Simple question, Anyone got a simple answer?

I have a whole bunch of jpg files stored in a zip, How to i make this zip file accessable to XBMP,

To i have to use relax to map the zip file as a virtual drive or something?

Some help please gents!.

P.S. I have searched through the forum and it has been asked before but not yet answered, If someone tells me how I will quite happily knock up a tutorial for others to benefit.

hum....

jpeg in a zip file?

I hope it is not for saving space

Extract the .zip and have all the files in .jpeg in the mapped folder

what a silly, silly question

The reasons are 5 fold,
1)Reduce fragmentation of the drive with 1000's of pictures
2) increase performance, if you have folders with thousands of files in they tend to get real slow this will also impead the system in general
3)Its also a lot faster to transfer as the ftp protocol is generally quite slow at doing many small files.
4) Organisation and archiving, zip files are nice and tidy.
5) AND YES IT DOES SAVE SPACE BUT NOT BY COMPRESSING

To explain: im not sure about fatx but most systems have sectrr sizes, and if a file extends even a byte into that sector it takes up a whole sector, on my 2000 machine the secotr sizes are 4k so calculating the average wastage is gonna be half that (2k) multiplied by the amount of files per zip (1000) makes over 2meg reduction and thats without compression.

Sorry if its a 'Silly' question but I must say its no more or less 'Silly' than your response.

Ya i remeber also hearing that Xbmp would be able to read zip files, would they work with relax? and also would they work using relax and a movie in a zip file?

QUOTE (jfuller @ Feb 5 2003, 04:28 PM)

1)Reduce fragmentation of the drive with 1000's of pictures

Damn, that's a lot-o-porn

I would think that speed would be about the same. Since XBMP would have to decompress and then list the files. As for HD space, that's your call, I can see that waste. But is it worth it? And as for transfers, I totally agree with you on that one, took forever to send all those friggin roms to the xbox. Most of which were the same size as a normal pic.

Relax does contain an unzipper. I have not experimented with it yet, but I believe you can add a .zip .bin or .iso file the same way you add a shared folder.

QUOTE (Stubby @ Feb 5 2003, 06:21 PM)

Damn, that's a lot-o-porn

but no.
well maybe a little,
naah,
hmmm,
most definatly no.

QUOTE (jfuller @ Feb 5 2003, 05:28 PM)

The reasons are 5 fold, 1)Reduce fragmentation of the drive with 1000's of pictures 2) increase performance, if you have folders with thousands of files in they tend to get real slow this will also impead the system in general 3)Its also a lot faster to transfer as the ftp protocol is generally quite slow at doing many small files. 4) Organisation and archiving, zip files are nice and tidy. 5) AND YES IT DOES SAVE SPACE BUT NOT BY COMPRESSING To explain: im not sure about fatx but most systems have sectrr sizes, and if a file extends even a byte into that sector it takes up a whole sector, on my 2000 machine the secotr sizes are 4k so calculating the average wastage is gonna be half that (2k) multiplied by the amount of files per zip (1000) makes over 2meg reduction and thats without compression. Sorry if its a 'Silly' question but I must say its no more or less 'Silly' than your response.

fair enough

QUOTE

QUOTE (jfuller @ Feb 5 2003, 05:28 PM) The reasons are 5 fold, 1)Reduce fragmentation of the drive with 1000's of pictures 2) increase performance, if you have folders with thousands of files in they tend to get real slow this will also impead the system in general 3)Its also a lot faster to transfer as the ftp protocol is generally quite slow at doing many small files. 4) Organisation and archiving, zip files are nice and tidy. 5) AND YES IT DOES SAVE SPACE BUT NOT BY COMPRESSING To explain: im not sure about fatx but most systems have sectrr sizes, and if a file extends even a byte into that sector it takes up a whole sector, on my 2000 machine the secotr sizes are 4k so calculating the average wastage is gonna be half that (2k) multiplied by the amount of files per zip (1000) makes over 2meg reduction and thats without compression. Sorry if its a 'Silly' question but I must say its no more or less 'Silly' than your response.  fair enough

we all learn something new each day isn't

Does any body tried this before ?