I've not noticed any threads about the latest Omega drivers. They seem
stable enough but don't make much of a difference for me (no problems
before and no problems after, so I shouldn't grumble). The update
seems to be aimed at fixing problems with other people's cards
(mobility Radeons etc.)
--

Julian Richards
computer "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk

XP Home
L7S7A2 motherboard
Powercolor 9800 SE 8 pipelines 438/364 with Omega drivers
1 GB RAM
10 GB + 80 GB HDs
CD+DVD/CDRW drives

On 5/19/2004 5:14 AM Julian Richards brightened our day with:

>I've not noticed any threads about the latest Omega drivers. They seem
>stable enough but don't make much of a difference for me (no problems
>before and no problems after, so I shouldn't grumble). The update
>seems to be aimed at fixing problems with other people's cards
>(mobility Radeons etc.)
>--
>
>
>
Why the heck are they in CAB file format?

--
"I'm not made of money, we'll swim to Oakland"

Steve [Inglo]

On Wed, 19 May 2004 16:15:26 GMT, Inglo
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>Why the heck are they in CAB file format?

Apparently to keep the size down. Some of the download mirrors can be
notoriously slow and many people are still on dialup.

--

Julian Richards
computer "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk

XP Home
L7S7A2 motherboard
Powercolor 9800 SE 8 pipelines 438/364 with Omega drivers
1 GB RAM
10 GB + 80 GB HDs
CD+DVD/CDRW drives

Inglo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<yKLqc.69067$(E-Mail Removed)>...
> On 5/19/2004 5:14 AM Julian Richards brightened our day with:
>
> >I've not noticed any threads about the latest Omega drivers. They seem
> >stable enough but don't make much of a difference for me (no problems
> >before and no problems after, so I shouldn't grumble). The update
> >seems to be aimed at fixing problems with other people's cards
> >(mobility Radeons etc.)
> >--
> >
> >
> >
> Why the heck are they in CAB file format?

Will CAB is a compression format standardly inbuild in windows. And
the cab is 16-17Mb while the EXE once extracted is 19Mb ...so it does
work!

On 20 May 2004 02:21:20 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) (Dark Avenger)
wrote:


>Will CAB is a compression format standardly inbuild in windows. And
>the cab is 16-17Mb while the EXE once extracted is 19Mb ...so it does
>work!

I just compressed the exe into zip and rar to see the difference.
zip=18.6mb
rar=16.8mb
cab=16.8mb

Considering that everyone has .cab file support built into windows
it's surprising that more people don't use .cab.

Throw in the .ace 2.0 format

As for .cab, it is owned by microsoft. I think that's got to do with not
much distributions.


"Allan Sheely" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 20 May 2004 02:21:20 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) (Dark Avenger)
> wrote:
>
>
> >Will CAB is a compression format standardly inbuild in windows. And
> >the cab is 16-17Mb while the EXE once extracted is 19Mb ...so it does
> >work!
>
> I just compressed the exe into zip and rar to see the difference.
> zip=18.6mb
> rar=16.8mb
> cab=16.8mb
>
> Considering that everyone has .cab file support built into windows
> it's surprising that more people don't use .cab.

Allan Sheely <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
> On 20 May 2004 02:21:20 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) (Dark Avenger)
> wrote:
>
>
> >Will CAB is a compression format standardly inbuild in windows. And
> >the cab is 16-17Mb while the EXE once extracted is 19Mb ...so it does
> >work!
>
> I just compressed the exe into zip and rar to see the difference.
> zip=18.6mb
> rar=16.8mb
> cab=16.8mb
>
> Considering that everyone has .cab file support built into windows
> it's surprising that more people don't use .cab.

Lets Try Uharc
ALZ:3 ( maximum but oh so ... long wait ) = 16.8Mb ... well I guess
that proves that the EXE file can downsized unto about 16.8mb

Ya know, all those compression tools use different algoritms and work
better on different kind of files. Uharc for instance is great for
compression certain media and ..indeed for Games and alike...

Here is a review online
http://www.flexbeta.net/main/article...ge=1&pagenum=1

Quoth The Raven "Dark Avenger" <(E-Mail Removed)> in
(E-Mail Removed)
> Allan Sheely <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
>> On 20 May 2004 02:21:20 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) (Dark Avenger)
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Will CAB is a compression format standardly inbuild in windows. And
>>> the cab is 16-17Mb while the EXE once extracted is 19Mb ...so it
>>> does work!
>>
>> I just compressed the exe into zip and rar to see the difference.
>> zip=18.6mb
>> rar=16.8mb
>> cab=16.8mb
>>
>> Considering that everyone has .cab file support built into windows
>> it's surprising that more people don't use .cab.
>
> Lets Try Uharc
> ALZ:3 ( maximum but oh so ... long wait ) = 16.8Mb ... well I guess
> that proves that the EXE file can downsized unto about 16.8mb
>
> Ya know, all those compression tools use different algoritms and work
> better on different kind of files. Uharc for instance is great for
> compression certain media and ..indeed for Games and alike...
>
> Here is a review online
>
http://www.flexbeta.net/main/article...ge=1&pagenum=1

I got hold of an office 2003 disk (copy) that has every office application
on the one CD, extracting isn't successful as many files fail to copy, but
when you have most of the files on the hdd, it amounts to 1.5gig from a
650mb disk, you can view the files and install correctly, so what kind of
compression is used here? its invisible compression that acts on the fly as
you use the files...

--
Sometimes majority simply means that all the fools are on one side.

Take out the _CURSEING to reply to me

http://www.flexbeta.net/main/article...ge=1&pagenum=1
>
> I got hold of an office 2003 disk (copy) that has every office application
> on the one CD, extracting isn't successful as many files fail to copy, but
> when you have most of the files on the hdd, it amounts to 1.5gig from a
> 650mb disk, you can view the files and install correctly, so what kind of
> compression is used here? its invisible compression that acts on the fly as
> you use the files...

You did use that option "leave installation files on disk" in that
case most of the 650Mb of the CD stays as copy on your harddisk for
when office needs a function, so it's 1500Mb - 650Mb = 950Mb for
office installation...

That brings back things in reference!

Quoth The Raven "Dark Avenger" <(E-Mail Removed)> in
(E-Mail Removed)
>
http://www.flexbeta.net/main/article...ge=1&pagenum=1
>>
>> I got hold of an office 2003 disk (copy) that has every office
>> application on the one CD, extracting isn't successful as many files
>> fail to copy, but when you have most of the files on the hdd, it
>> amounts to 1.5gig from a 650mb disk, you can view the files and
>> install correctly, so what kind of compression is used here? its
>> invisible compression that acts on the fly as you use the files...
>
> You did use that option "leave installation files on disk" in that
> case most of the 650Mb of the CD stays as copy on your harddisk for
> when office needs a function, so it's 1500Mb - 650Mb = 950Mb for
> office installation...
>
> That brings back things in reference!

no-no, this was a pirate copy with all office 2003 applications jammed onto
one disk, I attempted to copy it again for another friend, but no program
would touch it, I manually dragged all the files onto my hard drive to drag
back to a new disk, that failed too, but what I did retrieve was 1.5gig (off
a 650mb cd) UltraISO managed to make a perfect iso and burn it mind you, but
still, what kind of active compression could be at work here that makes
identical files half there size without having to archive them?

--
A classic is something that everybody wants to have read and nobody
has.

Take out the _CURSEING to reply to me