7-Zip

On 02/24/2010 09:27 PM, Angus Rodgers wrote:
WTF?

I know, its a bit annoying...

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

Angus Rodgers wrote in
:

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.

Deal.

Just do SOMETHING.

I thought I just had.

Maybe NOW, but not /quite/ before. 6 hrs difference may have
something to do with it.

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!

RTFM, so to speak. No program would achieve the reputation that
7-zip has if it did not give you the choice of paths, no paths,
and in 7-zip's case "current paths" (whatever THAT means).

I'm not getting any younger or smarter or less depressed, and I
am not going to bother learning a program I do not need to use
for anything - I trust you will understand - just to see if you
are doing something wrong.

It IS a fairly complex program, but I would be VERY surprised if
it didn't do everything WinZip does and MUCH more. I would
imagine all archives are created with all paths intact (in fact
I did a tiny test and it is so) and when you click on Extract
files" it gives you the three options I list in the preceding
paragraph.

I thought WinRAR was complicated compared to SOME zippers, but
7-zip is REALLY advanced.

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]

If we give up, the morons will win!

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.

Yes, after you choose what you want and right click, and it says
"add to archive..." it gives you a BIG box of options (including
some I've never seen in any other compression program), and the
first is a long line with a name it helpfully suggests but no
path but with a [...] box to the right which, when clicked on,
allows you to put your archive anywhere you want not to mention
of course you can change the name as well.

Whether you will consider that "convenient" is another thing.
;=)

I always organize my stuff extensively before making an archive.
I would NOT make an archive of several (let's call them random)
files as in the example you give above. I would make directories
and place what made sense where it made sense.

Although I have barely dipped my feet in 7-zip I am certain it
has options to cover anything you want to do, you just have to
look in the help file. It appears you may even be able to write
a batch file using its command line options. As I may have
mentioned, simply because I've used it for YEARS, I use WinRAR
and just installed 7-zip for some reason which escapes me (and
just uninstalled it, FWIW). I only suggested IT because I know
it's GOOD. Like I said, there are 30 (or 300) others.

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.

I beg to differ, but maybe it just never occurred to me to do it
that way. So what, you make an file, give it a name, its size is
0, and when you are ready to zip, it asks you whether to
overwrite contents or what? It makes no sense (to me).

Since the default term 7-zip uses is "add to archive" I would
imagine incrementals are no problem.

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.

Sorry, you lost me about 12 lines ago. Are you 'shadow' or
something?

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

I expect so.

One thing at a time.

Amen.

Anyway... however weird and path-stupid 7-zip may seem, were you
at least able to determine whether it does the job as WinZip
USED to? Or is it just as slow etc.? THAT was the point of the
exercise, not to convince you to use 7-zip (which I don't use
myself, just know it is considered a VERY good program), but to
find out whether *WinZip* is ****ed or whether your *system* is
****ed.



--
The lonely child plays with eternity, while a gang of children
plays with time.
Karel Capek

Another thing that just occurred to me is that you might be
better off using a backup program (there are only about two
thousand to choose from) which will scan any directory with any
amount of sub-dirs and sub-sub-dirs etc. and make an incremental
backup, or just 'changed files only' backup and then zip THAT.

Even though I am absolutely positive that WinZip is NOT the only
zipper that can do the same. Not that I am going to try all the
others to prove that.

But again, that was not the point. So DID you run 7-zip, as
useless as it may be, and did it run as fast as WinZip used to
or just as slow?


--
The lonely child plays with eternity, while a gang of children
plays with time.
Karel Capek

Another thing that just occurred to me is that you might be
better off using a backup program (there are only about two
thousand to choose from) which will scan any directory with any
amount of sub-dirs and sub-sub-dirs etc. and make an incremental
backup, or just 'changed files only' backup and then zip THAT.

Even though I am absolutely positive that WinZip is NOT the only
zipper that can do the same. Not that I am going to try all the
others to prove that.

But again, that was not the point. So DID you run 7-zip, as
useless as it may be, and did it run as fast as WinZip used to
or just as slow?


