File Summary Properties

[RCox]

We have found that when the fields of the summary properties of a file
(i.e. filename.jpg) are filled in using a Win2K computer, the fields
are blank when looking at the summary properties using an XP Pro
computer.
You can use the XP Pro computer to also fill out the fields in this
same file. The XP Pro computers that view the summary see what was
edited by the XP pro computer. The Win2K computers that view the
summary see what was edited by the Win2k computer. The jpg file is on
a Win2K Advanced Server, and is a shared file. We see that the
Alternate Data Stream information is in use after the summary
properties have been filled out.

Has anyone else seen this? Does anyone have an explanation why the XP
Pro doesn't see what the Win2K wrote and vice / versa?

Thanks in advance

 

[Brian Oakes [MSFT]]

This is a good explanation of what you are seeing.

Windows 2000 will store "summary" information for an NTFS file in alternate data
streams. This includes .JPG files even though .JPG files support EXIF standards to
allow storing these summary attributes internally to the .JPG file. (Read all
about it in EXIF standards. EXIF 2.1 and 2.2 on EXIF.ORG)

Windows XP and 2003 take advantage of EXIF and don't use NTFS alternate data
streams to store summary information for .jpg files like Windows 2000 did, and when
looking at the Summary page, is trying to get the information out of the ..jpg file
itself. This is why XP and Windows 2003 cannot see the Summary information if the
jpeg originated on a Windows 2000 system. What Explorer in XP and Windows 2003
need to do is accept the alternate data stream passed to it from the Windows 2000
server, and populate the Summary page accordingly, and if modified and saved,
update the alternate data stream and update the internal EXIF fields so that the
file can be moved to a Windows XP or Windows 2003 system without loosing the
Summary information.

(Credits to Mike Jacquet)

 

[John Ford]

[ring ring]
-
Hello, this is Microsoft, where do you want to go today?
-
Hi. I'm selling concepts, and there's a new concept you could
implement that would really help your customers. Are you
interested?
-
Of course we are. What new concept are you talking about?
-
It's called "backward compatability", and it really makes things
easier when customers upgrade from one release of a product to
another. There's a good definition of it at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_compatibility.
-
Isn't this something that the developers just automatically do
when they design a new release?
-
Evidently not.
-
If we use this concept, will our new releases get to market faster
and cheaper?
-
No.
-
Can we implement this concept as a new product to sell with our
other products?
-
No, it has to be part of each product.
-
Well, can we implement it as a snap-in, add-in, or SDK?
-
No.
-
If we make part of a product backward compatible, can't we say
that the product is backward compatable?
-
No.
-
Can a customer easily find all the things that are NOT backward
compatable when they install a new version?
-
No.
-
So, NOT having backward compatability isn't hurting sales?
-
No.
-
You can do almost anything with VBScript, you know. Can't each
customer take care of the problem themselves?
-
Looks like we'll have to...
-
Thank you for choosing Microsoft, and have a nice day!
-
No.


-jcf
Grumpy Dinosaur
----------------------------------------
message This is a good explanation of what you are seeing.

Windows 2000 will store "summary" information for an NTFS file in
alternate data
streams. This includes .JPG files even though .JPG files support
EXIF standards to
allow storing these summary attributes internally to the .JPG
file. (Read all
about it in EXIF standards. EXIF 2.1 and 2.2 on EXIF.ORG)

Windows XP and 2003 take advantage of EXIF and don't use NTFS
alternate data
streams to store summary information for .jpg files like Windows
2000 did, and when
looking at the Summary page, is trying to get the information out
of the .jpg file
itself. This is why XP and Windows 2003 cannot see the Summary
information if the
jpeg originated on a Windows 2000 system. What Explorer in XP and
Windows 2003
need to do is accept the alternate data stream passed to it from
the Windows 2000
server, and populate the Summary page accordingly, and if modified
and saved,
update the alternate data stream and update the internal EXIF
fields so that the
file can be moved to a Windows XP or Windows 2003 system without
loosing the
Summary information.

(Credits to Mike Jacquet)
--

Brian Oakes

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties and confers no
rights. Please reply to the newsgroup so that others may benefit.