red-ray wrote on 2021-11-08, 14:24:

red-ray wrote on 2021-11-07, 20:42:

AFAIK you can't by default use explorer to extract the files from .7z

Caluser2000 wrote on 2021-11-08, 01:56:

What is wrong with 7z? It recognize more compression formats than WinZip

As I specified my concern is that you have to install 7z whereas with zip files explorer can be used to extract the files.

The File Explorer zip function is minimalist at best. You get suggested better products but fail to give them a go, That is not particularly um a bright thing. Keep your head in the sand then.

Windows appears to be able to handle a ZIP created in 7Zip using LZMA in the ZIP - not sure if that only works because 7Zip is installed though

zip is supported only in win10/11
8.1 and less doesn't support it

robertmo wrote on 2021-11-08, 20:36:

zip is supported only in win10/11, 8.1 and less doesn't support it

You are incorrect, why do you post without getting your facts correct?

Even Dolphin and Ark handle .7z as well as any other format, so there is imho no reason not to use this format.
I'd suggest the OP to resize/remove the gifs in his archive if using .7z is no option to him for keeping his data below 5MB.

Dominus wrote on 2021-11-08, 16:56:

Since the new forum software and mote excessive allowance of quantity and size of attachments, the forum’s disk quota is filling up faster

OT question:
I sometimes feel bad conscience when posting images as attachment because I am aware of this...
is there a general rule or guideline when to post photos as attachment or use an external image hoster?
For example, like this:
- Is it of temporary interest to a particular user question only? -> use external image hoster
- is it of potential long-term interest to many users? -> attach file(s) to post

Personally, I'll try to be more conscious to try not to fill up the Vogons' disk space with stuff of the first category...

red-ray wrote on 2021-11-07, 18:29:

I specifically do not wish to hear about work arounds to the current limit of 5.00 MiB

So why am I getting them?

red-ray wrote on 2021-11-08, 22:48:

So why am I getting them?

Because it is apparent consensus that the 5MB attachment limit will not be raised.

I'm not sure why this thread has gone on as long as it has.

The software mentioned by the OP has it's own website so why does it need to be attached here?
Mention the software in a post, link to source. Done.

As far as user behavior in posting things don't worry about it unless you hit a limit.

As you may or may not have noticed this site does alot of work to keep out bots and there are no ads. Do you want ads? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRFpQuRF7YQ
The other option is relying on users contributing $$$ which we have been leery of doing for obvious reasons.

Below was posted by Snover on 9-3-2021
+---------------+----------------+
| year_uploaded | files_in_mb |
+---------------+----------------+
| 2002 | 17.05259323 |
| 2003 | 33.73684120 |
| 2004 | 57.69210625 |
| 2005 | 163.84744167 |
| 2006 | 217.06952667 |
| 2007 | 199.17222118 |
| 2008 | 155.32054996 |
| 2009 | 232.12972832 |
| 2010 | 279.07033920 |
| 2011 | 372.49246883 |
| 2012 | 423.54552460 |
| 2013 | 669.36187649 |
| 2014 | 1141.68143177 |
| 2015 | 3022.37387562 |
| 2016 | 5863.69612503 |
| 2017 | 8958.22334099 |
| 2018 | 7405.40974808 |
| 2019 | 8716.20621300 |
| 2020 | 11826.33040142 | (oops, 35% more file data)
| 2021 | 12296.03077571 | (projected through EOY)
+---------------+----------------+

Do you think it is time for a thread closure ol bean:?

DosFreak wrote on 2021-11-09, 00:49:

I'm not sure why this thread has gone on as long as it has. […]
Show full quote

I'm not sure why this thread has gone on as long as it has.

The software mentioned by the OP has it's own website so why does it need to be attached here?
Mention the software in a post, link to source. Done.

As far as user behavior in posting things don't worry about it unless you hit a limit.

As you may or may not have noticed this site does alot of work to keep out bots and there are no ads. Do you want ads? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRFpQuRF7YQ
The other option is relying on users contributing $$$ which we have been leery of doing for obvious reasons.

Below was posted by Snover on 9-3-2021
+---------------+----------------+
| year_uploaded | files_in_mb |
+---------------+----------------+
| 2002 | 17.05259323 |
| 2003 | 33.73684120 |
| 2004 | 57.69210625 |
| 2005 | 163.84744167 |
| 2006 | 217.06952667 |
| 2007 | 199.17222118 |
| 2008 | 155.32054996 |
| 2009 | 232.12972832 |
| 2010 | 279.07033920 |
| 2011 | 372.49246883 |
| 2012 | 423.54552460 |
| 2013 | 669.36187649 |
| 2014 | 1141.68143177 |
| 2015 | 3022.37387562 |
| 2016 | 5863.69612503 |
| 2017 | 8958.22334099 |
| 2018 | 7405.40974808 |
| 2019 | 8716.20621300 |
| 2020 | 11826.33040142 | (oops, 35% more file data)
| 2021 | 12296.03077571 | (projected through EOY)
+---------------+----------------+

