Solved: Explorer gradually eating up memory

On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 21:20:25 -0500, Paul wrote:

https://s3.postimg.org/wfr8et7mb/cab...ntegration.gif

Funny!

https://s27.postimg.org/mslriarun/convenience.gif


That's tiny -- 180×91 pixels. Blowing it up enough to read makes the
text too blurry. The first one was 1196×827, just fine.

Customers sometimes send me tiny screen shots like your second one.
Do you know what causes that, so that I can send them instructions on
fixing it?

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Shikata ga nai...

Stan Brown wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 21:20:25 -0500, Paul wrote:
https://s3.postimg.org/wfr8et7mb/cab...ntegration.gif

Funny!

https://s27.postimg.org/mslriarun/convenience.gif


That's tiny -- 180×91 pixels. Blowing it up enough to read makes the
text too blurry. The first one was 1196×827, just fine.

Customers sometimes send me tiny screen shots like your second one.
Do you know what causes that, so that I can send them instructions on
fixing it?


Sorry about that :-)

The postimg interface has a "wall of URLs". I try
to consistently select a URL from the wall. Normally
I paste the URL into a second browser, to verify I
copied the right one. Looks like I missed again.
If I'd verified that, I would have caught it.

I tarred up the cache on the browser, went through it
with a hex editor, and found a reference to the original
upload page. This link should be full sized.

https://s27.postimg.org/w0dzyzywz/convenience.gif[

And this one is a re-upload, just in case.

https://s29.postimg.org/c1d8lir5z/convenience.gif

Errors like that happen, if you copy the URL from the
"Thumbnails" line on the screen, instead of the one
for forums. It's supposed to be the one from the
middle section of "Hotlinks for Forums".

If you want to experiment with the page, look at this one.
Normally, you would not post a link like this, because
it has the "delete" link in it.

https://postimg.cc/image/mslriarun/272b70a9/

Thumbnail link [wrong!] https://s27.postimg.org/mslriarun/convenience.gif

Hotlink for forums [desired] https://s27.postimg.org/w0dzyzywz/convenience.gif

HTH,
Paul

On 12 Mar 2017 06:05:21 GMT, Nil
wrote:

On 11 Mar 2017, Ken Blake wrote in
alt.windows7.general:

OK, thanks. I very seldom have a need for anything other than zip, so
that's almost meaningless to me.

"Seldom" isn't "never", which means that you DO sometimes need to deal
with something besides ZIP. Then what do you do?


I can't remember the last time I needed to, so I don't know how to
answer your question. If it ever happens again, I'll worry about it
then. I'll probably download 7-zip or something, but uninstall it
after I'm done with it.



Among other things, 7-Zip can open some program installation archives,
and .ISO disk image files. I find that very convenient.

And I dislike the way Windows tries to present archive files as
folders.

And I like the way it does it. We're all different.

They aren't folders, they don't act like folders, and I can't use them
like folders, so it's annoying to me that they look like folders.


Folders and zip files are both containers for files. In that sense,
zip files act just like folders.


And I
know from experience that they confuse users who don't understand the
difference.


Yes, I understand the difference. It doesn't confuse me, and in making
my choice of what to use, I'm not concerned about others being
confused.

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 07:52:42 +0000, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:

En el artículo , Nil
escribió:

And I dislike the way Windows tries to present archive files as
folders.

+1. They could have used a different colour or something.



You can easily change the icon used for zip files to a different
color, different image, or both. Do a web search and you'll find out
how.

Ken Blake wrote:
On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 07:52:42 +0000, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:

En el artículo , Nil
escribió:

And I dislike the way Windows tries to present archive files as
folders.
+1. They could have used a different colour or something.



You can easily change the icon used for zip files to a different
color, different image, or both. Do a web search and you'll find out
how.

I think he's referring to the representation of a
folder within a ZIP, as presented by File Explorer.
That was most evident, on WinXP.

Paul

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 07:20:59 -0400, Stan Brown
wrote:

On 11 Mar 2017 19:46:45 GMT, Nil wrote:
On 11 Mar 2017, Ken Blake wrote in
alt.windows7.general:

So to you, and Paul, and Wolf, and anyone else who likes 7-zip or
Winzip, let me ask you what am I missing. What can one of these
programs do for me over and above what Windows does?

Handle more compressed formats.

And create passworded archives.

And I dislike the way Windows tries to present archive files as
folders.

