New boot disk - What freeware to reinstall (here is my list, for starters)

Response from John Fitzsimons <DELETEucwubqf02@sneakemail.com>:

> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 00:03:12 -0600, "-Lost"
> <maventheextrawords@techie.com> wrote:
>
>>Response from John Fitzsimons <DELETEucwubqf02@sneakemail.com>:
>
>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 14:38:37 -0800, meow2222@care2.com wrote:
>
>>> < snip >
>
>>>>Winzip was once in common use and is well known, however
>>>>freeware like 7-zip does it all, does it better, and with a much
>>>>better
>>>>UI.
>
>>> I don't think it does things better. With Winzip I can extract a
>>> compressed file to a folder of the same name. Automatically.
>
>>> With the GUI 7-zip approach AFAIK one has to manually put
>>> the name of the folder if one wants it to be the same name
>>> as the archive.
>
>>> IMO tedious, very tedious.
>
>>> Regards, John.
>
>>Tools > Options > Plugins (tab) > 7-Zip (plug-in) > Options >
>>System (tab) >
>>"Extract to <Folder>"
>
>>Do you think it does things better now? ; )
>
> No. I have that option ticked. I still cannot extract a compressed
> file to a folder of the same name without manually putting in the
> name of the folder (if using the GUI). I can with Winzip.

Hrmm... if you are ABSOLUTELY positive then I have no clue. I have
the option to "Extract files" which prompts me for a name, "Extract
here" which dumps the contents in the folder where the archive
resides, and as soon as I enabled "Extract to <Folder>" I have an
entirely new context menu item that says for example: "Extract to
'treepad\'".

I'd make sure you have the latest version, have the correct option
checked, and make sure that you have the context menu enabled, and
then see whether or not you have something like "Extract to
'name_of_archive/'" available after that. If not, you could file a
report or bug, whatever. I would understand if you didn't though. I
cannot stand 7-Zip and only have it to create and modify BZ2, TAR,
and GZ archives.

I still wish I had a better BZ2, TAR, and GZ option though. For
example, a *.tar.gz that I did not have to create in two separate
steps.

Or one that handled *.tar.gz whilst also handling *.bz2 more
effectively.

--
-Lost
Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
kidding. No I am not.

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 08:32:03 +1100, John Fitzsimons wrote:

> I still cannot extract a compressed file to a folder of the
> same name without manually putting in the name
> of the folder (if using the GUI). I can with Winzip.

At the risk of belaboring the point, IZArc seems to do exactly what one
would want.

1) You double click on a compressed file
2) Unless you change something manually, it automatically extracts to a
folder inside the current folder with the same name as the file being
extracted, sans the "zip" extension, of course.
3) Then it opens up the explorer window inside that folder

No typing - just clicking.
Isn't that exactly what you'd want it to do?

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 13:33:04 -0600, -Lost wrote:
> IZArc is the first compression archiver I have ever
> seen that makes a compressed archive that is larger than the original
> file and doesn't even include a recovery record, CRC check, et
> cetera.

Oh my. Is that true?
Luckily I never use it to compress - only to decompress (and for that it
works wonderfully). But, what good is compression if it doesn't compress?

How do you know it creates a larger compressed file than the original?


> So just to be clear... IZArc cannot create RAR files -- unless you say
> it can based on the fact it can name a file with a *.rar extension.

If that is true, then I agree. A rar file should be whatever a rar file is
and not just a zip file with a rar extension. That's pretty sly to say it
creates rar files if what you say is true.

Can anyone else confirm IZArc creates rar files merely by renaming zip
files?

Erica Eshoo wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 13:33:04 -0600, -Lost wrote:

> > IZArc is the first compression archiver I have ever
> > seen that makes a compressed archive that is larger than the original
> > file and doesn't even include a recovery record, CRC check, et
> > cetera.
>
> Oh my. Is that true?
> Luckily I never use it to compress - only to decompress (and for that it
> works wonderfully). But, what good is compression if it doesn't compress?

Any compressor will do this if you tell it to compress an
uncompressable file into a self extracting format. It has to add the
self-extract code.


NT

Response from meow2222@care2.com:

> Erica Eshoo wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 13:33:04 -0600, -Lost wrote:
>
>> > IZArc is the first compression archiver I have ever
>> > seen that makes a compressed archive that is larger than the
>> > original file and doesn't even include a recovery record, CRC
>> > check, et cetera.
>>
>> Oh my. Is that true?
>> Luckily I never use it to compress - only to decompress (and for
>> that it works wonderfully). But, what good is compression if it
>> doesn't compress?
>
> Any compressor will do this if you tell it to compress an
> uncompressable file into a self extracting format. It has to add
> the self-extract code.

And so the issue is not confused, I did not create a self-extracting
archive. I am talking about a plain old vanilla compressed archive
(which is what I said initially).

Also, in my tests and experience the "self extract code" does not
increase simply because the size of the files being compressed
increases.

--
-Lost
Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
kidding. No I am not.

On Nov 7, 10:14 am, bealoid <sig...@bealoid.co.uk> wrote:
> Erica Eshoo <evesunf...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:zj%Xi.2580$RR6.979
> @newssvr22.news.prodigy.net:
>
> [snip]
>
> > May I ask:
> > What does either WinRar or WinZip payware do that IZArc freeware doesn't?
>
> I thought that WinRAR was the only software that could create rar archives.
> But I could be wrong.

True. However Tugzip (which has full support of Zip, 7-zip, etc)
includes unrar support. And you can drop in rar.exe from a rar
installation and get compression support. The shareware WinRAR will
work, and it won't give any nag screens. Of course this is all
strictly hypothetical since using any part of WinRAR past the 30 day
trial is against the agreement.

Erica Eshoo wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:40:41 -0600, Frank McCoy wrote:

>>>>What's wrong with PGP?
>>>
>>>IMHO, in the olden days, PGP was fine; but nowadays - PGP tries to make you
>>>buy it so most of the stuff doesn't even work except the critical stuff.

>>You can't get the older version?

> I don't think so. IIRC, you can only get the latest bloatware.

Older versions are available from various sources. . .

Program: PGP Freeware (was Pretty Good Privacy) (PGP)
Company: PGP Corporation
Author: Phil Zimmermann (original author)
Ware: (Liteware) (free for personal use/ non-commercial use) LFW (v 8.1)
last version without bundlng
http://www.izmiran.ru/pub/windows/se...GP810-PF-W.zip

> This PGP, IIRC, phones home constantly, installs services that run all the
> time, has 50% of the functionality turned off unless you pay, etc.
>
> That's why I gave up on PGP.
>
> Maybe someone who knows more than I can set the record straight.
>
> Is PGP nowadays bloatware, baitnswitchware, or freeware?

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group....comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)