--
The lonely child plays with eternity, while a gang of children
plays with time.
Karel Capek

On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 04:56:26 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid
wrote:

Angus Rodgers wrote in
:

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

Just do SOMETHING.

I thought I just had.

Maybe NOW, but not /quite/ before. 6 hrs difference may have
something to do with it.

I have no idea what you mean, but never mind.

I'm not getting any younger or smarter or less depressed, and I
am not going to bother learning a program I do not need to use
for anything - I trust you will understand - just to see if you
are doing something wrong.

It IS a fairly complex program, but I would be VERY surprised if
it didn't do everything WinZip does and MUCH more. [...]

You surprise me. See quotations below.

[...] (I don't know if there is a convenient
way to tell 7-Zip to make its archives in some preferred
location.

Yes, after you choose what you want and right click, and it says
"add to archive..." it gives you a BIG box of options (including
some I've never seen in any other compression program), and the
first is a long line with a name it helpfully suggests but no
path but with a [...] box to the right which, when clicked on,
allows you to put your archive anywhere you want not to mention
of course you can change the name as well.

Yes, of course I'm aware of all that. You have to keep navigating
through the file system and changing the location for each new
archive you want to create.

Whether you will consider that "convenient" is another thing.
;=)

It's not convenient.

I always organize my stuff extensively before making an archive.
I would NOT make an archive of several (let's call them random)
files as in the example you give above. I would make directories
and place what made sense where it made sense.

There's nothing irrational about creating an archive of files
from more than one directory in different locations in the
tree structure of files and directories. WinZip makes this
easy.

Although I have barely dipped my feet in 7-zip [...]

See quotations below.

I am certain it
has options to cover anything you want to do, you just have to
look in the help file.

I did. Obviously. I said so.

[...] I only suggested IT because I know
it's GOOD. Like I said, there are 30 (or 300) others.

See quotations below.

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.

I beg to differ [...]

Then you're in error. This isn't a matter of subjective opinion.
I won't waste any more time arguing about it.

Since the default term 7-zip uses is "add to archive" I would
imagine incrementals are no problem.

I ran into a problem. I described it.

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.

Sorry, you lost me about 12 lines ago. Are you 'shadow' or
something?

I don't want to play guessing games about identity!

Anyway... however weird and path-stupid 7-zip may seem, were you
at least able to determine whether it does the job as WinZip
USED to? Or is it just as slow etc.? THAT was the point of the
exercise, not to convince you to use 7-zip (which I don't use
myself,

See quotations below.

just know it is considered a VERY good program), but to
find out whether *WinZip* is ****ed or whether your *system* is
****ed.

It's hard to be sure at this stage. When I ran into the problem
with path data, while creating and testing some small archives,
and couldn't find the answer in the Help file or the Support
forum, or just using common sense, it seemed natural to ask you
what I might be doing wrong, as you had been so very, very, very,
VERY insistent that I absolutely MUST install and use 7-Zip before
even thinking of trying to do anything else about my problem(s)
at all.

So I never got as far as attempting to zip any huge numbers of
files. From the archives I did make, it was hard to tell whether
7-Zip was running any faster than WinZip on a good day, so to
speak. It was certainly slower than WinZip used to be before
the present slowdown started, but I couldn't tell whether this
was because of the same problem or not, nor could I estimate
whether it would be unusably slow when creating very large
archives. I expected to go on to test some large archive
creations later, of course, but I never got past the path data
problem.

As for your repeated insistence on my absolutely having to
install and use 7-Zip immediately and without question, here
is a compendium of what you wrote:

===
7-zip is free and does everything beautifully.
Installing 7-zip is NOT a heavy-duty change [...]
7-zip is a 3MB install [...]
TRY 7-zip.
TRY SEVEN ZIP, FFS!
So WinZip IS BROKEN. GET 7-zip. I am getting tired of
repeating myself.
[...] even I would just install 7-zip [...] Darn!
NO, STEP ONE IS INSTALLING 7-ZIP ***TO FIND OUT IF WINZIP HAS
ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOUR PROBLEMS***!
SEE ABOVE! SHEESH!!!!!!!!
It's a 1.5 MB DL! And NO-INSTALL! DO IT NOW!
OK, I promise this IS the last time I will say it.
FORGET WINZIP AND INSTALL 7-ZIP - N O W !
Sorry, I get a little dictatorial sometimes.
Anyway, I have deleted the sarcastic answer about how NO, and
how 7-zip will ask whether it can use the washroom, and the
answer to the general question is YES.
==

Is it perhaps possible for you to discern why I foolishly
imagined that you might be willing to answer a reasonable
question about the operation of 7-Zip after I had RTFM'd?