Me too. I don't like not knowing whether a folder is areal folder


See the reply I just sent to Mike Tomlinson.


(dragging a file outside removes it)


That depends on whether you are dragging it to the same drive or not.


or an archive folder (dragging a
file also leaves it in the original location).



I always right-drag. I then get the choice of copy or move (or create
shortcut), so I don't have to remember what the default is.

On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 17:43:10 -0800, Justin Tyme
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 16:44:05 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 17:57:48 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote:

"Ken Blake" wrote


I almost never create new archives, and was interested in it only for
unzipping. But I finally decided that it was no better than recent
versions of Windows own ability to unzip files, simply treating a zip
file as a folder.


For plain vanilla unzipping, Windows is fine.


OK, thanks. You're confirming what I already thought.


Personally
I prefer to have a program. The way that Windows
pretends it's a folder is confusing.


Nil said much the same thing. But I don't find it confusing and I like
the way Windows does it.


I also make ZIPs, a lot. And I sometimes make
SFX ZIPs.


OK. As I said, I almost never do. I can't remember the last time I did
it.



Then there are other formats, like .gz, .tar, etc.
I'm not sure anything but Winrar can open RAR.
Fortunately it's extremely uncommon.



And I also never deal with any format beside .zip.

One of the reasons I like WinRar is because binary groups post in the
rar format. In order to post a large binary file it has to be broken
into smaller pieces and WinRar is the program that is used for this
purpose. If you never post/download anything from a binary group then
you don't need WinRar


I don't.

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 01:09:11 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 12:35:11 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

I also had 7-zip installed, but no longer do, for a different reason.

I almost never create new archives, and was interested in it only for
unzipping. But I finally decided that it was no better than recent
versions of Windows own ability to unzip files, simply treating a zip
file as a folder.

I also tried Winzip and felt the same way about it.

So to you, and Paul, and Wolf, and anyone else who likes 7-zip or
Winzip, let me ask you what am I missing. What can one of these
programs do for me over and above what Windows does?

For what you're doing, the built-in unzip capabilities should be just
fine. It doesn't sound like you're asking for much, or expecting much.

For me, I unzip zip files only occasionally. The vast majority of the
time I'm creating or unzipping (unraring?) RAR archives, and the
built-in functionality doesn't help me. I work with RAR files throughout
the workday, 5 days a week, plus weekends if I need to catch up on
something.

Even with zip files, though, the built-in unzip functionality is
incredibly poorly implemented, especially given how many years MS has
been able to think about it. In the file pane of Win Explorer, the
context menu for a zip file is completely worthless. In the folder pane
of WE, all you get is an Extract All... dialog that's really clunky to
use. In comparison, WinRAR lets you select from a wide range of context
menu items, in either pane of WE, including a similar (but far more
functional) Extract Files dialog, but I also enable the Extract Here
item, the Extract To folder name that matches the archive name item,
and the Test Archive item. If I select multiple archives, another menu
item gets included, Extract Each Archive to a Separate Folder, where
each folder is named after the respective archive that will be placed
there. Of course, there are all of the usual menu items such as those
related to adding new files to an existing archive, etc.

Bottom line, if you're occasionally unzipping a zip file, you're not
missing a thing. You probably won't even be bothered with how clunky the
Windows implementation is. It works, and that may be all that matters.



Thanks. You're confirming what I believed.

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 09:14:59 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Char Jackson
writes:
[]
My primary purpose for using RAR is more boring. My colleagues and I use
it to get our work files through the ravenous corporate email filter.
Zipped attachments get unzipped and stripped, while RAR attachments sail
right through.

Did it see through _passworded_ .zip files? (Or just strip those
completely [even if you renamed them to something other than .zip]?)

Passworded zip files get stripped. File extensions seem to be used as an
initial classifier, but you can't fool it by changing or appending a
'safe' extension. Even on the rare occasion when an attachment does get
through, you can never use the same trick again.

I think they're using a locked down version of Cisco's IronPort, since
that product is named in the note that they attach in place of the
stripped attachment. Note the mention of dynamically created risk
profiles, possibly explaining why something that works once doesn't work
a second time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IronPort
SensorBase allows these devices to build a risk profile on IP
addresses, therefore allowing risk profiles to be dynamically created
on HTTP sites and SMTP email sources.

For unknown reasons, RAR files always go through unscathed. It's likely
that many other lesser known filetypes are also allowed to pass, but we
stopped looking when we found this.

