A Windows 98 & ME forum. Win98banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Win98banter forum » Windows 98 » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

7-Zip



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 24th 10, 09:38 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Angus Rodgers[_2_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 113
Default 7-Zip


As far as I can tell from doing a few experiments with 7-Zip,
reading the documentation that comes with it, and browsing a
few pages of the 7-Zip Support forum at SourceForge, 7-Zip
entirely lacks an absolutely basic feature of WinZip, which
is essential for saving and restoring complex structures of
files and directories (folders): namely, that you can add to
a specified archive any specified set of files together with
all its path information. This seems especially odd, as 7-Zip
is perfectly capable of understanding the directory structure
of an archive created by WinZip. It displays the information
differently: whereas WinZip shows the path information in a
column headed "Path", 7-Zip shows directories as icons in its
own window, and gives a "flat" display of all the files and
directories in any directory you select, thus behaving rather
like a version of Windows Explorer (and indeed it is described
as a "File Manager", rather than a compression and archiving
utility).

I know I'm inclined to give up too easily, so am I missing
something here? Is it a question of reading more carefully
through all the documentation on the command-line version of
the program, with all its interacting options?

--
Angus Rodgers
  #2  
Old February 24th 10, 10:28 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
thanatoid
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2,299
Default 7-Zip

Angus Rodgers wrote in
:

As far as I can tell from doing a few experiments with 7-Zip,


SNIP

Without reading all of that (I am NFG in the mornings either, in
fact I use coffee and the Usenet to wake up), I tried it.

I just zipped 3MB's of stuff (3 dirs), took about 1.5 seconds,
unzipped into 3 separate dirs in about 2 seconds. Also, there
are 30 other free or free trial zip programs you can use instead
of 7-zip. Google "free compression program". Why are you afraid
of a totally harmless program? Just do SOMETHING.

And never mind the **** left behind by WinZip. It'll just sit
there. Also, as a comment on your other post, the name of
practically every uniquely weird file that SOME program uses has
been adapted as a Trojan or virus container precisely because
few people ever notice them.

One thing at a time.



--
The lonely child plays with eternity, while a gang of children
plays with time.
Karel Capek
  #3  
Old February 24th 10, 11:16 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Angus Rodgers[_2_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 113
Default 7-Zip

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:28:18 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid
wrote:

Why are you afraid of a totally harmless program?


If I don't answer that, I hope you won't mind, and also won't
infer that there is no answer that could have been given.

Just do SOMETHING.


I thought I just had. I re-read through that entire long WinZip
thread, and compiled a list of every single suggestion made. I
uninstalled Spybot. (No problems there.) I installed 7-Zip. I
created several of my usual backup archives using 7-Zip, copied
them over the LAN in the normal way, and opened them with WinZip
on the other PC. No path data!

Here's an experiment. Consider the following structure of files
and directories [folders - I prefer 'directories' myself, as do
you, but, in a Windows context, it often seems less fussy to use
the Windows term], which you can easily reproduce on your system:


A a directory (at partition root level, say)
x.txt an arbitrary file in A
B a subdirectory of A
y.txt an arbitrary file in B


Go into A, and "add" file x to an archive, located somewhere or
other. (I don't know if there is a convenient way to tell 7-Zip
to make its archives in some preferred location. With WinZip,
I used to create an empty archive, where I wanted it, and add
files to it incrementally. There is nothing odd about the idea
of an empty archive, or empty container of any kind. Boundary
cases should be handled in a regular manner. This is a common
wisdom in both mathematics and computer science, e.g. when de-
bugging programs. Mathematics is full of empty or null objects
such as zero, and programs are full of loops which sometimes
are executed zero times. Text files containing no characters
exist as proper files. And so on.)

Now go into B, and "add" y to the same archive. Does path
data for x and y not get lost? What am I doing wrong? With
WinZip, you could move around in the file system and add data
incrementally to an archive, like this, and path information
would be preserved. It is part of my normal backup procedure,
and I would be lost with a program that does not do this.

And never mind the **** left behind by WinZip. It'll just sit
there.


I expect so.

One thing at a time.


Amen.

--
Angus Rodgers
  #4  
Old February 25th 10, 02:10 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
MEB[_17_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,830
Default 7-Zip

On 02/24/2010 03:38 PM, Angus Rodgers wrote:

As far as I can tell from doing a few experiments with 7-Zip,
reading the documentation that comes with it, and browsing a
few pages of the 7-Zip Support forum at SourceForge, 7-Zip
entirely lacks an absolutely basic feature of WinZip, which
is essential for saving and restoring complex structures of
files and directories (folders): namely, that you can add to
a specified archive any specified set of files together with
all its path information. This seems especially odd, as 7-Zip
is perfectly capable of understanding the directory structure
of an archive created by WinZip. It displays the information
differently: whereas WinZip shows the path information in a
column headed "Path", 7-Zip shows directories as icons in its
own window, and gives a "flat" display of all the files and
directories in any directory you select, thus behaving rather
like a version of Windows Explorer (and indeed it is described
as a "File Manager", rather than a compression and archiving
utility).

I know I'm inclined to give up too easily, so am I missing
something here? Is it a question of reading more carefully
through all the documentation on the command-line version of
the program, with all its interacting options?


Not sure about 7zip, since I gave up on it in one of its early
offerings due to some issues involved. Though what you describe was due
to requests by 7zip users IIRC. That type of display is also used in
WInRAR and several others.