I understand that asking for donations is something that you would prefer not to do . That being said, considering the constantly rising storage and bandwidth requirements of Vogons, I fear that at some point down the road upkeep costs might become prohibitive for the people footing them . Being pro-active and starting a donation fueled fund pre-emptively might not be a bad idea (maybe even a foundation). Vogons is a wonderful place with, IMHO, lots of fantastic good-willed members and great moderation . It would be sad to see it become a financial burden and even sadder to see it disappear someday . Beyond that, Vogons is a living, breathing shrine to the past and to what were, arguably, some of the golden ages of personal computer hardware and software . IMHO, Vogons' accumulated content has historical and cultural significance that should not be underestimated . Taking steps to ensure its perennity would, IMHO, likely be seen in a good light by the vast majority of members .

darry wrote on 2021-11-09, 03:59:

I understand that asking for donations is something that you would prefer not to do .
[...]
Taking steps to ensure its perennity would, IMHO, likely be seen in a good light by the vast majority of members .

I fully agree.
Vogons don't ask for donations.
But they don't reject these as well.
I darkly remembered having seen a page about this topic.
G..gle helped me find it: http://vogonsdrivers.com/donate.php

I made a small donation.
And set up Paypal to send small donations monthly.
Being not only an user, but also a (small) contributor makes me feel a little bit better.

(Nonetheless I'll try being a bit more conscientious when deciding whether to use an external image hoster or post images directly on Vogons - see my second-last post)

Caluser2000 wrote on 2021-11-09, 03:53:

Do you think it is time for a thread closure ol bean:?

Yes, the thread has been a total waste of my time, a simple and clear yes/no answer from a moderator was what I hoped for rather than what happened.

DosFreak wrote on 2021-11-09, 00:49:

+---------------+----------------+ | year_uploaded | files_in_mb | +---------------+----------------+ | 2021 | 12296 […]
Show full quote

+---------------+----------------+
| year_uploaded | files_in_mb |
+---------------+----------------+
| 2021 | 12296.03077571 | (projected through EOY)
+---------------+----------------+

That's only 12 GiB and given W11 specifies a 64 GiB/GB system disk feel it's quite low. Getting 2 x 1TB SSDs for a 1TB mirror won't cost that much and I for one will happily chip in.

Over the past two years I must have uploaded new SIV Beta versions of .ZIP files hundreds of times and had I left them all there the 12 GiB would be noticeably higher, but I just replace existing files. I also delete SIV test versions when I upload a the Beta that supersedes them. Below confirms there is only one instance of each file.

While checking I spotted some other largeish attachments which are drivers other members needed. Notice how I needed to rename the .z01, etc to .z01.zip and feel it would be good if .z01 + .z02 + .z03 + .z04 were allowed, epically so if I have to resort to multi-files zips for SIV.

I feel I have done all that I could to minimise the number of around 5.00 MiB attachments and still feel my request for a 5.50 MiB attachment limit is more than reasonable.

I suspect the real reason the moderators are reluctant to increase it that some members are less rigorous when it comes to deleting large obsolete attachments.

Waste of your time, perhaps, but it looks to me as others found it interesting 🤣

Dominus wrote on 2021-11-09, 06:25:

Waste of your time, perhaps, but it looks to me as others found it interesting 🤣

What I find interesting (unprofessional?) is that moderators totally failed to answer my PMs about this and I needed to create the thread in the first place.

1. maybe consider that moderators are not paid for their job here and do it in their *spare* time
2. moderators are only human. Sometimes you get a message, read it and then decide to answer later when you have more time. And then you forget. Especially if it is a topic that is not urgent at all.
3. moderators are not the site owner. *I* couldn’t answer this in a definite way because ir‘s way above my „paygrade“ 🤣
4. please feel less entitled. „Needed to create the thread in the first place“… or complaining and reporting seemingly off topic replies… it’s never your thread, even if you start it. It’s the community‘s 😉

red-ray wrote on 2021-11-09, 06:33:

Dominus wrote on 2021-11-09, 06:25:

Waste of your time, perhaps, but it looks to me as others found it interesting 🤣

What I find interesting (unprofessional?) is that moderators totally failed to answer my PMs about this and I needed to create the thread in the first place.

Because you were trying to waste THEIR time with your triviality's.

The above are files uploaded per year, not total storage used

both zip and 7z are handled by Total Commander

Not sure anyone is actually using ms file explorer

it would be like not using nc like in dos

robertmo wrote on 2021-11-08, 20:36:

zip is supported only in win10/11
8.1 and less doesn't support it

millennium has it built in
98 with plus installed
just saying 😀
(i wonder if 95 with plus does as well)

DosFreak wrote on 2021-11-09, 11:30:

The above are files uploaded per year, not total storage used

sorry for the offtopic.

Only 62Gigabytes for a forum that's been running almost 20years? I would've expected it to be a lot more. more like 4 times more at least.
that's amazing. Kudos to you all who keep it running !

maybe someone can close this thread now since there doesn't seem to be any meaningful or useful additions, unless the subject should stay open to be debated.