File size/Number of file limits

[Franc Zabkar]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 02:05:23 -0400, 98 Guy <98@Guy.com> put finger to
keyboard and composed:

>I performed a series of serial file generations to see how many files
>could be created in a subdirectory while changing the length of the
>file name.
>
>The following table shows the file-name length and the corresponding
>number of files that could be created before this eror was generated:
>
> The directory or file cannot be created
>
> 6.0 - 65,533
> 6.3 - 32,767
> 12.3 - 21,845
> 15.3 - 21,845
> 17.3 - 21,845
> 23.3 - 16,384
> 47.3 - 13,107
> 63.3 - 9,362
> 96.3 - 7,282
>
>So in the first case, with a filename composed of 6 characters (and no
>suffix) I was able to create 65,533 files. In the second case, the
>filename was composed of 6-characters.3-characters, and the directory
>would only hold 32,767 of those files. So as the filename length
>increases, there is a decrease in the number of possible files.
>
>According to the OP:
>
>> The target 'contracts' directory is 599MB and contains 16135
>> objects. We are appending a few hundred files. We get the
>> following error:
>> 'The directory or file cannot be created.
>
>For the above to happen, the existing 16,135 files would have to have
>long file names (about 20 characters, more likely 23 characters,
>possibly slightly more).

I created a file named "dummy" and then copied it to several files on
a floppy diskette as follows.

==================================================================
C:\WIN98SE>echo blah > dummy

C:\WIN98SE>for %i in (7 78 789 7890 78901 789012 7890123) do copy
dummy a:\01234567890123456%i.txt

C:\WIN98SE>dir a:

012345~3 TXT 7 10-27-07 8:49a 012345678901234567.txt
012345~4 TXT 7 10-27-07 8:49a 0123456789012345678.txt
012345~5 TXT 7 10-27-07 8:49a 01234567890123456789.txt
012345~6 TXT 7 10-27-07 8:49a 012345678901234567890.txt
012345~7 TXT 7 10-27-07 8:49a 0123456789012345678901.txt
012345~8 TXT 7 10-27-07 8:49a 01234567890123456789012.txt
012345~9 TXT 7 10-27-07 8:49a 012345678901234567890123.txt
==================================================================

I then dumped the directory structure using Debug. It appears that
there are 3 entries for filenames of 21 characters, and 4 entries for
22 and 23 characters.

=====================================================================
4A0 42 33 00 34 00 35 00 36-00 37 00 0F 00 7B 38 00 B3.4.5.6.7...{8.
4B0 39 00 30 00 31 00 2E 00-74 00 00 00 78 00 74 00 9.0.1...t...x.t.
4C0 01 30 00 31 00 32 00 33-00 34 00 0F 00 7B 35 00 .0.1.2.3.4...{5.
4D0 36 00 37 00 38 00 39 00-30 00 00 00 31 00 32 00 6.7.8.9.0...1.2.
4E0 30 31 32 33 34 35 7E 37-54 58 54 20 00 94 53 46 012345~7TXT ..SF
4F0 5B 37 5B 37 00 00 27 46-5B 37 11 00 07 00 00 00 [7[7..'F[7......

500 43 74 00 00 00 FF FF FF-FF FF FF 0F 00 1B FF FF Ct..............
510 FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF-FF FF 00 00 FF FF FF FF ................
520 02 33 00 34 00 35 00 36-00 37 00 0F 00 1B 38 00 .3.4.5.6.7....8.
530 39 00 30 00 31 00 32 00-2E 00 00 00 74 00 78 00 9.0.1.2.....t.x.
540 01 30 00 31 00 32 00 33-00 34 00 0F 00 1B 35 00 .0.1.2.3.4....5.
550 36 00 37 00 38 00 39 00-30 00 00 00 31 00 32 00 6.7.8.9.0...1.2.
560 30 31 32 33 34 35 7E 38-54 58 54 20 00 1D 54 46 012345~8TXT ..TF
570 5B 37 5B 37 00 00 27 46-5B 37 12 00 07 00 00 00 [7[7..'F[7......

