slow unzip

[Guest]

I totally agree - I couldn't even believe it how slow it is.
My "Experience Score" 5.0
my 2 Raptors in a nVIDIA RAID are also way to slow.
HD operations in general suck on VISTA big time.
I got ht enewest drivers and even got the network copy hotfix.
Then I needed InterVideo DVD to get a nice picture, a DVD codec should have
been included in Ultima and it is, but it sucks with WinTV 150 or even Beyond
TV.
MS is probably testing on pretty basic machines.
Even FS X needs a hotfix if you use dual monitors with nVidia.
One problem after another - VISTA it's prettier though.

 

[Luthean]

i've had 4.5meg files take over an hour to unzip with the internal unzip for
vista. I finally just downloaded a freeware unzip file, specipically jZip
and it works just fine.

Try http://www.download.com

Hope it helps.

 

[JG Estiot]

I've been using Windows since version 3.0, that's the version before 3.1 for workgroups. I have 32 years experience in programming and I can say without any doubt that Windows is getting worse. Speed is getting worse, features for advanced users are getting worse. It is a dreadful operating system. For years now, windows has been driving up the hardware requirements including CPU speed and memory. The hardware is hundreds of time more powerful than years ago because it takes a huge amount of power to hide the incompetence of the Microsoft Dev Team. Give me their budget and 5 years and I can do a lot better. Let's push Google to compete with Windows and put them out of business.

The reason why I am here is because I have just downloaded XAMP for my work computer and it took just a few minutes to download 100 megs off the net. It is taking ONE HOUR to unzip that file. At 85K per second. That's on my own machine. I have windows at work because I don't have any choice. If I had, it would be in the rubbish bin.



MSAdic wrote:

I did read the whole post about that horrible OS and twisted minds.
03-Jun-07

I did read the whole post about that horrible OS and twisted minds

- I am staying with Vista whether you like it or not
- I am trying to find a solution to make "ZipFolders" faster, because I want
to stay with it. Whether you like it or not

My initial post was meant for MS-people and other forum members who want to
think in a constructive way
I was not inviting MS-slammers like you

:

Previous Posts In This Thread:

slow unzip
I have read a lot about the slow Vista unzip function in this forum
That is also the case with my Vista-machine : several minutes (hours) to
unzip a zip-file

I have noticed that this is only the case if the zip-file contains folders
and sub-folders
A zip-file with only files (no folders/sub-folders) in it unzips lightning
fast in pretty much the same way it was done in XP

That makes me think that the folders/subfolders in a zip-file are the
problem in Vista
I hope that this may help to find a solution to the nasty problem

---------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane

http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/co...50e&dg=microsoft.public.windows.vista.general

The solution is not to use Vista at all... all file copying is sluggish...
The solution is not to use Vista at all... all file copying is sluggish..

You delete a shortcut and it needs to "calculate" the time remaining to
delete it.. lo
For crying out loud..

If you insist on using that horrible OS, then you should use some of the
free applications tha
exist for unzipping not only zip but other formats like rar

I would suggest 7zip but vista broke compatibility! ARRGGGG!!
(yes this is the correct way of viewing this problem, vista changed thus IT
broke compatibility no
as some twisted minds somehow see it the other way around

Try http://www.zipgenius.it/eng/index.php Zip genius... fre
Mirror http://www.snapfiles.com/reviews/ZipGenius/zipgenius.htm



That was not at all the answer I was waiting for Tiberius.
That was not at all the answer I was waiting for Tiberius
You are wasting everybodies time and bandwidth with this kind of stupi
answers

:

WTF???
WTF??
I gave you a valid solution you MS-ADDIC

or did you not read the whole post?

I did read the whole post about that horrible OS and twisted minds.
I did read the whole post about that horrible OS and twisted minds.

- I am staying with Vista whether you like it or not.
- I am trying to find a solution to make "ZipFolders" faster, because I want
to stay with it. Whether you like it or not.

My initial post was meant for MS-people and other forum members who want to
think in a constructive way.
I was not inviting MS-slammers like you.

:

I gave you an option in a constructive way.
I gave you an option in a constructive way. I also criticize vista because
its a pile of crap.

I love MS products as long as they are good. I use them all the time. But to
blindly follow whatever
is shoved down my thought? No SIR!

If you are unable to fix the zip folders themselves to work fast, use a 3rd
party utility like I said...