I have to question why you don't/shouldn't use pkzip, ARC, LHA, ARJ,
RAR, Scrunch, Squeeze, U2, zoo, or one of the other older DOS based
compression archive programs. Newer versions [some] of those supported
long file names, *archival bits* [refresh if modified, add if new],
directory preservation, and other functions. You apparently aren't
creating these for use elsewhere [posting, ftp, etc.], so your concern
is local support and merely backups of files.
These would be/have been perfect for batch file usage, that is, unless
you need a graphical interface for some reason. Then again, there were
Windows or DOS GUI interface applications for those DOS tools [like Shez].

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
  #5  
Old February 25th 10, 02:10 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
MEB[_17_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,830
Default 7-Zip

On 02/24/2010 03:38 PM, Angus Rodgers wrote:

As far as I can tell from doing a few experiments with 7-Zip,
reading the documentation that comes with it, and browsing a
few pages of the 7-Zip Support forum at SourceForge, 7-Zip
entirely lacks an absolutely basic feature of WinZip, which
is essential for saving and restoring complex structures of
files and directories (folders): namely, that you can add to
a specified archive any specified set of files together with
all its path information. This seems especially odd, as 7-Zip
is perfectly capable of understanding the directory structure
of an archive created by WinZip. It displays the information
differently: whereas WinZip shows the path information in a
column headed "Path", 7-Zip shows directories as icons in its
own window, and gives a "flat" display of all the files and
directories in any directory you select, thus behaving rather
like a version of Windows Explorer (and indeed it is described
as a "File Manager", rather than a compression and archiving
utility).

I know I'm inclined to give up too easily, so am I missing
something here? Is it a question of reading more carefully
through all the documentation on the command-line version of
the program, with all its interacting options?


Not sure about 7zip, since I gave up on it in one of its early
offerings due to some issues involved. Though what you describe was due
to requests by 7zip users IIRC. That type of display is also used in
WInRAR and several others.

I have to question why you don't/shouldn't use pkzip, ARC, LHA, ARJ,
RAR, Scrunch, Squeeze, U2, zoo, or one of the other older DOS based
compression archive programs. Newer versions [some] of those supported
long file names, *archival bits* [refresh if modified, add if new],
directory preservation, and other functions. You apparently aren't
creating these for use elsewhere [posting, ftp, etc.], so your concern
is local support and merely backups of files.
These would be/have been perfect for batch file usage, that is, unless
you need a graphical interface for some reason. Then again, there were
Windows or DOS GUI interface applications for those DOS tools [like Shez].

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
  #6  
Old February 25th 10, 02:38 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Angus Rodgers[_2_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 113
Default 7-Zip

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 20:10:37 -0500, MEB wrote:

These would be/have been perfect for batch file usage, that is, unless
you need a graphical interface for some reason. Then again, there were
Windows or DOS GUI interface applications for those DOS tools [like Shez].


Yes, it struck me today, while perusing the 7-Zip documentation,
that my backup regime would be far better performed by writing a
few small batch files for a command-line programme rather than
using the graphical interface.

--
Angus Rodgers
  #7  
Old February 25th 10, 02:38 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Angus Rodgers[_2_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 113
Default 7-Zip

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 20:10:37 -0500, MEB wrote:

These would be/have been perfect for batch file usage, that is, unless
you need a graphical interface for some reason. Then again, there were
Windows or DOS GUI interface applications for those DOS tools [like Shez].


Yes, it struck me today, while perusing the 7-Zip documentation,
that my backup regime would be far better performed by writing a
few small batch files for a command-line programme rather than
using the graphical interface.

--
Angus Rodgers
  #8  
Old February 25th 10, 02:50 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
MEB[_17_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,830
Default 7-Zip

On 02/24/2010 08:38 PM, Angus Rodgers wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 20:10:37 -0500, MEB wrote:

These would be/have been perfect for batch file usage, that is, unless
you need a graphical interface for some reason. Then again, there were
Windows or DOS GUI interface applications for those DOS tools [like Shez].


Yes, it struck me today, while perusing the 7-Zip documentation,
that my backup regime would be far better performed by writing a
few small batch files for a command-line programme rather than
using the graphical interface.


Yeah, that's what we used to do before "backup" programs and GUI became
so important.
If you do it, make two sets, one updated daily or whatever, and the
other bi-daily, bi-weekly, or whatever suits your purpose. Saves losing
anything except beyond whatever the second longer time-frame set holds.
Or do one for even days, one for odd, or similar.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
  #9  
Old February 25th 10, 02:50 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
MEB[_17_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,830
Default 7-Zip

On 02/24/2010 08:38 PM, Angus Rodgers wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 20:10:37 -0500, MEB wrote:

These would be/have been perfect for batch file usage, that is, unless
you need a graphical interface for some reason. Then again, there were
Windows or DOS GUI interface applications for those DOS tools [like Shez].


Yes, it struck me today, while perusing the 7-Zip documentation,
that my backup regime would be far better performed by writing a
few small batch files for a command-line programme rather than
using the graphical interface.


Yeah, that's what we used to do before "backup" programs and GUI became
so important.
If you do it, make two sets, one updated daily or whatever, and the
other bi-daily, bi-weekly, or whatever suits your purpose. Saves losing
anything except beyond whatever the second longer time-frame set holds.
Or do one for even days, one for odd, or similar.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
  #10  
Old February 25th 10, 03:03 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
philo[_31_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 236
Default 7-Zip

Angus Rodgers wrote:
As far as I can tell from doing a few experiments with 7-Zip,
reading the documentation that comes with it, and browsing a
few pages of the 7-Zip Support forum at SourceForge, 7-Zip
entirely lacks an absolutely basic feature of WinZip, which



Heck if 7-Zip does not do what you want
and Winzip does


then why not just use Winzip?
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 Win98banter.
The comments are property of their posters.