Downloading

[Louisiana Night]

You could split it with an archiving program like WinRAR and put it on more than one CD and just unzip it onto your computer.  =D

If it requires 3 or more CDs, I'd prefer a DVD.

P.S. Which format does everyone think would make it fit into a smaller amount of space(not just the software, also hardware)? I don't think the .zip format would be best. I think either a program made for such a task, or a better compression format(rar, tar, gzip) would work better. Although, another compression format(other than zip) wouldn't work on all systems, without 3rd party software(that could be put on the CD/DVD).

[GunHoMac]

I would suggest a moderate split set using HJSplit...then pack a fraction of the HJSplit files into RAR files (ex: 5 split files per rar package)...then you can download the RAR packages separately, unRAR the split files into a directory, and combine the split pieces back with HJJoin (join feature on HJSplit).

Also I would just zip the master ISO or fileset into a single ZIP package for those with patience, DSL, cable, P2P, download accelerators with resume feature, or T3 like me

[Louisiana Night]

or T3 like me

Well, we all know who's going to be playing it first, outside of Phoenix.

[koko_99_2001]

Welcome Tage!

Hey guys, looks like we've got another Tennessee-ian on our hands!!

Cat

[Tage]

 I'd prefer a dvd as well, but I don't have a dvd-rom.    I'm a bum who doesn't want to spend money on one.  Well, maybe I'm not a bum, but I still don't want to spend money on one, lol.  *is broke*

The highest compression ratio I've come across is in the 7-zip format.  It's better than rar, but I haven't tried gzip before.

T3?!    

Yay!  Tennessee!  hehe  >.<!  Thanks for the welcome!  =D

Tage

[Yonkey]

I just did a test on a 247kb Word doc.

WinZip (*.zip) made it 26kb
UNIX Tarring and Gzip (*.gzip) made it 26kb
WinRar (*.rar) made it 17kb
7 Zip (*.7z) made it 13kb

So 7 Zip wins, but it also took the longest to compress the file, and since it does not have self-extracting ability, *.7z cannot be used.

So I used 7 Zip to turn it into a *.zip file and the file was 19kb!  However, when I tried turning it into a Self-Extractable, it said the method used must be "deflate" and not any other.  The deflate method makes the zip 24kb, which is not really an improvement over WinZip.

So, WinRAR is still the winner!    Even when I made into a self-extractable, WinRAR's was 63kb while WinZip's was 88kb.

[Tage]

7z does have a self-extracting ability.  Just put a check next to "Create SFX Archive" in the options.  At least my version does, 3.13.  I just did some tests as well with 7-Zip and WinRAR only.

With a 500kb .doc file,
7z SFX was 276kb
Rar SFX was 265kb

When I did larger files it was opposite.

4 wma files.
7,812kb
6,583kb
10,018kb
9,053kb

7z SFX was 29,107kb
Rar SFX was 30,304kb

I used best compression and solid archive with both of them.
Rar dictionary size set at highest (4,096kb).
7z's dictionary size was at 32mb and word size was 64.

=D

Tage

[Tage]

No problem!  =)  Yah, different file-types compress at different ratios with different programs, lol...  Anyway, In my mind I was thinking about the extra time it would save the 56k- users by using the best compression ratio no matter how long it took to compress on the other end.  With a large file 700mb-like it might be able to compress 10mb more than a Rar on average.  On a 56k, 10mb is like...  Hrm...
5kbps
10,000/5=2,000
2,000/60=33 minutes
Half an hour...  Ah...  people will probably leave it downloading overnight with a 56k anyway.  That's what I did when I had a 56k modem.  Probably doesn't matter much...Only for the poor souls that eagerly watch that download bar.  

Tage

[Grundy]

I love broadband!

[Yonkey]

With a large file 700mb-like it might be able to compress 10mb more than a Rar on average.  

It might even be more.  Using the 4 wma files, the total uncompressed size is: 33466 kb.  7z was 29,107kb and RAR was 30,304kb.  The difference between both SFX's is 1,197kb or 3.58% of the original.  Now, if we pretend the files added up to 700mb, that's a savings of 25mb!  

However, using the other file, the difference was 2.2% which would be a savings of 15.4mb!

Anyway, the easiest thing to do is to make a SFX using both programs and see which one is smaller.  