580 43 78 00 74 00 00 00 FF-FF FF FF 0F 00 3B FF FF Cx.t...........
590 FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF-FF FF 00 00 FF FF FF FF ................
5A0 02 33 00 34 00 35 00 36-00 37 00 0F 00 3B 38 00 .3.4.5.6.7...8.
5B0 39 00 30 00 31 00 32 00-33 00 00 00 2E 00 74 00 9.0.1.2.3.....t.
5C0 01 30 00 31 00 32 00 33-00 34 00 0F 00 3B 35 00 .0.1.2.3.4...5.
5D0 36 00 37 00 38 00 39 00-30 00 00 00 31 00 32 00 6.7.8.9.0...1.2.
5E0 30 31 32 33 34 35 7E 39-54 58 54 20 00 6E 54 46 012345~9TXT .nTF
5F0 5B 37 5B 37 00 00 27 46-5B 37 13 00 07 00 00 00 [7[7..'F[7......
=====================================================================

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 09:05:28 +1000, Franc Zabkar
<fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> put finger to keyboard and composed:

>It appears that
>there are 3 entries for filenames of 21 characters, and 4 entries for
>22 and 23 characters.

Sorry, that should have been "3 entries for filenames of 22
characters, and 4 entries for 23 and 24 characters".

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:30:21 GMT, teebo <no@mail.no> put finger to
keyboard and composed:

>>> * Similarly, a FAT file system driver must not allow a directory
>>> (a file that is actually a container for other files) to be larger
>>> than 65,536 * 32 (2,097,152) bytes.
>
>good to know that I never need more than 2MB to hold a directory list in
>memory
>
>> I'm thinking that this restriction could in extreme circumstances
>> result in file system corruption. For example, let's assume that the
>> directory is full (65,536 entries) and that the machine has been
>> booted in Win9x real DOS mode. What happens if you try to create an
>> additional file? AFAICS, DOS sees the existing LFNs as deleted files
>
>nope! the LFNs are not marked as deleted files.
>The first char in the filename-part in the LFN-posts are a letter
>that describes number or LFN-posts the LFN-filename have. A is one LFN-post
>B is two, C is three etc.
>
>the special marking of the LFN-posts is instead by using fileattribute
>DiskLabel-System-Hidden-ReadOnly
>
>> (each entry has a leading 0xE5 flag byte), so wouldn't DOS then
>> overwrite one of these LFNs? Or does Win9x DOS understand that these
>> entries are LFNs even though it doesn't support them?
>
>dos without LFN-support understands them as "bad" and don't touch them.
>
>(And if you run old scandisk type of diskutilities, like norton disk
>doctor etc,
>and the find these "errorus lines" and removes them, nothing more than the
>long filenames is destroyed. the files can allways be used with the short
>names)

Thanks for correcting my disinformation. The directory structure is
indeed as you describe. The following example is for a Win98 machine.

===================================================================
C:\WIN98SE>rem > a:\longfilename.txt

C:\WIN98SE>debug
-l 100 0 13 1
-d 100

140 42 74 00 78 00 74 00 00-00 FF FF 0F 00 D4 FF FF Bt.x.t..........
150 FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF-FF FF 00 00 FF FF FF FF ................
160 01 6C 00 6F 00 6E 00 67-00 66 00 0F 00 D4 69 00 .l.o.n.g.f....i.
170 6C 00 65 00 6E 00 61 00-6D 00 00 00 65 00 2E 00 l.e.n.a.m...e...
180 4C 4F 4E 47 46 49 7E 31-54 58 54 20 00 5B 6F 35 LONGFI~1TXT .[o5
190 5B 37 5B 37 00 00 70 35-5B 37 00 00 00 00 00 00 [7[7..p5[7......

