Func_Msgboard: DZip

Posted by RickyT33 on 2008/10/28 14:54:15

It must be funny how things work out!

We spend a lot of time talking about how dzip is a pain in the ass now, rather than the godsend it used to be for you all back in the days of dial up.

Problem?

What about all of the archived stuff which is in dzip format which cant be used by Mac users?

(This is the case, right?)

Either:

Someone re-package all of the stuff into zip format, another archiving job which could be incorporated into some poor guys website and would probably never get done because its a ball ache;

OR

Someone mae a DZip tool for the mac.

And

We should try a stick to zip files for demos FNO?

stuff: http://speeddemosarchive.com/dzip/download.html

WTF?!?!: http://www.freebsdsoftware.org/archivers/dzip.html

LOL! http://filext.com/file-extension/DZ
(check out the bit where it says "click here to run scan for .DZ related errors"!)

Well according to the SDA link there is a Mac version? So why the tussling?

(PS I know this is retarded)

First | Previous | Next | Last

#47 posted by metlslime on 2008/10/30 07:12:12

ZIP is incorporated into the shells for XP, Vista, and OSX so it seems like there's little reason not to use it. All the operating systems in question have native support for it.

Why didn't the discussion end here?

Frib, you mean I have to install a whole operating system just to have a functioning computer? Can't we just print the demos in comic book form and hand them out on street corners?

#48 posted by JneeraZ on 2008/10/30 10:07:04

"Why didn't the discussion end here?"

Yeah, I dunno. Surprised me as well.

#49 posted by mwh on 2008/10/30 10:17:53

"Why didn't the discussion end here?"

Welcome to the endless fun of the internet!

#50 posted by JneeraZ on 2008/10/30 10:35:13

Dude, 30% better compression! We can save, like, 5 milliseconds of download time! Totally worth it!

Hmm

#51 posted by nonentity on 2008/10/30 11:18:22

Of course it's worth it. With all those saved milliseconds we have time to have pointless discussions about compression ;p

Metslime

#52 posted by ijed on 2008/10/30 13:56:42

Yes, and it's pretty low - didn't work for any of the warp demos.

The compression size wasn't the issue, the fact that normal zip routinely corrupts stuff was/is.

Dzip also occasionally corrupts archives when it's internal size limit is breached and it reverts to normal zip.

I don't think I've seen a corrupt 7zip archive, and only a handful of rar ones.

But hey, I get a kick out of those extras precious seconds afforded by smaller filesize.

Seeing an archive reduced by a few K because I've changed the compression method is like snorting coke off a hooker's ass for me.

Bah

#53 posted by ijed on 2008/10/30 13:59:51

Yes, and it's pretty low - didn't work for any of the warp demos.

That should 'wouldn't have worked for any of the warp demos if they weren't in their own protocol as well'

#54 posted by Trinca on 2008/10/30 14:39:14

in these days why argue of discuss 2 or 3 mb in a file?

roulf... i got unlimited downloads :)

Hmm

#55 posted by nonentity on 2008/10/30 15:43:26

Seeing an archive reduced by a few K because I've changed the compression method is like snorting coke off a hooker's ass for me.

Honestly, I don't see the similarity...

Ijed

#56 posted by gb on 2008/10/30 19:28:27

lol

I've Never Seen

#57 posted by megaman on 2008/10/30 19:32:02

zip brake things. Ever.

You've Never

#58 posted by ijed on 2008/10/30 20:19:34

Downloaded or accidentally uploaded a broken archive?

I Don't Think

#59 posted by SleepwalkR on 2008/10/30 23:22:51

that zip is privy to breaking an archive. The problem might be that it got corrupted during the transfer, although that is unlikely too. I seriously have never seen zip produce a corrupt archive myself.

#60 posted by JneeraZ on 2008/10/30 23:33:55

I've never seen a broken ZIP either. Not sure what to tell ya.

#61 posted by PuLSaR on 2008/10/30 23:58:29

End of discussion.

Too tired to post it in the drunk thread

Huh

#62 posted by ijed on 2008/10/31 00:28:27

I've seen quite a few then - I thought it was normal. Maybe packet loss is the culprit then.

Unlikely

#63 posted by SleepwalkR on 2008/10/31 04:15:04

Becaus if you download a ZIP from the internet, it's via FTP or HTTP, which sit on top of TCP, which automatically checks the integrity of all transferred packets.

Fair Enough

#64 posted by ijed on 2008/10/31 04:37:04

Argued back into my corner again.

But as I said before, getting someone to use another compression format is like pulling teeth.

7zip for life dog.

I Don't Care

#65 posted by SleepwalkR on 2008/10/31 08:14:51

As long as it's not dzip ;-)

#66 posted by JneeraZ on 2008/10/31 11:32:15

I'll relent and say that as long as StuffIt can open it on the Mac, I don't care.

Check Out The Speed Demos Archive

#67 posted by RickyT33 on 2008/10/31 11:45:15

loads of new .dz files there!

Willem

#68 posted by SleepwalkR on 2008/10/31 13:27:21

Check out The Unarchiver: http://wakaba.c3.cx/s/apps/unarchiver.html

It is really superior to stuffit, although it does have some trouble with certain newer stuffit archives. But then, who still uses stuffit?

I Concur With Sleepwalkr

#69 posted by grahf on 2008/10/31 15:38:18

See post #45.

Stuffit was pretty obsolete the minute Apple integrated BOMArchiveHelper into OS X. Why would one need a separate bloated program, to do what OS X does natively?

But yeah, Unarchiver will open freaky stuff like rar and 7z that Apple's integrated thingy won't.

However

#70 posted by SleepwalkR on 2008/10/31 15:57:58

The Unarchiver also has problems with certain versions of RAR archives, esp. if they are password protected. You'd either have to use the official RAR or RAR expander http://rarexpander.sourceforge.net/

#71 posted by JneeraZ on 2008/10/31 17:19:44

"But then, who still uses stuffit?"

Whatever my machine will currently open is handling every single download I do ... except DZip. Make that go away and I'm gold.

First | Previous | Next | Last

You must be logged in to post in this thread.