MLUG: Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Windows "File name too long" problem
Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Windows "File name too long" problem
Email address obfuscation in effect -- please click here to turn it off.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Ah.. what really never got said straight and forward is this.

DOS in DOS, Windows 3.1, 95, 98, 98se and I think ME was not an EXE, but command.COM. In windows when you ran a 'MS-DOS Prompt' from the start menu, or whatever, this is what is opened.

Eventually by 98 I think, DOS supported and would talk Windows what... 255 character filenames, but when it talked directory listings and such, it still talked 8.3.

I think eventually there was a shell that displayed both listings in two columns.

Windows NT, 2k, and XP spoke 'windows filenames' natively, and only included 8.3 as some sort of backwards compatible functionality.

Further, it was never a .COM, as though DOS were still an operating system you could boot to w/o windows, but instead an emulator of sorts as cmd.exe.

Anyways, it shows you the file listings as the files actually are on the computer, and only provides the backwards compatible 'aliases' as it were if you explicitly use or ask for them i.e., DOS /X

Anyways... all these emails we kept all mixing and matching terminology and it seemed to lead to further confusion, so I've been wanting to kindof clear this up. My dates, and terminology may be off, but conceptually it's all pretty correct.

I think the command.com / cmd.exe also had a lot to do with the FAT32/NTFS filesystems of the drive. You can boot to a win98 boot disk and read a FAT32 partition, but you have to create a special NTFS boot disk to see NTFS partitions and manipulate them.

Again, I'm probably mixing a lot of this up, but these have been my experiences.

 //Christian

Mike Miller wrote:
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Christian M. Cepel wrote:

That's what I said. ??

Yes, and I thank you for it. It was someone else who was suggesting that "command" did 8.3 filenames and that cmd did not, or so I thought.


Anyway, the important thing is what you said: cmd.exe followed by dir /x will give me what I need.

I'll do a test later.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion




_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion