WinRAR and 7-Zip running slow on Windows 8.1

I’ve recently made the transition over to Windows 8.1. On this OS, I'm finding that both WinRAR and 7z are painfully slow—we're talking roughly 400kB/s—when compared to my old experience with Windows XP. At least, that's how it looks on my end.
Is there any way to actually speed these programs up?
Furthermore, I can't help but notice that File Explorer in Windows 8.1 feels significantly clunkier than it did in XP. Is this just a personal observation, or is it a known flaw in the system? Does this imply that Windows 8.1 is more demanding on RAM?
Is there anything at all I might be able to do to mitigate this before I look into upgrading my RAM?
Thanks

it says right here what the bare minimum specs are
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-AU/w...m-requirements

Lawrence Barnes64 said:it lists the minimum specs right here
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/w...m-requirements

Well, I actually meet those minimum requirements, and then some.

How are you measuring the speed? On that machine—was it running Windows XP before they moved up to Windows 8? I guess if you could list the full specs, it would help us get a better idea.

Also, when you're compressing files or folders, there's that Compression level option—you can pick a faster method, though you might lose out on some compression, or go for maximum compression, but then things will definitely slow down.

The whole topic of compression is pretty broad, honestly—there's a ton of info out there.

George Sanders37 said:How exactly are you measuring the speed? On that machine of yours, was it running Windows XP before the upgrade to Windows 8? If you wouldn't mind, go ahead and list the full configuration—just so we can get a clear picture of what we're dealing with.

When you're compressing files or entire folders, you'll notice there's an option for the Compression level. It’s essentially a trade-off: you can opt for a faster method if you're in a rush, though you'll end up with a lower compression ratio. On the flip side, if you set it to maximum compression, you'll get a much smaller file size, but be prepared—it’s going to take significantly longer to process.

The subject of compression is incredibly vast, and there is just an overwhelming amount of material to sift through.

The current setup on my machine is running Windows 8.1, having previously been on Windows XP.
System Specs: AMD ii X2 250 @ 3.01 GHz; 1 GB RAM; 32-bit OS; 64-bit Processor.
If I’m grasping the terminology correctly here, I’m not actually performing any compression; I am simply unpacking RAR and ZIP files.
Thank you.

Where exactly are those compressed files located? On a hard drive, a thumb drive, or some other kind of media? A speed of 400 kB/s is definitely way too slow.

George Sanders37 said:Where exactly are these compressed files located? On a hard drive, a thumb drive, or some other kind of media? A transfer rate of 400 kB/s is undeniably sluggish.

an external hard drive

Have you guys tried running any tests on an external drive to check out the actual read and write speeds? For instance, maybe something like http://usbflashspeed.com/?

cosmicsailor56 said:So, I've got Windows 8.1 running on this machine now, whereas it used to be Windows XP.
Specs: AMD ii X2 250; 3.01 GHz; 1 GB RAM, 32-bit OS, 64-bit Processor
If I'm grasping the terminology correctly, I'm not actually compressing anything; I'm just unpacking RAR and ZIP folders.
Thanks.

1GB of RAM and Windows 8.1?!

Honestly, thank goodness the OS even boots up, let alone that you can actually get any work done in it. 🤦

Honestly, you could probably get Windows XP running on that machine without much trouble, even if Windows 8.1 just won't cooperate. 😁

Adam Morales45 said:One gig of RAM and Windows 8.1? That’s a bold move.

It’s a good thing you’re just getting the OS to boot up rather than actually having to get any real work done in it. 🤦

In practice, it feels like you're riding a limping Donkey.😁 Good grief, the thing even has a wooden leg. You really need to throw at least another gig of RAM into that rig before you can call it functional. Honestly, it feels like for the record, you didn't even realize that running Windows 7/8.1 on a machine with only 1GB of memory is basically a fool's errand.🍿

So, you're seriously running a 32-bit version of Windows on a 64-bit processor?
And man, one gig of RAM is basically nothing these days—it’s barely enough just to keep the OS breathing, which is why it's sitting right at the minimum requirements, even if you're claiming you've got more than that...

Lawrence Barnes64 said:Are you running a 32-bit version of Windows on a 64-bit processor?
One gigabyte is incredibly low; that’s barely enough just to keep things spinning, which explains why it's sitting right at the minimum requirements—yet you mentioned having more than the minimum...

Thanks, everyone.