-q
===================================================================

My confusion arose from the results of my experimentation on an XP
system (see the recent "UPPERCASE" thread). In that thread I observed
several deleted entries in the directory structure even though I had
not deleted any files. I had merely launched Notepad, typed "blah",
and then selected File -> Save As to save my work as a text file.
After exiting Notepad and using Debug to view the directory entries, I
found entries corresponding to the newly created file, as well as
entries with 0xE5 flag bytes which denote a deleted file. Maybe this
behaviour is a consequence of an autosave function rather than some OS
quirk, ie maybe Notepad automatically saves the latest copy on exit???

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 02:05:23 -0400, 98 Guy <98@Guy.com> put finger to
keyboard and composed:

>I performed a series of serial file generations to see how many files
>could be created in a subdirectory while changing the length of the
>file name.
>
>The following table shows the file-name length and the corresponding
>number of files that could be created before this eror was generated:
>
> The directory or file cannot be created
>
> 6.0 - 65,533
> 6.3 - 32,767
> 12.3 - 21,845
> 15.3 - 21,845
> 17.3 - 21,845
> 23.3 - 16,384
> 47.3 - 13,107
> 63.3 - 9,362
> 96.3 - 7,282
>
>So in the first case, with a filename composed of 6 characters (and no
>suffix) I was able to create 65,533 files. In the second case, the
>filename was composed of 6-characters.3-characters, and the directory
>would only hold 32,767 of those files. So as the filename length
>increases, there is a decrease in the number of possible files.

From my testing I think the rule is as follows.

If we consider the SFN (32 bytes) to be one directory entry, then each
entry assigned to the LFN can store 13 characters. So to determine how
many entries a particular file requires, we count the characters in
the name, extension, and any periods, and divide the result by 13.

For example, a 96.3 filename would have 100 characters. Its LFN would
then require 8 entries (100 / 13 = 7.69), and its SFN would need one
more. Dividing 65535 by 9 gives 7281.7.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[PCR]

teebo wrote:
|> The FAT32 file system has a limit of 65k filename entries. Each DOS
|> 8.3 filename will require one entry - long filenames require more.
|
| anyone know of a program that removes any unnecessary long filenames
| that are only there to preserve the Case of the filenames ?

Well... "START button, Run, WinFile".

It often is said that WinFile only understands SFNs. Maybe copy the
files in a folder to a new folder. Theoretically, you will get a folder
full of files with only SFNs. The source folder likely remains
unaltered. I'm not sure of any unexpected, additional, untoward
consequences!

WARNINGS:

(a) Don't get carried away & drop the LFNs in any system folder.
If they are used in the Registry-- there could be trouble!

(b) Even if not mentioned in the Registry, loosing LFNs may be
extremely uncomfortable, when you try to recall what the
files & folders are.

(c) Looks like it takes a little getting used to. Don't do anything
with it you might regret in the morning!

(d) WinFile doesn't seem to honor the following setting...

"START, Settings, Folder Options, View tab", & bolt "Show all
files" may as well uncheck "Hide file extensions..." too.

Therefore, you may not see all files that exist in a folder.

| something to run at a directory hierarcy that removes all
| long filenames for the files that not have more than 8+3 chars
| (where only difference between the dos filename and the
| long FileName is small and BIG letters)

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

 

[98 Guy]

> | something to run at a directory hierarcy that removes all
> | long filenames for the files that not have more than 8+3 chars
> | (where only difference between the dos filename and the
> | long FileName is small and BIG letters)

What is the issue with file names with lower-case vs upper-case
letters?

 

[teebo]

>> | something to run at a directory hierarcy that removes all
>> | long filenames for the files that not have more than 8+3 chars
>> | (where only difference between the dos filename and the
>> | long FileName is small and BIG letters)
>
> What is the issue with file names with lower-case vs upper-case
> letters?

normal FAT-filenames (8+3 "dosfilenames") is allways saved in
uppercase only. (even though windows filemanager shows them as
lowercase with the first letter Uppercase)

So if you write any letter in the filename as lowercase when you
make the file, windows have to create a long-file-name too for it so
it can save the correct case somewhere.

