up vote 1 down vote favorite
share [g+] share [fb]

I want to compress a folder into multiple zip files of 50MB each but don't want them to be dependent on each other. When I use Winzip and use the split feature it creates one zip file and the others are just continuation to it. So, that means I need all of the files to unzip the folder.

I want to unzip each file separately and I don't care if the files are of varied sizes as long as they are less than 50MB.

Please Help!

link|improve this question
1  
Yea now that is a challenge man! I dont wanna ask why, but the onluy way is to make separate folder.. Ha.. makes sense.. You will need a script or something to do it auto. – ppumkin Dec 16 '11 at 16:25
You coul;d do it through trial and error... Select 55mb/60mb of files, zip them and check the filesize, if it's below then great, do the next set - if it isn't select a few less and try again. – HaydnWVN Dec 16 '11 at 16:59
Pretty much exactly what I already said :) – OG Chuck Low Dec 16 '11 at 17:04
feedback

2 Answers

up vote 1 down vote

Not happening boss. The ONLY way you could do this would be to simply Zip each individual archive that you want to be fully functional on it's own. All there is to it.

link|improve this answer
Try again bonehead. I am totally right. You may not LIKE the answer, but it IS the correct one. Also it's not only rude to neg without comments but asshatted. – OG Chuck Low Dec 16 '11 at 16:58
1  
You may be right, but you answer doesn't seem to follow the SE standards here. Quoting the FAQ, "Use your downvotes whenever you encounter an egregiously sloppy, no-effort-expended post". You don't give any explanation, call the poster "boss", use capitals, etc. I didn't meant to upset you, but please don't use rude words or get upset for this. – Ravachol Dec 16 '11 at 17:24
No problem at all. No one was rude nor do I intend to be. However you yourself disobeyed the standards by not including commentary. Aside from that... I don't really agree with your assessment of my post. If someone asks what's 2+2, the answer is a very short 4. Same here. He cannot do what he asked. Not happening is rather clear. Then I game him the fact that the only way he could do anything close to what he wanted was to simple create each specific archive individually.. Do you REALLY think he needed that spelled out for him step by step? Lastly, why is the use of "Boss" not OK? – OG Chuck Low Dec 16 '11 at 17:31
And rest assured ANY time you nerf ANY of my points and don't provide a reason without being asked to do so, yer gunna get a slightly rude reply. All there is to it. – OG Chuck Low Dec 16 '11 at 17:33
Yes, this is technically correct. But as Ravachol explains, you can use scripts to create groups of files to archive (and even do the archiving) and as long as the files weren't huge you could gauruntee each Zip file would come in under 50MB by forcing each group of file to be less than 50MB before compression (or come very close with some guesswork if you are willing to tolerate going slightly over 50 MB in the final archive.) – TimothyAWiseman Dec 16 '11 at 17:39
show 1 more comment
feedback
up vote 1 down vote

WinZip (or any modern compressing software) can't know before compressing what will be the size of compressed data. On top of that, the size of a compressed file would change (by a tiny bit) depending of the nearby files data. So if that's not theoretically impossible, WinZip is not able to do this nor any data compression software I know of, as it would involve compressing the data many times to get the closer matches. Your best hope is to manually select groups of files and compress them to get ~50MB files. And when I write "manually", you may want to try writing a script doing the work for you. But I guess 50MB is not a hard limit, and you could just use the approximation method by hand.

link|improve this answer
You answer is overly verbose. Further it focuses on a detail that has little bearing. His size caveat was an afterthought to his being able to manipulate each individual segment of the archive as a functional whole unto itself. – OG Chuck Low Dec 16 '11 at 17:35
feedback

Your Answer

 
or
required, but never shown
discard

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.