I'm getting frustrated with Microsoft using
Winzip for
downloads for its fixes - you can't use the
Evaluation
version any more, you have to pay for it. If
something's
broke & Microsoft has to fix it, they shouldn't
be able
to charge me to use their fix!
Microsoft does *not* use Winzip for downloads or
for
anything else.
Yes, they use zip files, and Windows has the
ability to
handle and unzip these files on its own. Winzip
is *not*
required.[/QUOTE]
Actually, XP only handles "legacy" zipped files
(without the attendant file ext of course).
That's so it can zip/unzip them quickly, causing
minimal delays in the process. Anything using any
algo stronger than legacy cannot be unzipped by
XP; it's not designed to handle them and some of
them didn't even exist when XP was in the design
stages prior to release. The zip technology has
far surpassed the old legacy methods of the past
nowadays.
Apparently, you installed Winzip, and since you
did that,
files that are zipped are identified on your
computer as
"Winzip" files, but that is simply the way
Winzip likes
to identify them to make you think that Winzip
is
required; since you apparently think that,
Winzip's
strategy (which is basically dishonest, as far
as I'm
concerned) apparently worked.
I don't believe she said she used WinZip, did she?
I brought that up I think, along with a couple
others, as a possible solution for her. I guess
WinZip should have been forced to stay forever
free, huh?
As for WinZip being basically dishonest, that's
one of your silliest remarks in some time. If
instead 7-Zip were installed, the files would be
indicated to be 7-Zip files. Like .doc is listed
as a Word file, .bat as a batch file, and so on.
It's Microsoft and its file associatons that causs
something to indicate it's a whatever-file, so you
should actually be blaming Microsoft in that
sense.
Anyway, thanks again,
Twayne