Create ISO Context

[Lazybones]

The basic idea is to add a "Create ISO" menu item when right clicking on a CD drive.

 

The feature would function in two ways

 

Right Click

- Opens ImgBurn in read mode

- Sets the name to the disks label name

 

Right Click + Drag and drop

- Opens ImgBurn in read mode

- Sets the name to the disks label name

- Sets the path to the folder the user let go on

- Starts the ISO creation process

 

I think this would be a great time saver in the same way that the context menus for WinZip and 7-Zip do something similar for extracting or creating archives.

[LIGHTNING UK!]

I can do the top one, no idea how to do the 2nd one though.

[Lazybones]

I can do the top one, no idea how to do the 2nd one though.

 

 

Both are covered here

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/a...4.aspx#dragdrop

 

Most of it is just registry key setup, you just need a to handle the call when the OS sends it. You already have methods that support all that I asked in the command line parameters.

[LIGHTNING UK!]

It doesn't look quite as simple as just adding a few reg keys, you have to build a dll to do all the work and register it as a content menu handler.

 

Sorry but that looks like to much messing around with stuff I've not done before, for something one person will probably use once in their lifetime!

 

Being able to drag and drop a drive onto a folder and have some program load up and make an ISO of it is erm... a little weird.

 

Feel free to make your own one to do that though. It's nothing you need me for - as you say, all the CLI stuff is already there, just use it.

 

Some guy called 'Chris' on this forum made one for right clicking on a VIDEO_TS folder and building an ISO from it. I'm sure that could be expanded to do what you want it to do.

[Lazybones]

Well it was worth asking.

 

I find installing tools to simplify using other tools to be counter intuitive.

[LIGHTNING UK!]

Indeed, it's always worth asking

 

If I already had a dll in place to handle all the context menu stuff, perhaps it wouldn't be such a big ask.

 

But like your name, I am a bit of a lazybones and I prefer to spend my time working on the core parts of the program (using existing knowledge) rather than little things (I have no prior knowledge of) that only a few people will benefit from.

 

I think you're a little off the wall when you say:

 

I find installing tools to simplify using other tools to be counter intuitive.

 

Simplifying is one thing, but what you're asking for here in not 'normal' functionality for any burning program I've ever seen created.

 

You're more likely to find that sort of functionality on a Mac.

 

You shouldn't think of Chris's dll as another tool, it's simply an extension of ImgBurn - lots of programs have extensions that don't make it into the base package, it's certainly not a new concept.

[Lazybones]

I think you're a little off the wall when you say:

 

I find installing tools to simplify using other tools to be counter intuitive.

 

Simplifying is one thing, but what you're asking for here in not 'normal' functionality for any burning program I've ever seen created.

 

Well every other burning tool has gone the way of including the kitchen sink, I thought you where creating something better.

a) it is a simplification of an existing function down to one/two actions by the user

as I stated other common utility tools like the archiving programs like winzip have had a function like this for years, why not bring something new to burning tools.

 

You're more likely to find that sort of functionality on a Mac.

 

LOL thats the kind of comment I expect to see in a linux forum! Suggesting something that makes functionality easier for the user, doesn't make the application any less powerful for the power user.

[LIGHTNING UK!]

I guess it just depends on what you're used to.

 

I can honestly say I've never right clicked and dragged an archive file (with the purpose of extracting it) in my entire life.

 

I guess you might find it useful in the way you like to work, but for me, it's only useful if I have already navigated to the folder I'm going to want to extract to.

 

Then I think to myself, why bother navigating when the program has a perfectly good extraction folder / file browser thingy of it's own? (I use WinRar over WinZip btw)

 

Not only that, I can right click, 'Extract to...' and just type in a path. The auto complete methods make light work of navigating the directory structure.

 

So yeah, if you're used to right clicking and dragging, I can see why you'd want that functionality in all your programs. On the other hand, a lot of users don't even know when to left click and when to right click, let alone know what a context menu is - and that's without bringing the whole 'dragging' thing into the equation! lol

[Lazybones]

I primarily use it to dump stuff to my desktop quickly or into a folder I am already working in, winrar supports this as well if I recall.