--

Char Jackson

I doubt it was win zip. We don't have that problem.
sounds to me like you need to go in the administration configuration
and uncheck all that **** they put in there that fires up when you crank
up the machine, for they always put **** in your tray that fires up
when you launch new software. So, why would you need all that crap
that they put on the new softwares running, when your not even using it?

So, go turn it off, not uninstall it. Then when you fire the machine
up, it will not even effect it or start. And anyone that wants to run
software, best learn how to do this, so you can stop conflicts without
having to do without what you wanted of in the first place. Mucho ****
runs in the backround unless you tell it not to. And if you are using
anything past w6.1, your an idiot anyway. Throwing Bill Gates out the
window is the best thing you can do today, and start by throwing out
that locked up firewall of his.... He has more rats inside of windows
now than you can shake a stick at.

On 3/9/2017 12:54 AM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

I posted a while back regarding a problem in which Windows Explorer,
after running okay for a while, would start eating up memory, causing
problems when it reached around 600MB. I hadn't been able to pinpoint
the cause as it often happened while I wasn't watching.

Uninstalling Winzip fixed it.

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 08:04:30 -0400, Paul wrote:

Stan Brown wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 21:20:25 -0500, Paul wrote:
https://s3.postimg.org/wfr8et7mb/cab...ntegration.gif

Funny!

https://s27.postimg.org/mslriarun/convenience.gif


That's tiny -- 180×91 pixels. Blowing it up enough to read makes the
text too blurry. The first one was 1196×827, just fine.

Customers sometimes send me tiny screen shots like your second one.
Do you know what causes that, so that I can send them instructions on
fixing it?


Sorry about that :-)

The postimg interface has a "wall of URLs". I try
to consistently select a URL from the wall. Normally
I paste the URL into a second browser, to verify I
copied the right one. Looks like I missed again.
If I'd verified that, I would have caught it.

Thanks for replying, Paul. Sounds like this experience won't
translate for my users who provide tiny screen shots taken from their
PCs. "Oh well!"

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Shikata ga nai...

Stan Brown wrote:


Thanks for replying, Paul. Sounds like this experience won't
translate for my users who provide tiny screen shots taken from their
PCs. "Oh well!"

It could be they are copying a thumbnail, instead of the
actual image.

Or it could be an artifact of the email system. Re-sampling
of multi-megabyte images before making them available to
the recipient (via web link, instead of actual attachment).
The email system is no longer "transparent" to content,
at least for some of the popular webmail systems.

You could tell the senders to compress the attachment with
7ZIP {password protected) or some other "obscure" compression
scheme, as a means to defeat attachment processing by the
email system.

It will require "monkey-business" to fix. At a guess.

If everyone had "Dropbox", and you used pointers to content,
that might work a bit better.

Postimage re-samples, if you make the dimensions of the
image too large. So this is not recommended for people who
have no inkling how many megabytes of data is in one of their
pictures. At one time, I could upload an entire Powerpoint
visual (multiple slides) as one GIF, and this site would
eat it. That no longer works. Even though the file size of
the GIF was quite small.

http://postimage.org/index.php?um=flash

I think I have successfully uploaded GIF animations to the site,
and those were accepted. Save this file, then open in GIMP
to see the frames as "layers". This offers a way to transmit
more info in one file, at the expense of chopping into pieces
and storing as a "GIF animation". I think I have another example
like this one, only it had 30 or 40 pages of a manual stored
in it.

http://s15.postimg.org/go87qinrv/Readme.gif

Paul

On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 03:47:19 -0800, Mike S wrote:

I use IZArc which integrates with the Windows File Explorer, supports 49
encryption schemes: 7-ZIP, A, ACE, ARC, ARJ, B64, BH, BIN, BZ2, BZA,
C2D, CDI, CAB, CPIO, DEB, ENC, GCA, GZ, GZA, HA, IMG, ISO, IZE, JAR,
LHA, LIB, LZH, MBF, MDF, MIM, NRG, PAK, PDI, PK3, RAR, RPM, TAR, TAZ,
TBZ, TGZ, TZ, UUE, WAR, XPI, XXE, YZ1, Z, ZIP, ZOO, and is completely
free. If you install it select custom options if that's available, and
avoid the bloatware some download sites bundle with the installer.

Can it:
Open an *.iso, say a Linux CD/DVD;
Allow me to change a file, say to choose UK keyboard;
Save the change back into the *.iso;
Burn the *.iso and have it still work?
--
================================================== ======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html