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:

No. That's impossible.

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

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

jb wrote:
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

meow2222@care2.com wrote in
news:1141705343.547648.315750@e56g2000cwe.googlegr oups.com:

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, meow2222@care2.com wrote:

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:

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:

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 <no_spam@plus.com> wrote in
news:bRBG$gA4YdDEFwgL@thoss.plus.com:

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

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

me@tadyatam.invalid wrote:
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

On Tue, 7 Mar 2006 wrote:

Granted that LFNs are a good thing. But, having started my computing on
a 5.2 system, I still find 8.3 somewhat of a luxury.
--
Thoss

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

thoss wrote:

older than dirt?

thoss wrote:
5.2 is just sadistic. Vaguely reminds me of when I shortened all a
lanugages commands to 1 or 2 letter words.

NT

["Susan Bugher"; Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:33:01 GMT]

Thanks to all for your assistance. I guess what I was looking for isn't
possible, unfortunately. But I appreciate everyone's replies.
--
J44xm (http://j44xm.notlong.com)

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 20:35:23 -0600, J44xm wrote:

[Different short and long filenames]
No. It is not impossible, but "not advisable". Lets have a look at the
basics, first:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/arc.../long32us.mspx
| After network administrators have addressed all software incompatibility
| issues associated with long filenames, they should establish naming
| policies and conventions. Naming guidelines ensure consistency among
| filenames and aid file navigation and browsing.
[...]
| Establishing a naming convention is much like developing a company style
| guide.
[...]
| For example, in a magazine publishing environment, a network administrator
| could establish an 8-digit code to accompany all long filenames:
| 11_5MMED.SP - "Baseball Pennant Races Coming Down to the Wire This Season"

So, Microsoft concedes the possibility of totally different short and
long file names. But in the example above, they are talking about a
fictive file system upon a network. So lets have a look inside FAT32:

http://www.osdever.net/documents/LongFileName.pdf
(Not available at MS, anymore...)
| If a long name is renamed, the 8.3 name stored for it will by default be
| automatically recreated. The application will not be allowed to define,
| or independently change the short name that is automatically created.

Microsoft needed a mechanism to ensure the most accurate compatibility
for older applications not supporting LFN. Hence the fully automatic
way for the creation of short filenames from long ones.

Out the of the above, the question arises, whether short and long
filename theoretically *could* be different. And that is - in fact -
the case.

You can use LBack to test this:

http://people.freenet.de/herbert.reichardt/download.htm

- First boot into Win9x command line and store the long filenames of
a directory to a file using LBack. (Note: The source doesn't need to
be a drive, as the program help seems to imply.)
- Change some of the long filename entries inside the name backup file.
Because the long file names are stored as Unicode, you may need a hex
editor to do this.
- Ensure the deletion of all LFN entries for the test files. (For
instance by moving them to a FAT16 drive and back.)
- Use LBack to restore the long file names.

If you boot into Win9x or Win2k/XP, you'll find the files still
accessible, although long and short names are (maybe completely)
different. It has been mentioned, sometimes, that Win9x doesn't
recognize files, whenever the first letter of the short and the
long filename are different. I can't confirm this for Win98SE.
Everything works fine, here.

You may ask, whether this is a way to go to solve your problem.
I wouldn't advise you to do that. Any file operation which writes
the filename (for instance each copy to a new directory or to
another drives) ignores the short filename and creates a new one
right from the long filename. So all efforts invested would be
lost. And there still is the possibility that the difference
between both names results in unexpected system behavior.

BeAr
--
================================================== =========================
= What do you mean with: "Perfection is always an illusion"? =
================================================== =============--(Oops!)===

["B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson"; Sun, 12 Mar 2006 12:23:02 GMT]

Thank you very much for the fantastic overview. Greatly appreciated.
--
J44xm (http://j44xm.notlong.com)