I've noticed a curious Windows Explorer sort problem. I've noticed it in
XP, but perhaps it might show up on other versions.

To recreate the problem, do this: in a folder, create text files with the
following names: DOML677.TXT, JAML5BA.TXT, JAML72F.TXT, JAML952.TXT and
JAML9ED.TXT. Now, use Explorer to sort them by name and take a look at the
order in which they're sorted.

You'd expect to see something like this:

DOML677
JAML5BA
JAML72F
JAML952
JAML9ED


....but what you'd likely end up with is this:

DOML677
JAML5BA
JAML9ED (?)
JAML72F (?)
JAML952 (?)


Any ideas on what might be causing this? A bug in Explorer's sorting
algorithm perhaps? :-)



Regards,
Brian

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:55:21 -0400, "[SPICEISLE.COM] Brian Steele"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I've noticed a curious Windows Explorer sort problem. I've noticed it in
> XP, but perhaps it might show up on other versions.
>
> To recreate the problem, do this: in a folder, create text files with the
> following names: DOML677.TXT, JAML5BA.TXT, JAML72F.TXT, JAML952.TXT and
> JAML9ED.TXT. Now, use Explorer to sort them by name and take a look at the
> order in which they're sorted.
>
> You'd expect to see something like this:
>
> DOML677
> JAML5BA
> JAML72F
> JAML952
> JAML9ED
>
>
> ...but what you'd likely end up with is this:
>
> DOML677
> JAML5BA
> JAML9ED (?)
> JAML72F (?)
> JAML952 (?)
>
>
> Any ideas on what might be causing this? A bug in Explorer's sorting
> algorithm perhaps? :-)


No, it's not a bug. It's done this way on purpose. JAML9ED precedes
JAML72F because 9 is a lower number than 72.

However, you can change the sorting to the text-based way you
apparently prefer. See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/319827

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Also take note that Windows makes
no special distinction between Upper
and Lower case letters in that you
can't have two files of the same name
one in Upper and the other in Lower.

abc.txt = ABC.txt

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"[SPICEISLE.COM] Brian Steele" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I've noticed a curious Windows Explorer sort problem. I've noticed it in
> XP, but perhaps it might show up on other versions.
>
> To recreate the problem, do this: in a folder, create text files with the
> following names: DOML677.TXT, JAML5BA.TXT, JAML72F.TXT, JAML952.TXT and
> JAML9ED.TXT. Now, use Explorer to sort them by name and take a look at
> the order in which they're sorted.
>
> You'd expect to see something like this:
>
> DOML677
> JAML5BA
> JAML72F
> JAML952
> JAML9ED
>
>
> ...but what you'd likely end up with is this:
>
> DOML677
> JAML5BA
> JAML9ED (?)
> JAML72F (?)
> JAML952 (?)
>
>
> Any ideas on what might be causing this? A bug in Explorer's sorting
> algorithm perhaps? :-)
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Brian
>
>

Ah, ok, that partly explains it. I guess my next question is why would they
change the sort order that way...


Thanks,
Brian



"Ken Blake, MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:55:21 -0400, "[SPICEISLE.COM] Brian Steele"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> I've noticed a curious Windows Explorer sort problem. I've noticed it in
>> XP, but perhaps it might show up on other versions.
>>
>> To recreate the problem, do this: in a folder, create text files with the
>> following names: DOML677.TXT, JAML5BA.TXT, JAML72F.TXT, JAML952.TXT and
>> JAML9ED.TXT. Now, use Explorer to sort them by name and take a look at
>> the
>> order in which they're sorted.
>>
>> You'd expect to see something like this:
>>
>> DOML677
>> JAML5BA
>> JAML72F
>> JAML952
>> JAML9ED
>>
>>
>> ...but what you'd likely end up with is this:
>>
>> DOML677
>> JAML5BA
>> JAML9ED (?)
>> JAML72F (?)
>> JAML952 (?)
>>
>>
>> Any ideas on what might be causing this? A bug in Explorer's sorting
>> algorithm perhaps? :-)
>
>
> No, it's not a bug. It's done this way on purpose. JAML9ED precedes
> JAML72F because 9 is a lower number than 72.
>
> However, you can change the sorting to the text-based way you
> apparently prefer. See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/319827
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

[SPICEISLE.COM] Brian Steele wrote:
> Ah, ok, that partly explains it. I guess my next question is why would
> they
> change the sort order that way...
>
> Thanks,
> Brian
>
>
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:55:21 -0400, "[SPICEISLE.COM] Brian Steele"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> I've noticed a curious Windows Explorer sort problem. I've noticed it
>>> in
>>> XP, but perhaps it might show up on other versions.
>>>
>>> To recreate the problem, do this: in a folder, create text files with
>>> the
>>> following names: DOML677.TXT, JAML5BA.TXT, JAML72F.TXT, JAML952.TXT and
>>> JAML9ED.TXT. Now, use Explorer to sort them by name and take a look at
>>> the order in which they're sorted.
>>>
>>> You'd expect to see something like this:
>>>
>>> DOML677
>>> JAML5BA
>>> JAML72F
>>> JAML952
>>> JAML9ED
>>>
>>>
>>> ...but what you'd likely end up with is this:
>>>
>>> DOML677
>>> JAML5BA
>>> JAML9ED (?)
>>> JAML72F (?)
>>> JAML952 (?)
>>>
>>>
>>> Any ideas on what might be causing this? A bug in Explorer's sorting
>>> algorithm perhaps? :-)
>>
>>
>> No, it's not a bug. It's done this way on purpose. JAML9ED precedes
>> JAML72F because 9 is a lower number than 72.
>>
>> However, you can change the sorting to the text-based way you
>> apparently prefer. See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/319827
>>

I think because they considered it more "logical". Probably for the same
reason they changed the default sorting order (in XP) to give these results
(IIRC):

Test 1
Test 2
Test 11

instead of (as before, like in Win9x):

Test 1
Test 11
Test 2

But sometimes that sorting method works better for me, just like for the
example you gave, so I changed it to that (older) sorting method.

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:06:38 -0400, "[SPICEISLE.COM] Brian Steele"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Ah, ok, that partly explains it. I guess my next question is why would they
> change the sort order that way...



Because what order makes the most sense depends on what you are
sorting. For example, consider the following list. Which order is
correct?

July 1
July 2
July 3
July 4
July 5
July 6
July 7
July 8
July 9
July 10


or

July 1
July 10
July 2
July 3
July 4
July 5
July 6
July 7
July 8
July 9






> "Ken Blake, MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:55:21 -0400, "[SPICEISLE.COM] Brian Steele"
> > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> I've noticed a curious Windows Explorer sort problem. I've noticed it in
> >> XP, but perhaps it might show up on other versions.
> >>
> >> To recreate the problem, do this: in a folder, create text files with the
> >> following names: DOML677.TXT, JAML5BA.TXT, JAML72F.TXT, JAML952.TXT and
> >> JAML9ED.TXT. Now, use Explorer to sort them by name and take a look at
> >> the
> >> order in which they're sorted.
> >>
> >> You'd expect to see something like this:
> >>
> >> DOML677
> >> JAML5BA
> >> JAML72F
> >> JAML952
> >> JAML9ED
> >>
> >>
> >> ...but what you'd likely end up with is this:
> >>
> >> DOML677
> >> JAML5BA
> >> JAML9ED (?)
> >> JAML72F (?)
> >> JAML952 (?)
> >>
> >>
> >> Any ideas on what might be causing this? A bug in Explorer's sorting
> >> algorithm perhaps? :-)
> >
> >
> > No, it's not a bug. It's done this way on purpose. JAML9ED precedes
> > JAML72F because 9 is a lower number than 72.
> >
> > However, you can change the sorting to the text-based way you
> > apparently prefer. See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/319827
> >
> > --
> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

True enough, except sometimes I find the other way preferable - I'm trying
to remember which files - but the example he gave I guess would be one.
To repeat, this way seems better (as he wanted it to be - the old sort
method):

>>>> DOML677
>>>> JAML5BA
>>>> JAML72F
>>>> JAML952
>>>> JAML9ED

Generally works better for me. We just have to remember to use leading
zeroes in the filenames, when there are ten or more similarly named files.
Like this:

File01
File02
File03 (etc)
File10
File11

But at least the OP's sort problem above is avoided this way.


Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:06:38 -0400, "[SPICEISLE.COM] Brian Steele"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Ah, ok, that partly explains it. I guess my next question is why would
>> they
>> change the sort order that way...
>
>
>
> Because what order makes the most sense depends on what you are
> sorting. For example, consider the following list. Which order is
> correct?
>
> July 1
> July 2
> July 3
> July 4
> July 5
> July 6
> July 7
> July 8
> July 9
> July 10
>
>
> or
>
> July 1
> July 10
> July 2
> July 3
> July 4
> July 5
> July 6
> July 7
> July 8
> July 9
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> "Ken Blake, MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:55:21 -0400, "[SPICEISLE.COM] Brian Steele"
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've noticed a curious Windows Explorer sort problem. I've noticed it
>>>> in
>>>> XP, but perhaps it might show up on other versions.
>>>>
>>>> To recreate the problem, do this: in a folder, create text files with
>>>> the
>>>> following names: DOML677.TXT, JAML5BA.TXT, JAML72F.TXT, JAML952.TXT and
>>>> JAML9ED.TXT. Now, use Explorer to sort them by name and take a look at
>>>> the
>>>> order in which they're sorted.
>>>>
>>>> You'd expect to see something like this:
>>>>
>>>> DOML677
>>>> JAML5BA
>>>> JAML72F
>>>> JAML952
>>>> JAML9ED
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...but what you'd likely end up with is this:
>>>>
>>>> DOML677
>>>> JAML5BA
>>>> JAML9ED (?)
>>>> JAML72F (?)
>>>> JAML952 (?)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Any ideas on what might be causing this? A bug in Explorer's sorting
>>>> algorithm perhaps? :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> No, it's not a bug. It's done this way on purpose. JAML9ED precedes
>>> JAML72F because 9 is a lower number than 72.
>>>
>>> However, you can change the sorting to the text-based way you
>>> apparently prefer. See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/319827
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
>>> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>>
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

>
> July 1
> July 10
> July 2
> July 3
> July 4


Since the first MS OS's, MS GUI's, and now MS scrambled together OS+GUI's,
I've always prefixed numbers in filenames with zeros. i.e. such padding out
fixes the filename ordering, e.g.

> July 01
> July 02
> July 03
> July 04
> July 05
> July 06
> July 07
> July 08
> July 09
> July 10

....helps with directories containing hundreds of of photos e.g. pic001.jpg,
or if there's a huge amount in there pic00001.jpg etc. ! :-)

regards, Richard.

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:37:24 +0100, "RJK" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >
> > July 1
> > July 10
> > July 2
> > July 3
> > July 4
>
>
> Since the first MS OS's, MS GUI's, and now MS scrambled together OS+GUI's,
> I've always prefixed numbers in filenames with zeros. i.e. such padding out
> fixes the filename ordering, e.g.
>
> > July 01
> > July 02
> > July 03
> > July 04
> > July 05
> > July 06
> > July 07
> > July 08
> > July 09
> > July 10
>
> ...helps with directories containing hundreds of of photos e.g. pic001.jpg,
> or if there's a huge amount in there pic00001.jpg etc. ! :-)


There's no question that what you say is generally good to do.
Nevertheless the newer way of sorting is designed to take care of the
situation where that was *not* done.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:37:24 +0100, "RJK" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> July 1
>>> July 10
>>> July 2
>>> July 3
>>> July 4
>>
>>
>> Since the first MS OS's, MS GUI's, and now MS scrambled together
>> OS+GUI's,
>> I've always prefixed numbers in filenames with zeros. i.e. such padding
>> out
>> fixes the filename ordering, e.g.
>>
>>> July 01
>>> July 02
>>> July 03
>>> July 04
>>> July 05
>>> July 06
>>> July 07
>>> July 08
>>> July 09
>>> July 10
>>
>> ...helps with directories containing hundreds of of photos e.g.
>> pic001.jpg,
>> or if there's a huge amount in there pic00001.jpg etc. ! :-)
>
>
> There's no question that what you say is generally good to do.
> Nevertheless the newer way of sorting is designed to take care of the
> situation where that was *not* done.

But then you get into the problem illustrated by the OP, where the sort
order was obviously incorrect. To repeat, this is the desired result:

>>>> DOML677
>>>> JAML5BA
>>>> JAML72F
>>>> JAML952
>>>> JAML9ED

And NOT THIS:

>>>> DOML677
>>>> JAML5BA
>>>> JAML9ED
>>>> JAML72F
>>>> JAML952

So it seems to me that the older method may generally work out better, as it
will work in ALL cases, I believe, so long as you remember to use the
leading zeroes (in the specific case of multiple numbered files). Isn't
that a small price to pay to have it work out "more universally", correctly?
:-)