Most people don't care about the casing of the filename though
(especially since windows shows all-uppercase filnames as lowercase
anyway...) so if you have lot of files that is not longer than
8+3 then you can save space in your directories if you could
run something that killed the long-file-name for just those files.
(I guess I could do that with some normal multirename-tool and set it
to rename all files with 8+3 chars or shorter, that don't have any
unicode or other special chars not allowed in dos, in a certain
directory with subdirectories, to be all UPPERCASE. But that will probably
be a whole bunch of clicks to make it do that, and I'm not sure it will
actually remove the long-file-name, maybe only make it upperase too?)

What you will loose is that filnames like "AbiSuite" will be
shown as "Abisuite" but I can live with that...

(but the orginal poster had longer filenames so he have
no use for this anyway)

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 03:22:10 GMT, teebo <no@mail.no> put finger to
keyboard and composed:

>>> | something to run at a directory hierarcy that removes all
>>> | long filenames for the files that not have more than 8+3 chars
>>> | (where only difference between the dos filename and the
>>> | long FileName is small and BIG letters)
>>
>> What is the issue with file names with lower-case vs upper-case
>> letters?
>
>normal FAT-filenames (8+3 "dosfilenames") is allways saved in
>uppercase only. (even though windows filemanager shows them as
>lowercase with the first letter Uppercase)

To force Explorer to "allow all uppercase names", go to View -> Folder
Options -> View and check the appropriate box.

>So if you write any letter in the filename as lowercase when you
>make the file, windows have to create a long-file-name too for it so
>it can save the correct case somewhere.
>
>Most people don't care about the casing of the filename though
>(especially since windows shows all-uppercase filnames as lowercase
>anyway...) so if you have lot of files that is not longer than
>8+3 then you can save space in your directories if you could
>run something that killed the long-file-name for just those files.
>(I guess I could do that with some normal multirename-tool and set it
>to rename all files with 8+3 chars or shorter, that don't have any
>unicode or other special chars not allowed in dos, in a certain
>directory with subdirectories, to be all UPPERCASE. But that will probably
>be a whole bunch of clicks to make it do that, and I'm not sure it will
>actually remove the long-file-name, maybe only make it upperase too?)

Yes, that's what happens. You need to make a copy instead.

C:\WIN98SE>echo blah > a:\MiXdCaSe.TxT
C:\WIN98SE>ren a:\MiXdCaSe.TxT MIXDCASE.TXT
C:\WIN98SE>copy a:\MIXDCASE.TXT a:\UPPRCASE.TXT
C:\WIN98SE>debug
-L 100 0 13 1
-D 100
100 41 4D 00 49 00 58 00 44-00 43 00 0F 00 0D 41 00 AM.I.X.D.C....A.
110 53 00 45 00 2E 00 54 00-58 00 00 00 54 00 00 00 S.E...T.X...T...
120 4D 49 58 44 43 41 53 45-54 58 54 20 00 3D C8 7D MIXDCASETXT .=.}
130 5D 37 5D 37 00 00 98 7E-5D 37 02 00 07 00 00 00 ]7]7...~]7......
140 55 50 50 52 43 41 53 45-54 58 54 20 00 21 9D 7E UPPRCASETXT .!.~
150 5D 37 5D 37 00 00 98 7E-5D 37 03 00 07 00 00 00 ]7]7...~]7......

>What you will loose is that filnames like "AbiSuite" will be
>shown as "Abisuite" but I can live with that...
>
>(but the orginal poster had longer filenames so he have
>no use for this anyway)

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[John John]

PCR wrote:

> 98 Guy wrote:
> |> | something to run at a directory hierarcy that removes all
> |> | long filenames for the files that not have more than 8+3 chars
> |> | (where only difference between the dos filename and the
> |> | long FileName is small and BIG letters)
> |
> | What is the issue with file names with lower-case vs upper-case
> | letters?
>
> As teebo may have said, I think someone may have wanted to get a maximum
> number of files into one directory. To do that, one must eliminate LFNs
> (Long File Names). In Win98, a LFN is created for a file that has
> mixed-case letters-- even if there is no other reason to do so (I do
> believe).


http://support.microsoft.com/kb/161982
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/130598

John

 

[PCR]

98 Guy wrote:
|> | something to run at a directory hierarcy that removes all
|> | long filenames for the files that not have more than 8+3 chars
|> | (where only difference between the dos filename and the
|> | long FileName is small and BIG letters)
|
| What is the issue with file names with lower-case vs upper-case
| letters?

