Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!ogicse!pdxgate!parsely!percy!qiclab!techbook!waynet
From: waynet@wiffle.techbook.com (Wayne Tilton)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: Windows installation disk compression?
Message-ID: <sNZ3w1w163w@wiffle.techbook.com>
Date: 9 Feb 91 03:03:03 GMT
References: <1991Feb7.192957.7986@sunee.waterloo.edu>
Sender: bbs@techbook.com (waffle BBS)
Organization: TECHbooks Bookstore, Beaverton OR
Lines: 44

>>Microsoft provides an (undocumented) expansion utility on the...

>Sorry bub, but the (undocumented) utility is detail both in the
>manual, and on the accompaning .txt files.  I suppose it would be too
>difficult for people to read the .txt files, even thought the setup
>program gives to the opportunity.  Just goes to show you what running
>DOS does to a person.  :-)

EXPAND.EXE _is_ documented in the readme.txt file.  I stand
corrected. As for it being documented in the manual, that is also
true. Unfortunately, it's documented in the 'Networks and Windows'
section where few, if any, of us who are _NOT ON A NETWORK_, will
ever see it! Just try to find any reference to it in the table of
contents or the index.  Try looking under 'EXPAND' or 'COMPRESS' or
'DISK FILES', or even under 'NETWORKS' for that matter!  People
might actually RTFM if they thought they could find what they were
looking for in it!

BTW, running DOS didn't do this to me, using manuals with good
indices did.

>>Why would they want to do that?  They might have to pay ANOTHER
>>COMPANY for using the compression/decompression programs and it
>>might _seriously_ affect thier bottom line ;-)

>If one co-op student can do it for less money, and the same
>compression, why not??  What the hell is wrong with that?  Gads!
>Can't fathom the idea?

Same compression?  Good plan, bad implementation.  Just tested the
concept using PKZIP 1.10 on WIN disk #2 with the following results:

   Total size of uncompressed files:  1883310  = 100.0%
   Total size of compressed files:    1028092  =  54.6%
   Total size if individually ZIPped:  888274  =  47.2%
   Total size if combined ZIP:         886492  =  47.1%

But of course, this is all totally irrelevant.  The original
poster's comment is still valid...why didn't they use a 'standard'
compression/decompression program so discussions like this could
have been avoided altogether, including my (apparently failed)
light hearted attempt at MS bashing??

Wayne