[Jeysie]

From my experience, video and audio formats that are already compressed, such as GIF, PNG, OGG, MP3, JPG, etc. don't compress very well. (In such cases, Zip files are more useful simply as a way to pack many files into one download.) Things like BMP, TXT, and WAV compress very well, but you likely wouldn't want to leave files in those types of formats anyway.

And AFAIK, Zip files are lossless. Certainly you can zip and unzip TXT and HTM files without any data loss!

Also, FWIW, I know from experience it takes ~7 hours to download ~100MB over a good 56k connection (about 5k per second).

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Louisiana Night]

3 days, to download 1GB.

If you had a good connection, and left  it on 24 hours a day.



*starts making plans to use Earthlink's connection*

[Tage]

I thought all of them were lossless as well.  =|  Anyway, it's always good to check if the archive works before you distribute it, lol.  Nothing like finally finishing the download and it was corrupted in the compression stage.  >.<

Tage

[Draco9898]

What's up with you people and Dial-up?   Upgrade man.  

[Louisiana Night]

Suffer(   ) is right. We don't all have the option.

Cable and DSL= aren't available in all(most?) areas.
Satellite= can be slower than a 56k(games).
T1, T3, etc= COST(unless your job will let you use their bandwidth)
The one I can't remember(ISDN?)=cost(considering the slight increase in bandwidth).
any other options?

and finally, we might not be able to afford it.

So far, the best option I can see, is sending broadband over air waves(over a long distance). You'd have to get a license(HAM) to do it(at least in the US), but I think it'd be worth it(cheaper than letting a DSL company do it, which isn't very common).

P.S. If you haven't guessed, that's what I'm considering now(HAM).

[Grundy]

HAM has become a big thing in Sydney, because of the cost of ADSL and Cable....

But where I live, Canberra, there is a VERY modern ( the last 3 years ) firbe network rolled out all over the city and the cost of broadband is extremely affordable.

You can even get upto 32Mb connections now for as little as $150/month ( AUD )
I'm on a great connection, which I pay $90/month for. Yes, I could go for a $30/month Broadband connection, but I like to spoil myself!

( This is all in Aussie Dollars, so cut it in half to get rough American dollars. )

DSL is affordable, and with the savings you make from not making a phone call everytime you connect, the cost of braodband is quite reasonable.

So if you're on 56K...    
Do some research and you may work out ( like I did ) that broadband can even SAVE you time and money.

For example, I used to pay about $30/Month just for the phonecalls when connecting and another $30 for the connection costs with the ISP. ($60/month total.)
I can get a 512/128 DSL connection for $39.95/month...
Saving me $20!
( No phone calls, not waiting, high speed! )
And yes, the is an 'unlimited' DSL connection, no DL limits.

I'm just making a point, do your research...  

[Louisiana Night]

do your research

I am. I can't get broadband here(from any internet provider). So I'm trying to find an unconventional way(HAM).

[Grundy]

The Catch22 is that HAM is probably only viable/doable in areas that already have decent DSL/Cable ISP's.

That has certainly being the case here in Australia.

Satelite is great for fast downloading, but if you want to play games, it's lag is unbearable.
( Atleast you will get KQ9 quickly! )

Otherwise, CALL the ISP's and ask about braodband, highspeed services, because they may not list them on websites/advertisements.
Best to call and talk to someone to find out their situation.
Sometimes it all comes down to the Phone Services comany, not the ISP's.  

[Louisiana Night]

The Catch22 is that HAM is probably only viable/doable in areas that already have decent DSL/Cable ISP's.

I'm about a mile out of range(DSL).

*bangs head against wall*

[Yonkey]

Problem is, both DSL and Cable in my area are in $40-$50/month USD range, and that's just way too much money compared to $16 for dial-up.

That seems excessively high.   We pay $46/month for Cable and that's in CDN and after taxes.  We don't live in the downtown core, but when I did in Ottawa (the capital of Canada), I was paying around the same thing, though I was getting much faster speeds when I lived there.  

I haven't looked into DSL pricing, but it must be around the same price.  Some of my relatives have DSL and say it's cheaper, but it depends on the account and bandwidth you use (i.e. HiSpeed Lite vs. Regular).