As teebo may have said, I think someone may have wanted to get a maximum
number of files into one directory. To do that, one must eliminate LFNs
(Long File Names). In Win98, a LFN is created for a file that has
mixed-case letters-- even if there is no other reason to do so (I do
believe).


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

 

[PCR]

John John wrote:
| PCR wrote:
|
|> 98 Guy wrote:
|> |> | something to run at a directory hierarcy that removes all
|> |> | long filenames for the files that not have more than 8+3 chars
|> |> | (where only difference between the dos filename and the
|> |> | long FileName is small and BIG letters)
|> |
|> | What is the issue with file names with lower-case vs upper-case
|> | letters?
|>
|> As teebo may have said, I think someone may have wanted to get a
|> maximum number of files into one directory. To do that, one must
|> eliminate LFNs (Long File Names). In Win98, a LFN is created for a
|> file that has mixed-case letters-- even if there is no other reason
|> to do so (I do believe).
|
|
| http://support.microsoft.com/kb/161982
| http://support.microsoft.com/kb/130598

Those articles are a good find, especially the first which says...

.....Quote 161982............
Windows 95/98/Me and Windows NT/2000/XP behave differently because of
the way the two platforms store mixed-case short (8.3) filenames.
Windows NT/2000/XP stores each mixed-case short filename in a single
directory entry with its case preserved. Windows 95/98/Me, however,
creates two directory entries for mixed-case short filenames: one entry
is for the 8.3 name in all upper-case (as MS-DOS stores filenames) the
second is for a long filename entry that stores the filename in
mixed-case.

Although Windows 95/98/Me stores mixed-case short filenames with two
directory entries, it stores all upper-case short filenames in a single
directory entry just as MS-DOS does.
.....EOQ..........................

I THINK it very nicely confirms what I THINK I've been saying all along
about SFNs in Win98! Although at first I thought Zabcar had proved XP
would also build a LFN when only mixed-case letters were the reason for
it...

news:nudrh3pikoih509oou62as0i30ka8kgase@4ax.com
....Quote...............
OK, I now have an XP box for testing.
I used Notepad to save a text file as ...

....snip...
Mix_CaSe.TxT
....snip...
XP Explorer displays the files exactly as saved, as does a Dir from a
CMD window.

However, on a W98 box the filenames are displayed as ...
....snip...
Mix_CaSe.TxT

....snip...
Debug shows the following directory structure:

....snip...
240 E5 4D 00 69 00 78 00 5F-00 43 00 0F 00 F5 61 00 .M.i.x._.C....a.
250 53 00 65 00 2E 00 54 00-78 00 00 00 54 00 00 00 S.e...T.x...T...
260 E5 49 58 5F 43 41 53 45-54 58 54 20 00 75 CE 16 .IX_CASETXT .u..
270 21 28 21 28 00 00 CF 16-21 28 00 00 00 00 00 00 !(!(....!(......
280 41 4D 00 69 00 78 00 5F-00 43 00 0F 00 F5 61 00 AM.i.x._.C....a.
290 53 00 65 00 2E 00 54 00-78 00 00 00 54 00 00 00 S.e...T.x...T...
2A0 4D 49 58 5F 43 41 53 45-54 58 54 20 00 75 CE 16 MIX_CASETXT .u..
2B0 21 28 21 28 00 00 D0 16-21 28 05 00 04 00 00 00 !(!(....!(......

....snip...
....EOQ..................

....I think I see now that "Mix_CaSe.TxT" isn't JUST mixed-case-- it also
contains an underline (_) -- which is a special character -- & that's
what caused the LFN to generate, going by the 2nd article you posted:
"To create a file name that will be displayed in all uppercase letters,
include an extended character (such as a comma or space) in the
filename."

Thanks!

| John

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:38:42 GMT, teebo <no@mail.no> put finger to
keyboard and composed:

>> I performed a series of serial file generations to see how many files
>> could be created in a subdirectory while changing the length of the
>> file name.
>>
>> 6.0 - 65,533
>> 6.3 - 32,767
>
>strange that it starts to use LFN-names when you add extension to
>the filenames? are you sure you didn't got lowercase in the
>fileextensions somehow?

It appears that LFNs are created (in Win9X) unless both the name and
extension are in uppercase 8.3 format.

C:\WIN98SE\TEMP>echo blah > dummy
C:\WIN98SE\TEMP>copy dummy a:\lowrcase.txt
C:\WIN98SE\TEMP>copy dummy a:\UPPRCASE.TXT
C:\WIN98SE\TEMP>copy dummy a:\FILENAME.ext
C:\WIN98SE\TEMP>debug
-L 100 0 13 1
-D 100
100 41 6C 00 6F 00 77 00 72-00 63 00 0F 00 2F 61 00 Al.o.w.r.c.../a.
110 73 00 65 00 2E 00 74 00-78 00 00 00 74 00 00 00 s.e...t.x...t...
120 4C 4F 57 52 43 41 53 45-54 58 54 20 00 62 2D 3F LOWRCASETXT .b-?
130 5E 37 5E 37 00 00 C8 3E-5E 37 02 00 07 00 00 00 ^7^7...>^7......
140 55 50 50 52 43 41 53 45-54 58 54 20 00 B8 30 3F UPPRCASETXT ..0?
150 5E 37 5E 37 00 00 C8 3E-5E 37 03 00 07 00 00 00 ^7^7...>^7......
160 41 46 00 49 00 4C 00 45-00 4E 00 0F 00 F6 41 00 AF.I.L.E.N....A.
170 4D 00 45 00 2E 00 65 00-78 00 00 00 74 00 00 00 M.E...e.x...t...
180 46 49 4C 45 4E 41 4D 45-45 58 54 20 00 35 34 3F FILENAMEEXT .54?
190 5E 37 5E 37 00 00 C8 3E-5E 37 04 00 07 00 00 00 ^7^7...>^7......

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:00:40 -0300, John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca>
put finger to keyboard and composed:

>PCR wrote:
>
>> 98 Guy wrote:
>> |> | something to run at a directory hierarcy that removes all
>> |> | long filenames for the files that not have more than 8+3 chars
>> |> | (where only difference between the dos filename and the
>> |> | long FileName is small and BIG letters)
>> |
>> | What is the issue with file names with lower-case vs upper-case
>> | letters?
>>
>> As teebo may have said, I think someone may have wanted to get a maximum
>> number of files into one directory. To do that, one must eliminate LFNs
>> (Long File Names). In Win98, a LFN is created for a file that has
>> mixed-case letters-- even if there is no other reason to do so (I do
>> believe).

Win 95/98/Me Copies Fewer Files in Root Directories than Windows
NT/2000/XP

>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/161982

Microsoft's article states that ...

"Windows 95/98/Me and Windows NT/2000/XP behave differently because of
the way the two platforms store mixed-case short (8.3) filenames.
Windows NT/2000/XP stores each mixed-case short filename in a single
directory entry with its case preserved. Windows 95/98/Me, however,
creates two directory entries for mixed-case short filenames: one
entry is for the 8.3 name in all upper-case (as MS-DOS stores
filenames) the second is for a long filename entry that stores the
filename in mixed-case."

The above statement is misleading. Files of the type ...

FILENAME.ext
filename.EXT
filename.ext
FILENAME.EXT

.... are stored by XP as a single uppercase directory entry (ie no
LFN). Two bits in a reserved byte within that same directory entry
indicate whether the name and/or the extension are to be displayed as
uppercase or lowercase. XP understands this byte, but Win9x/DOS
ignores it, which means that the latter OSes cannot preserve the
filename's original case.

