Is there a utility that can change files' short filenames (their 8.3
filenames) without changing their full Windows filenames? Ideally, the
program would be able to auto-number files as well. (I ask because I bought
a flash-based music player that sorts by files' 8.3 filesnames instead of
their full filenames, so I want to be able to change the 8.3 to get proper
sorting.) Thanks.
--
J44xm (http://j44xm.notlong.com)

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 16:40:54 -0600, J44xm <w44kz.bayvar[@]tznvy.pbz>
wrote:

>Is there a utility that can change files' short filenames (their 8.3
>filenames) without changing their full Windows filenames?

No. That's impossible.

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

Art wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 16:40:54 -0600, J44xm <w44kz.bayvar[@]tznvy.pbz>
> wrote:
>
>> Is there a utility that can change files' short filenames (their 8.3
>> filenames) without changing their full Windows filenames?
>
> No. That's impossible.
>
> Art
> http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

It seems possible, but why would anyone bother to make such an app?

jb wrote:
> Art wrote:
> > On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 16:40:54 -0600, J44xm <w44kz.bayvar[@]tznvy.pbz>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Is there a utility that can change files' short filenames (their 8.3
> >> filenames) without changing their full Windows filenames?
> >
> > No. That's impossible.
> >
> > Art
> > http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
>
> It seems possible, but why would anyone bother to make such an app?

I'm not sure about this, but ISTR the filename is stored twice in
FAT16/32, once as 8.3 and once as long using crosslinking. But... I'm
far from sure. If true, then it may be posible to change one but not
the other, though certainly windows couldnt do it. As jb says, it
serves no point, leading only to total confusion.

The OP's request reminds me of muckysoft's general approach to
problems, forget fixing them, just bend something else so it appears to
work right. In the case of W95's long filename handling, that was an
excellant and successful trick. But never any time since has it been at
all clever.


NT

(E-Mail Removed) wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

>
> I'm not sure about this, but ISTR the filename is stored
> twice in FAT16/32, once as 8.3 and once as long using
> crosslinking. But... I'm far from sure. If true, then it
> may be posible to change one but not the other, though
> certainly windows couldnt do it. As jb says, it serves no
> point, leading only to total confusion.
>
> The OP's request reminds me of muckysoft's general approach
> to problems, forget fixing them, just bend something else
> so it appears to work right. In the case of W95's long
> filename handling, that was an excellant and successful
> trick. But never any time since has it been at all clever.
>
>
> NT
>

Do you say that M$ did that well (me not sure)?
FWIW, M$ forgot to teach DOS how to delete LFNs completely.

J
--
Replies to: Nherr1professor2doktor31109(at)Oyahoo(dot)Tcom

On 6 Mar 2006 20:22:23 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>jb wrote:
>> Art wrote:
>> > On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 16:40:54 -0600, J44xm <w44kz.bayvar[@]tznvy.pbz>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Is there a utility that can change files' short filenames (their 8.3
>> >> filenames) without changing their full Windows filenames?
>> >
>> > No. That's impossible.

>> It seems possible, but why would anyone bother to make such an app?

>I'm not sure about this, but ISTR the filename is stored twice in
>FAT16/32, once as 8.3 and once as long using crosslinking. But... I'm
>far from sure. If true, then it may be posible to change one but not
>the other, though certainly windows couldnt do it.

The catch is that the 8.3 is derived from the LFN according to a rule.
They are more than merely linked, they are entwined. To change the
8.3 you must change the LFN. Of course you can rename the 8.3
but then the LFN is lost ... or rather the LFN then becomes the same
as the 8.3 name you chose. Screwing around with this sort of thing
down at the raw file system level looks to me like a recipe for
totally screwing up the file system beyond repair

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

J44xm wrote:

> Is there a utility that can change files' short filenames (their 8.3
> filenames) without changing their full Windows filenames? Ideally, the
> program would be able to auto-number files as well. (I ask because I bought
> a flash-based music player that sorts by files' 8.3 filesnames instead of
> their full filenames, so I want to be able to change the 8.3 to get proper
> sorting.) Thanks.

I went through this a while back with a new CD/DVD player. I suggest you
add a numerical *prefix* to the file name - number the prefixes in the
order you want the files to play. The short files names will change and
the files should play in the correct order.

Irfanview might work for the batch renaming - I know it can
add/increment numerical suffixes.

FWIW - I had to experiment to see what worked and what didn't (the
player had almost no info about playing MP3s). I found I could use
folders. IIRC top level files play before files in folders. You might
want to experiment a bit too *before* you rename all your file.

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group....comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 wrote:

>> >> Is there a utility that can change files' short filenames (their 8.3
>> >> filenames) without changing their full Windows filenames?
>> >
>> > No. That's impossible.
>> >
>> > Art
>> > http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
>>
>> It seems possible, but why would anyone bother to make such an app?
>
>I'm not sure about this, but ISTR the filename is stored twice in
>FAT16/32, once as 8.3 and once as long using crosslinking. But... I'm
>far from sure. If true, then it may be posible to change one but not the
>other, though certainly windows couldnt do it. As jb says, it serves no
>point, leading only to total confusion.

I'm not so sure about that. I'm assuming that what the OP wants to do
is to change the number after the ~. Changing the portion before the ~
would, I agree, lead to confusion. But the number is allocated by
Windows in the order of file creation time, and changing this shouldn't
be too difficult or too confusing. But I don't know how to do it.
--
Thoss

[To reply, replace * with . in Reply-To address]

thoss <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:bRBG$(E-Mail Removed):

> On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 wrote:
>
>>> >> Is there a utility that can change files' short
>>> >> filenames (their 8.3 filenames) without changing their
>>> >> full Windows filenames?
>>> >
>>> > No. That's impossible.
>>> >
>>> > Art
>>> > http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
>>>
>>> It seems possible, but why would anyone bother to make
>>> such an app?
>>
>>I'm not sure about this, but ISTR the filename is stored
>>twice in FAT16/32, once as 8.3 and once as long using
>>crosslinking. But... I'm far from sure. If true, then it
>>may be posible to change one but not the other, though
>>certainly windows couldnt do it. As jb says, it serves no
>>point, leading only to total confusion.
>
> I'm not so sure about that. I'm assuming that what the OP
> wants to do is to change the number after the ~. Changing
> the portion before the ~ would, I agree, lead to confusion.
> But the number is allocated by Windows in the order of
> file creation time, and changing this shouldn't be too
> difficult or too confusing. But I don't know how to do it.

The "~" need not be present in 8.3 name of a LFN.

J
--
Replies to: Nherr1professor2doktor31109(at)Oyahoo(dot)Tcom

(E-Mail Removed)lid wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed):

> > I'm not sure about this, but ISTR the filename is stored
> > twice in FAT16/32, once as 8.3 and once as long using
> > crosslinking. But... I'm far from sure. If true, then it
> > may be posible to change one but not the other, though
> > certainly windows couldnt do it. As jb says, it serves no
> > point, leading only to total confusion.
> >
> > The OP's request reminds me of muckysoft's general approach
> > to problems, forget fixing them, just bend something else
> > so it appears to work right. In the case of W95's long
> > filename handling, that was an excellant and successful
> > trick. But never any time since has it been at all clever.

> Do you say that M$ did that well (me not sure)?
> FWIW, M$ forgot to teach DOS how to delete LFNs completely.

The FAT FS structure is mostly beyond my knowledge limits, so I wouldnt
know. But I do think the ability to use LFNs really was a big move
forward for end users, the 8.3 system was/is a horror, and caused all
sorts of problems.

When I briefly came across a 3.1 system I didnt know what most of the
files did, and in many cases the only way to find out was click em and
see what happened. I'm betting this is precisely what many folks did,
curiosity got the better of them one day, and this is a recipe for
screwing up the OS.

GeOS addressed this problem with an 3 fields, 8.3 SFN, description, and
I forget what the 3rd field was, but this was a great help before I
switched to LFNs. Now things have moved forward again with freeware
apps that give you LFN plus an extra description field.

Managing to not only get LFN going but also do it compatibly with the
then existing FS was a perverse and smart move, and is one of the
things that made W95 such a big leap forward from 3.1. One of MS's good
moves, among the thousands of bad.


NT