I remember sitting in the boardroom while an argument raged around me, about whether we should be using these non-standard things in our web-sites.
There were (and are still) alternatives. I still prefer REBOL to Java and Perl (mostly because I can understand it better, and it is smaller).
Both these things are still optional extras for a browser, requiring a user to DL something. This is nothing new of difficult for users.
Requiring a user to install RAR or 7zip, is nothing new, special or difficult (especially as they are ad-free sites and programs).
All PCs made by the company I started with, and ever since, have all been pre-installed with WinRAR.
There were (and are still) alternatives. I still prefer REBOL to Java and Perl (mostly because I can understand it better, and it is smaller).
Both these things are still optional extras for a browser, requiring a user to DL something. This is nothing new of difficult for users.
Requiring a user to install RAR or 7zip, is nothing new, special or difficult (especially as they are ad-free sites and programs).
All PCs made by the company I started with, and ever since, have all been pre-installed with WinRAR.
If it is important that a file be openable by a chimp, then you can always make SFX files with whichever archiver you choose.
Final distro for an end user, and an archive intended for a power user can have different requirements.
PROS
Spoiler
Integrated ZIP:
Almost all OSs have native support. No software necessary to unpack.
New algorithms have been included in Windows Service Packs (sometimes) and full ZIP programs.
Available as a DLL
A Chimpanzee may be able to operate it.
7zip:
Multiple algorithms for different datatypes.
Multiple base routines for different datatypes.
Huge dictionary sizes allow huge compression rates.
Can make custom ZIP files with higher compression.
Simple interface.
Good OS integration.
Easy to make self-extracting files.
Opens the other formats.
Still developed.
Available as a DLL
A small child can operate it.
RAR:
Multiple algorithms for different datatypes.
Large dictionary sizes allow better compression rates.
Simple and customisable interface.
Very good OS integration (format conversion can also be switched on).
Browses the filesystem faster than Windows Explorer.
Integrated Virus checking (Uses your AV via command line).
Easy to make self-extracting files.
Opens the other formats.
Easy format conversion.
Recovery records allow complete reconstruction of damaged files (up to 10% can be missing or damaged).
Very regular development.
Available as a DLL
A small child can operate it.
Almost all OSs have native support. No software necessary to unpack.
New algorithms have been included in Windows Service Packs (sometimes) and full ZIP programs.
Available as a DLL
A Chimpanzee may be able to operate it.
7zip:
Multiple algorithms for different datatypes.
Multiple base routines for different datatypes.
Huge dictionary sizes allow huge compression rates.
Can make custom ZIP files with higher compression.
Simple interface.
Good OS integration.
Easy to make self-extracting files.
Opens the other formats.
Still developed.
Available as a DLL
A small child can operate it.
RAR:
Multiple algorithms for different datatypes.
Large dictionary sizes allow better compression rates.
Simple and customisable interface.
Very good OS integration (format conversion can also be switched on).
Browses the filesystem faster than Windows Explorer.
Integrated Virus checking (Uses your AV via command line).
Easy to make self-extracting files.
Opens the other formats.
Easy format conversion.
Recovery records allow complete reconstruction of damaged files (up to 10% can be missing or damaged).
Very regular development.
Available as a DLL
A small child can operate it.
CONS
Spoiler
Integrated ZIP:
Uses 1 algorithm at a time.
OS integrated versions only get updated in a service pack.
Extra algorithms rarely used due to backwards compatibility with OSs
No recovery records. You can only salvage some of the undamaged data.
Only opens ZIPs
4GB limit (unless you create ZIP64 files)
No virus checking.
7zip:
You have to install it.
Huge dictionary sizes require huge amounts of RAM to pack and unpack. This can make some files unable to unpack on low RAM PCs.
Can make custom ZIP files that only work reliably in 7zip.
The choice of algorithms is confusing, and you can end up with files that only work in 7zip.
The very simple interface is not flexible.
No recovery records. You can only salvage some of the undamaged data.
No virus checking.
RAR:
You have to install it.
You may have to tell it where your AntiVirus is.
Uses 1 algorithm at a time.
OS integrated versions only get updated in a service pack.
Extra algorithms rarely used due to backwards compatibility with OSs
No recovery records. You can only salvage some of the undamaged data.
Only opens ZIPs
4GB limit (unless you create ZIP64 files)
No virus checking.
7zip:
You have to install it.
Huge dictionary sizes require huge amounts of RAM to pack and unpack. This can make some files unable to unpack on low RAM PCs.
Can make custom ZIP files that only work reliably in 7zip.
The choice of algorithms is confusing, and you can end up with files that only work in 7zip.
The very simple interface is not flexible.
No recovery records. You can only salvage some of the undamaged data.
No virus checking.
RAR:
You have to install it.
You may have to tell it where your AntiVirus is.
But then obviously you are less likely to use one of Microsoft's own formats.
On the Amiga OS, we regularly add and update all the OS CoDecs, compressors and encryptors, so all programs that use them are equally up-to-date.
The Windows and Apple world will never be like that, so we all have to educate each other about "standards" and when to use them.
and what makes a standard, standard ?
If sticking with standard is things like;
Only using ZIP, Only using the software that came in the box, or "pushed" from a website, Not using Hi-Res or S3TC textures in UT, Not using Unreal 227i, and not using transparent PNGs, then the "standard" is rubbish