If "mixed case" is taken to mean files of the type FiLeNaMe.ExT, then
both XP and Win9x generate LFNs.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:35:03 -0400, "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

>...I think I see now that "Mix_CaSe.TxT" isn't JUST mixed-case-- it also
>contains an underline (_) -- which is a special character -- & that's
>what caused the LFN to generate, going by the 2nd article you posted:
>"To create a file name that will be displayed in all uppercase letters,
>include an extended character (such as a comma or space) in the
>filename."

I don't think the underscore is a "special" or "extended" character. I
believe an extended character is any character that is not allowed in
a standard 8.3 DOS file name. Unfortunately I no longer have an XP box
so I'll have to leave it to others to prove you wrong.

BTW, is FILE0000.EXT uppercase or mixed case? Is file0000.ext
lowercase or mixed case? -)

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Tim Slattery]

Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote:

>BTW, is FILE0000.EXT uppercase or mixed case?

Upper case. You wouldn't need a LFN entry for that one.

>Is file0000.ext lowercase or mixed case? -)

I'd say lower case, but it doesn't matter. The important thing is that
you'd need two directory entries for that name: one for the DOS
version (FILE0000.EXT), and one for the lower-case version.

--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(Shell/User)
Slattery_T@bls.gov
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt

 

[98 Guy]

Franc Zabkar wrote:

> >> 6.0 - 65,533
> >> 6.3 - 32,767

In the first case (6.0) the 6 characters of the file name were
numbers. In the second case (6.3) the file name was a set of 6
numbers.txt (.txt = lower case).

So win-9x (and ME?) create 2 entries for a short name (8.3) if the
name has any lower case letters - the first entry being an all
upper-case version, only for DOS's benefit? Yes?

Is this because DOS can't handle mixed-case 8.3 names, or because MS
didn't want to deal with confused user support calls along the lines
of "I can see the file right there, but when I try to copy it I keep
getting file-not-found !"

Given a command-line oriented OS like DOS, perhaps MS felt it was best
to remove case-confusion and convert all file names to upper case all
the time.

I'd like to see what happens when you create some mixed-case 8.3 files
on a FAT-32 drive under XP and then boot the drive under DOS and do a
DIR.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:16:20 -0400, 98 Guy <98@Guy.com> put finger to
keyboard and composed:

>Franc Zabkar wrote:
>
>> >> 6.0 - 65,533
>> >> 6.3 - 32,767
>
>In the first case (6.0) the 6 characters of the file name were
>numbers. In the second case (6.3) the file name was a set of 6
>numbers.txt (.txt = lower case).
>
>So win-9x (and ME?) create 2 entries for a short name (8.3) if the
>name has any lower case letters - the first entry being an all
>upper-case version, only for DOS's benefit? Yes?

It appears that way.

>Is this because DOS can't handle mixed-case 8.3 names, or because MS
>didn't want to deal with confused user support calls along the lines
>of "I can see the file right there, but when I try to copy it I keep
>getting file-not-found !"

I don't have too many answers, I just have results.

>Given a command-line oriented OS like DOS, perhaps MS felt it was best
>to remove case-confusion and convert all file names to upper case all
>the time.

That sounds plausible.

>I'd like to see what happens when you create some mixed-case 8.3 files
>on a FAT-32 drive under XP and then boot the drive under DOS and do a
>DIR.

Sorry, I no longer have an XP machine.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:07:26 +1100, Franc Zabkar
<fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> put finger to keyboard and composed:

>On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:35:03 -0400, "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> put
>finger to keyboard and composed:
>
>>...I think I see now that "Mix_CaSe.TxT" isn't JUST mixed-case-- it also
>>contains an underline (_) -- which is a special character -- & that's
>>what caused the LFN to generate, going by the 2nd article you posted:
>>"To create a file name that will be displayed in all uppercase letters,
>>include an extended character (such as a comma or space) in the
>>filename."
>
>I don't think the underscore is a "special" or "extended" character. I
>believe an extended character is any character that is not allowed in
>a standard 8.3 DOS file name. Unfortunately I no longer have an XP box
>so I'll have to leave it to others to prove you wrong.