I wasn't trying to impose on you. I am not looking a gift
horse in the mouth. I did my best to describe the problem
I have found, in clear and unambiguous terms. I give up.

--
Angus Rodgers

Angus Rodgers wrote in
:

SNIP

just know it is considered a VERY good program), but to
find out whether *WinZip* is ****ed or whether your
*system* is ****ed.

It's hard to be sure at this stage. When I ran into the

SNIP

you had been so very, very, very, VERY insistent that I
absolutely MUST install and use 7-Zip before even thinking
of trying to do anything else about my problem(s) at all.

You are exaggerating a little. It was the first free program I
thought of, I HAVE used it - although not much, I use WinRAR -
and it has been in the "news" a lot recently and recommended by
many. Like I said, there are 300 others, half of them free I
imagine, and the rest free trial. Also, like I said in my
separate PS, while I still do not have a perfectly clear
understanding of your backup and zip strategy (except that I
think you are too worried about your HD crashing - they DO all
crash sooner or later, but {IIRC} making a 5-CD backup every
week or something is a overdoing it a little). I think you would
be better re-thinking your strategy and using a backup program
to just isolate the changed files and then zip those. But like I
said, I have a fairly hazy understanding of what you are really
doing.

You could have gone with ANY of the 300 programs, one of your or
someone else's choice, but you appeared to be unwilling to
install even ONE zipper as if in my attempting to help you I was
REALLY trying to put a virus on your machine or something.

So I never got as far as attempting to zip any huge numbers
of files. From the archives I did make, it was hard to

SNIP

but I never got past the path data problem.

Paths should not have made any difference in getting usable
results to action #1 (below). We both know zipping something
does not delete the originals unless you TELL the program to do
so. You could have downloaded 20 programs and made 20 tests in
less time than it took us to conduct 1/10th of this exchange.
And then just deleted all the results once you (hopefully) would
have had an indication of what was going on. FWIW, I am certain
your system is either "compromised/infected" or simply on its
last legs of an ASTONISHING 3 year run and needs to be cleanly
reinstalled from scratch, or both.

As for your repeated insistence on my absolutely having to
install and use 7-Zip immediately and without question,
here is a compendium of what you wrote:

===
7-zip is free and does everything beautifully.
Installing 7-zip is NOT a heavy-duty change [...]
7-zip is a 3MB install [...]
TRY 7-zip.
TRY SEVEN ZIP, FFS!
So WinZip IS BROKEN. GET 7-zip. I am getting tired of
repeating myself.
[...] even I would just install 7-zip [...] Darn!
NO, STEP ONE IS INSTALLING 7-ZIP ***TO FIND OUT IF WINZIP
HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOUR PROBLEMS***!
SEE ABOVE! SHEESH!!!!!!!!
It's a 1.5 MB DL! And NO-INSTALL! DO IT NOW!
OK, I promise this IS the last time I will say it.
FORGET WINZIP AND INSTALL 7-ZIP - N O W !
Sorry, I get a little dictatorial sometimes.
Anyway, I have deleted the sarcastic answer about how NO,
and how 7-zip will ask whether it can use the washroom, and
the answer to the general question is YES.
==

Very nice. ALL that the above prove is that I was trying my best
to have you take the FIRST and ESSENTIAL step in determining
what the problem was.

Also, taking the most "objectionable" statements our of about 10
posts and lumping them together might be considered "very
creative editing", for lack of a better term...

Is it perhaps possible for you to discern why I foolishly
imagined that you might be willing to answer a reasonable
question about the operation of 7-Zip after I had RTFM'd?