 

I find the file directory UIs to be inconsistent in many apps as some are built on old librarys and don't inherit the current OS UI standards.

 

You are right, it is a a matter of personal preference.

 

 

As for my Archive tool of choice I use 7-Zip http://7-zip.org/ , as you can only rely on Zip as being a common format that a typical users understands. 7-Zip is multi threaded and consistently makes smaller standard zip files than WinZip or WinRar. Also its own standard format often out performs winrar, accept when compressing some media files.

[dontasciime]

I find winrar with correct options will compress better than 7 zip, every file I have tried so far always ends up smaller in winrar.

[Lazybones]

Audio/Video or application files? WinRar is better at adding more compression to Audio/Video files

[LIGHTNING UK!]

Yeah I do a lot of stuff on the desktop too, but I never 'drag' anything, I just right click and select 'Extract to [enter name of archive file here]' and it extracts to a folder of that name.

 

I think 7-zip might become more widespread over the next few years, but right now its in the same boat as rar was a few years back with nobody really knowing how to handle the files... 'zip' was HUGE back then and people were like, 'rar? eh?!'. )

 

Now I quite often see rar files over various places, but as you say, zip is the one sites will use for their content because that's the one everyone knows - and I bet that is helped by modern OS's having built-in support for the zip format.

[dontasciime]

I never bother with audio or video files as there is no benefit to compressing mp3 files as they are already compressed, divx the same, etc.

 

I use it for Apps, docs, pdf, general stuff.

[dontasciime]

As an example I downloaded the latest 7zip beta - 7z444.exe file size 857 KB (877,976 bytes)

rarred it up and file size ends up 840 KB (860,348 bytes).

 

Then used 7zip to do same, set compression to Ultra, file format 7z etc. files size ended up 847 KB (867,712 bytes)

 

 

Gzip on the other hand is the best compression I have witnessed whereby file stored on a server with gzip enabled the file size is 10k, download it it arrives at your desktop as 10k, unzipped is 10 meg.

 

The gzip option in 7zip got the beta7z444.exe to 838k.

[blutach]

I've seen 7zip files compressed a whole lot better than RAR or ZIP. I guess it depends on the source material.

 

Regards

[Lazybones]

As an example I downloaded the latest 7zip beta - 7z444.exe file size 857 KB (877,976 bytes)

rarred it up and file size ends up 840 KB (860,348 bytes).

 

Then used 7zip to do same, set compression to Ultra, file format 7z etc. files size ended up 847 KB (867,712 bytes)

 

 

Gzip on the other hand is the best compression I have witnessed whereby file stored on a server with gzip enabled the file size is 10k, download it it arrives at your desktop as 10k, unzipped is 10 meg.

 

The gzip option in 7zip got the beta7z444.exe to 838k.

 

Um since the 7-zip.exe it self is already compressed with z-zip compression and a self extractor / installer you will get odd results.

 

Compress some known uncompressed data and see what happens.

[dontasciime]

Lol, It's not that I just heard about 7zip, I normally run it alongside winrar (not ran 7zip for about 10 months for the reason beyond this bracket]

I use winrar as I found it to be better at compressing files for me, as in, I compress the file I want with 7zip then compress it with winrar, I then keep only the one with smallest filesize. My server only has rar files, so that tells me that I choose the rarred version to upload to my space limited ftp/webspace and that speaks for itself, to me, I can only go by my own findings as you have with yours.

 

I must admit that the latest verion of 7zip(beta) is giving better results, as you can see in my previous post, It gave me the smallest filesize for the 7zipbeta.exe file, so I agreed with you.(this was using profile gzip though)

 

 

 

 

I rarred up my 2004 integrated sp2 xppro with both winrar and 7zip

 

winrar

 

 

 

7zip

 

 

 

Got a feeling if I use gzip in 7zip will get it smaller than winrar. (edit thats if it allows it as the option seems to have vanished)

 

Edit .. actually I can only use gzip on an exe

 

 

Used 7zip /zip/ bzip2 took over an hour so was expecting file size to be a lot smaller / lol - its 574 meg