It appears that in Win98 the underscore is not a special character, ie
no LFN is created.

C:\WIN98SE>echo blah > a:\________.___ (8.3)
C:\WIN98SE>debug
-L 100 0 13 1
-D 100
100 5F 5F 5F 5F 5F 5F 5F 5F-5F 5F 5F 20 00 2A C6 40 ___________ .*.@
110 5F 37 5F 37 00 00 C7 40-5F 37 02 00 07 00 00 00 _7_7...@_7......
-Q

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:16:20 -0400, 98 Guy <98@Guy.com> put finger to
keyboard and composed:

>So win-9x (and ME?) create 2 entries for a short name (8.3) if the
>name has any lower case letters - the first entry being an all
>upper-case version, only for DOS's benefit? Yes?
>
>Is this because DOS can't handle mixed-case 8.3 names, ...

You may want to have a look at this old post of mine. The MS-DOS names
are all lowercase, even the volume name.

"MS-DOS names for Kodak camera files":
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion/msg/7bca1af3946fd88c

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[PCR]

Franc Zabkar wrote:
| On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:07:26 +1100, Franc Zabkar
| <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> put finger to keyboard and composed:
|
|>On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:35:03 -0400, "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> put
|>finger to keyboard and composed:
|>
|>>...I think I see now that "Mix_CaSe.TxT" isn't JUST mixed-case-- it
|>>also contains an underline (_) -- which is a special character -- &
|>>that's what caused the LFN to generate, going by the 2nd article you
|>>posted: "To create a file name that will be displayed in all
|>>uppercase letters, include an extended character (such as a comma or
|>>space) in the filename."
|>
|>I don't think the underscore is a "special" or "extended" character. I
|>believe an extended character is any character that is not allowed in
|>a standard 8.3 DOS file name. Unfortunately I no longer have an XP box
|>so I'll have to leave it to others to prove you wrong.
|
| It appears that in Win98 the underscore is not a special character, ie
| no LFN is created.
|
| C:\WIN98SE>echo blah > a:\________.___ (8.3)
| C:\WIN98SE>debug
| -L 100 0 13 1
| -D 100
| 100 5F 5F 5F 5F 5F 5F 5F 5F-5F 5F 5F 20 00 2A C6 40 ___________ .*.@
| 110 5F 37 5F 37 00 00 C7 40-5F 37 02 00 07 00 00 00 _7_7...@_7......
| -Q

I'll buy that for Win98SE. But remember your very own XP directory dump
after creating "Mix_CaSe.TxT" on a floppy...?...

240 E5 4D 00 69 00 78 00 5F-00 43 00 0F 00 F5 61 00 .M.i.x._.C....a.
250 53 00 65 00 2E 00 54 00-78 00 00 00 54 00 00 00 S.e...T.x...T...
260 E5 49 58 5F 43 41 53 45-54 58 54 20 00 75 CE 16 .IX_CASETXT .u..
270 21 28 21 28 00 00 CF 16-21 28 00 00 00 00 00 00 !(!(....!(......
280 41 4D 00 69 00 78 00 5F-00 43 00 0F 00 F5 61 00 AM.i.x._.C....a.
290 53 00 65 00 2E 00 54 00-78 00 00 00 54 00 00 00 S.e...T.x...T...
2A0 4D 49 58 5F 43 41 53 45-54 58 54 20 00 75 CE 16 MIX_CASETXT .u..
2B0 21 28 21 28 00 00 D0 16-21 28 05 00 04 00 00 00 !(!(....!(......

Looks to me XP found a reason to generate a LFN, despite John John's
excellent article...

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/161982
PRB: Win 95/98/Me Copies Fewer Files in Root Directories than Windows
NT/2000/XP

....saying: "Windows NT/2000/XP stores each mixed-case short filename in
a single directory entry with its case preserved."

Therefore...!...

(a) The article is wrong (& John John must be punished), or
(b) An XP-irradiated underline (_) does qualify as a "special"
or "extended" character-- & YOU must be punished!

| - Franc Zabkar
| --
| Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net