Yes, you thought I was a 7-zip expert. I am not. But a decent
compression program should do anything necessary. And I was
operating under the - apparently - not shared by you attitude
that a computer problem should be approached logically, one step
at a time:

1. WinZip MUCH slower than before? Is it the "whole" computer or
WinZip? Try another zipper and find out.

2. Results inconclusive? Try another zipper.

3. Other program(s) just as slow. Therefore - either my computer
is ****ed or ALL (I would probably stop at 3) zippers I tried
are badly designed. Several options available (I won't get into
them, this is silly enough).

4. Other program runs great. Get rid of WinZip and use new
program.

5. Etc.

I wasn't trying to impose on you.

I never said you did. I could have ignored your post like I do
so many others but it seemed like something I could help someone
with. And I have a soft spot for suicidals.

I am not looking a gift
horse in the mouth. I did my best to describe the problem
I have found, in clear and unambiguous terms. I give up.

Dare I suggest you try a couple of other zippers or re-install a
trusted version of WinZip and FIND OUT before you give up
/anything/?

OTOH, I agree that /we/ probably best end it here. We have both
been reminded of one of the multitude of reasons why we used to
visit ASH. Life is beautiful and =dog loves us all.


--
The lonely child plays with eternity, while a gang of children
plays with time.
Karel Capek

On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:48:28 +0000 (UTC),
thanatoid wrote:

OTOH, I agree that /we/ probably best end it here.

OK. There's a lot in your post I could reply to, of course*,
but I'd probably better not, as we seem to be on some sort of
downward slide, and my time and energy are especially short
today, and I've already spent far too much time on a silly
controversy in another newsgroup! (It would have been better
spent here, or in installing a different version of WinZip.)

*I don't make 5 CD-Rs' worth of backups every week, BTW; more
like 1 CD-R's worth every 2 weeks, on average. (I had to say
that much, at least, because I don't want to look like a loon!)

--
Angus Rodgers

On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:48:28 +0000 (UTC),
thanatoid wrote:

OTOH, I agree that /we/ probably best end it here.

OK. There's a lot in your post I could reply to, of course*,
but I'd probably better not, as we seem to be on some sort of
downward slide, and my time and energy are especially short
today, and I've already spent far too much time on a silly
controversy in another newsgroup! (It would have been better
spent here, or in installing a different version of WinZip.)

*I don't make 5 CD-Rs' worth of backups every week, BTW; more
like 1 CD-R's worth every 2 weeks, on average. (I had to say
that much, at least, because I don't want to look like a loon!)

--
Angus Rodgers

Angus Rodgers wrote in
:

On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:48:28 +0000 (UTC),
thanatoid wrote:

OTOH, I agree that /we/ probably best end it here.

OK. There's a lot in your post I could reply to, of
course*, but I'd probably better not, as we seem to be on
some sort of downward slide, and my time and energy are
especially short today, and I've already spent far too much
time on a silly controversy in another newsgroup! (It would
have been better spent here, or in installing a different
version of WinZip.)

*I don't make 5 CD-Rs' worth of backups every week, BTW;
more like 1 CD-R's worth every 2 weeks, on average. (I had
to say that much, at least, because I don't want to look
like a loon!)

My memory sucks. Good luck.



--
The lonely child plays with eternity, while a gang of children
plays with time.
Karel Capek

Angus Rodgers wrote in
:

On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:48:28 +0000 (UTC),
thanatoid wrote:

OTOH, I agree that /we/ probably best end it here.

OK. There's a lot in your post I could reply to, of
course*, but I'd probably better not, as we seem to be on
some sort of downward slide, and my time and energy are
especially short today, and I've already spent far too much
time on a silly controversy in another newsgroup! (It would
have been better spent here, or in installing a different
version of WinZip.)

*I don't make 5 CD-Rs' worth of backups every week, BTW;
more like 1 CD-R's worth every 2 weeks, on average. (I had
to say that much, at least, because I don't want to look
like a loon!)

My memory sucks. Good luck.



--
The lonely child plays with eternity, while a gang of children
plays with time.
Karel Capek