Most people use WinRar now that is not free..

I took the time to find you the links for a freeware...that is very good if
you see the reviews.

Not only did you not say thank you, you showed some stupid attitude...
just because you cannot handle a person telling you the truth about an OS
you blindly love.





I was not asking for an alternative solution.So thanks but no thanks.
I was not asking for an alternative solution.
So thanks but no thanks.

bye-bye Tiberius.

:

Maybe I have found the culprit ?
Maybe I have found the culprit ?

I stopped OneCare to permanently check for virusses and spyware and
unzipping of all the zip-files on my system are lightning fast since then.

Maybe a hint for the OneCare people ?

:

I totally agree - I couldn't even believe it how slow it is.
I totally agree - I couldn't even believe it how slow it is.
My "Experience Score" 5.0
my 2 Raptors in a nVIDIA RAID are also way to slow.
HD operations in general suck on VISTA big time.
I got ht enewest drivers and even got the network copy hotfix.
Then I needed InterVideo DVD to get a nice picture, a DVD codec should have
been included in Ultima and it is, but it sucks with WinTV 150 or even Beyond
TV.
MS is probably testing on pretty basic machines.
Even FS X needs a hotfix if you use dual monitors with nVidia.
One problem after another - VISTA it's prettier though.


:

i've had 4.
i've had 4.5meg files take over an hour to unzip with the internal unzip for
vista. I finally just downloaded a freeware unzip file, specipically jZip
and it works just fine.

Try http://www.download.com

Hope it helps.

:


Submitted via EggHeadCafe - Software Developer Portal of Choice
Title Case Proper Names
http://www.eggheadcafe.com/tutorial...07f-c70a4fb08b05/title-case-proper-names.aspx

 

[Bruce Chambers]

I've been using Windows since version 3.0, that's the version before 3.1 for workgroups.

Actually, Windows 3.1 was the standard edition; Windows for Workgroups
was version 3.11.

I have 32 years experience in programming and I can say without any doubt that Windows is getting worse.

Well with all that experience, you'll no doubt have no trouble
designing a better OS. We wait with bated breath.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:


http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

 

[Tim Slattery]

I've been using Windows since version 3.0, that's the version
before 3.1 for workgroups.

There was 3.0, then 3.1, then 3.11 (IIRC) and Windows for Workgroups.
Or was "Workgroups" actually 3.11?

I have 32 years experience in programming and I can say without
any doubt that Windows is getting worse.

I have over 40 years and I disagree.

For years now, windows has been driving up the hardware requirements
including CPU speed and memory.

Or is it taking advantage of the capabilities of modern computers?
WinXP/Vista/Win7/etc are FAR more robust then the 3.x line or even the
9x line could ever be. The OS now includes IPv4, IPv6, Wi-Fi, USB
support, etc, etc, that Win3 didn't know anything about.

The hardware is hundreds of time more powerful than years
ago because

Because the hardware people have been hard at work making components
even tinier and cramming more and more of them onto a chip. And *lots*
of software has been making use of that fact. A Win3x computer would
not have enough oomph to handle the kind of image and video editing,
voice recognition (I know, it's still got a long way to go), DB work,
all kinds of thing that we now take for granted. Do you want to store
your video collection on a 300MB disk?

Give me their budget and 5 years and I can do a lot better. Let's push
Google to compete with Windows and put them out of business.

Fine, no argument. Use Google's OS when it appears, check out Linux,
maybe it will work better for you. No question that competition makes
MS do things better, just look at IE since Firefox appeared.

The reason why I am here is because I have just downloaded
XAMP for my work computer and it took just a few minutes to
download 100 megs off the net. It is taking ONE HOUR to unzip
that file. At 85K per second.

Ahh, there we are. 100MB is huge zip file, but that does seem a long
time to take to unzip it. Knowing nothing about your machine or what's
running on it, I wonder whether maybe you don't have enough RAM to
make the machine happy - for this task, anyway. That would lead to
excessive use of the paging file, which could slow you down a LOT.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Actually, Windows 3.1 was the standard edition; Windows for Workgroups
was version 3.11.

A very minor correction, Bruce:

Windows for Workgroups existed only in version 3.11, but regular
Windows existed both in versions 3.1 and 3.11.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

There was 3.0, then 3.1, then 3.11 (IIRC) and Windows for Workgroups.
Or was "Workgroups" actually 3.11?


I have over 40 years and I disagree.

I started programming in 1962. It's just over 47 years ago for me.

And I started using Windows with version 2.0.

Like you, I completely disagree with JG Estiot. It is very clear me
that Windows has steadily been getting better and better over the
years. There has perhaps been an occasional version that was not quite
as good as its predecessor, but the curve with years on the X axis and
quality on the Y axis has steadily been rising with a very slight
downward glitch every now and then

Or is it taking advantage of the capabilities of modern computers?

Exactly right!

 

[Bruce Chambers]

A very minor correction, Bruce:

Windows for Workgroups existed only in version 3.11, but regular
Windows existed both in versions 3.1 and 3.11.

Thanks, Ken. I never came across that variation.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:


http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Thanks, Ken. I never came across that variation.

YW. Bruce. It was a very minor update to 3.1. I forget what the kind
of update was called, but there was almost nothing in it but some
things like drivers that were available separately.

 

[Andrew McLaren]

Thanks, Ken. I never came across that variation.

Ken, a very minor correction ...

Windows for Workgroups shipped in 2 versions: 3.1 and 3.11

WfW 3.1 included an OEM'ed network card in the box, along with the
software (I think it was some kind of NE2000 clone). The NIC drivers
were Real Mode drivers.

WfW 3.11 didn't have a supplied network card; but it came with a range
of drivers for popular 3rd party cards. It shipped later the same year,
December 93 I think.

WfW3.11 also had more components and drivers moved into protect mode and
32-bit VxDs.

"Standard" Windows shipped in versions 3.0 and 3.1.

There was a Windows 3.11 for the Japanese market; but no general Windows
3.11.

I remember all this well, because I was working for Microsoft at the
time

No wonder I can't remember what I'm supposed to be doing tomorrow ... my
brain's too full, remembering all this old stuff!

Cheers
Andrew

 

[Andrew McLaren]

Ahh, there we are. 100MB is huge zip file, but that does seem a long
time to take to unzip it. Knowing nothing about your machine or what's

Hi Tim,

I agree with everything you say (as usual

FWIW, I downloaded and unzipped XAMPP out of curiosity. On my PC it took
3 minutes 45 secoonds, approx 1.25 MB/second. I wasn't unhappy with that
performance (9,000+ rather small files to unzip!)

I was using 64 bit Windows 7 on a quad core Q9450, 2.66GHz, 8GB RAM and
a WD 300GB Raptor 10Krpm SATA drive. Not a bad PC, but not extraordinary
either.

So I'd say the OP has quite a low spec machine, or a significant
performance problem somewhere. Or since he'd been programming for 32
years, maybe he was still using a PDP-11 No, wait ... TU55 drives
were faster than that )

But overall, I suspect he was a troll ...

Cheers
Andrew

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Ken, a very minor correction ...

Windows for Workgroups shipped in 2 versions: 3.1 and 3.11

Thanks for the correction. I had forgotten that.

WfW 3.1 included an OEM'ed network card in the box, along with the
software (I think it was some kind of NE2000 clone). The NIC drivers
were Real Mode drivers.

WfW 3.11 didn't have a supplied network card; but it came with a range
of drivers for popular 3rd party cards. It shipped later the same year,
December 93 I think.

WfW3.11 also had more components and drivers moved into protect mode and
32-bit VxDs.

"Standard" Windows shipped in versions 3.0 and 3.1.

There was a Windows 3.11 for the Japanese market; but no general Windows
3.11.

Sorry, not true. I'll find the details on 3.11 and post them here.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Sorry, not true. I'll find the details on 3.11 and post them here.

I found it faster than I expected to. Read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows which says
"Later Microsoft also released Windows 3.11, a touch-up to Windows 3.1
which included all of the patches and updates that followed the
release of Windows 3.1 in 1992."


But there was a special name for the kind of update it was. I can't
remember what it was called, but it wasn't a "touch-up."

 

[Bill Sharpe]

On 1/27/2010 10:18 PM, Andrew McLaren wrote:

But overall, I suspect he was a troll ...

Cheers
Andrew

I think you nailed it...

Bill

 

[milt]

But overall, I suspect he was a troll ...

Cheers
Andrew

Trolls on an NNTP group? Say it isn't so!