How to physically sort filenames in a folder

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

In good old DOS daya, I remember, there was a program in
norton utilities with the name dirsort or something like that.

It used to sort the names of files in a folder (then called
directory) and write then in ascending order in the folder
index area (FAT?) in the harddisk/floppy.

Last time I checked the net, I found that it has not been
updated for more than 10 years. I even saw somewhere to use
it in windows at your own risk. Well I am not going to take
that risk.

Is something like that exists for w98SE?

It should physically write the names of files in a folder in
ascending order.

I am not talking about sorting the display in explorer by
file name (clicking above filenames in explorer). Even if
filenames are shown in ascending order, the names are still
in the harddisk in the order in which they get crreated in
the first available space.

TIA
--
Rawat

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

But why would you need this? Everytime you add or delete a file in a
directory, it will get messed up again, anyway, and never stay sorted on the
disk.

V S Rawat wrote:
> In good old DOS daya, I remember, there was a program in
> norton utilities with the name dirsort or something like that.
>
> It used to sort the names of files in a folder (then called
> directory) and write then in ascending order in the folder
> index area (FAT?) in the harddisk/floppy.
>
> Last time I checked the net, I found that it has not been
> updated for more than 10 years. I even saw somewhere to use
> it in windows at your own risk. Well I am not going to take
> that risk.
>
> Is something like that exists for w98SE?
>
> It should physically write the names of files in a folder in
> ascending order.
>
> I am not talking about sorting the display in explorer by
> file name (clicking above filenames in explorer). Even if
> filenames are shown in ascending order, the names are still
> in the harddisk in the order in which they get crreated in
> the first available space.
>
> TIA
> --
> Rawat

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

I doubt any of us are crazy enough to know how to do it or to find such
a program. What happens when you just copy the files to a temp folder &
back again? How do you even know what order they are in? Even Icon view
seems to sort them!


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
"V S Rawat" <VSRawat@HCLInfinet.com> wrote in message
news:eIdQ$agIFHA.3472@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| In good old DOS daya, I remember, there was a program in
| norton utilities with the name dirsort or something like that.
|
| It used to sort the names of files in a folder (then called
| directory) and write then in ascending order in the folder
| index area (FAT?) in the harddisk/floppy.
|
| Last time I checked the net, I found that it has not been
| updated for more than 10 years. I even saw somewhere to use
| it in windows at your own risk. Well I am not going to take
| that risk.
|
| Is something like that exists for w98SE?
|
| It should physically write the names of files in a folder in
| ascending order.
|
| I am not talking about sorting the display in explorer by
| file name (clicking above filenames in explorer). Even if
| filenames are shown in ascending order, the names are still
| in the harddisk in the order in which they get crreated in
| the first available space.
|
| TIA
| --
| Rawat

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On 3/6/05 10:17 AM India Time, _Bill in Co._ wrote:

> But why would you need this? Everytime you add or delete a file in a
> directory, it will get messed up again, anyway, and never stay sorted on the
> disk.

I have some 2000 mp3 of film songs in one folder. when I
copy them to a cd or somewhere, they get coied in the order
in which they are written, not in the sorted order that is
getting displayed.

If due to some reasons, the copying gets aborted in between.
I am left with no clue where it got stopped, because
destination folder again shows all songs starting with all
alphabets.

If it had been in the ascening order in my source hdd, it
would have sorted in the same order, and I would have come
to know where it stopped just by seeing at the last file of
my destination. I would have re-started from there.

>
> V S Rawat wrote:
>
>>In good old DOS daya, I remember, there was a program in
>>norton utilities with the name dirsort or something like that.
>>
>>It used to sort the names of files in a folder (then called
>>directory) and write then in ascending order in the folder
>>index area (FAT?) in the harddisk/floppy.
>>
>>Last time I checked the net, I found that it has not been
>>updated for more than 10 years. I even saw somewhere to use
>>it in windows at your own risk. Well I am not going to take
>>that risk.
>>
>>Is something like that exists for w98SE?
>>
>>It should physically write the names of files in a folder in
>>ascending order.
>>
>>I am not talking about sorting the display in explorer by
>>file name (clicking above filenames in explorer). Even if
>>filenames are shown in ascending order, the names are still
>>in the harddisk in the order in which they get crreated in
>>the first available space.
>>
>>TIA
>>--
>>Rawat
>
>
>

--
Rawat

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On 3/6/05 12:11 AM India Time, _V S Rawat_ wrote:

> In good old DOS daya, I remember, there was a program in
> norton utilities with the name dirsort or something like that.
>
> It used to sort the names of files in a folder (then called
> directory) and write then in ascending order in the folder
> index area (FAT?) in the harddisk/floppy.
>
> Last time I checked the net, I found that it has not been
> updated for more than 10 years. I even saw somewhere to use
> it in windows at your own risk. Well I am not going to take
> that risk.
>
> Is something like that exists for w98SE?
>
> It should physically write the names of files in a folder in
> ascending order.
>
> I am not talking about sorting the display in explorer by
> file name (clicking above filenames in explorer). Even if
> filenames are shown in ascending order, the names are still
> in the harddisk in the order in which they get crreated in
> the first available space.
>
> TIA

Thinking about it, we can only see the files in explorer
view in some ascending/ descending sorted order of various
fields listed there.

Is there any way in which I can see the files, IN THE ORDER
IN WHICH THEY ARE WRITTEN IN FAT for that folder?

The way DOS shows as a default.

--
Rawat

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Oh, right, this is how to see it...

(1) "START button, Programs, MS-DOS Prompt"
(2) E:
If the drive you wish to DIR is "E:".
(3) CD Path\To\Folder
(4) DIR

Type DIR/? to see all options.


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
"V S Rawat" <VSRawat@HCLInfinet.com> wrote in message
news:OPqPJtiIFHA.1280@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| On 3/6/05 12:11 AM India Time, _V S Rawat_ wrote:
|
| > In good old DOS daya, I remember, there was a program in
| > norton utilities with the name dirsort or something like that.
| >
| > It used to sort the names of files in a folder (then called
| > directory) and write then in ascending order in the folder
| > index area (FAT?) in the harddisk/floppy.
| >
| > Last time I checked the net, I found that it has not been
| > updated for more than 10 years. I even saw somewhere to use
| > it in windows at your own risk. Well I am not going to take
| > that risk.
| >
| > Is something like that exists for w98SE?
| >
| > It should physically write the names of files in a folder in
| > ascending order.
| >
| > I am not talking about sorting the display in explorer by
| > file name (clicking above filenames in explorer). Even if
| > filenames are shown in ascending order, the names are still
| > in the harddisk in the order in which they get crreated in
| > the first available space.
| >
| > TIA
|
| Thinking about it, we can only see the files in explorer
| view in some ascending/ descending sorted order of various
| fields listed there.
|
| Is there any way in which I can see the files, IN THE ORDER
| IN WHICH THEY ARE WRITTEN IN FAT for that folder?
|
| The way DOS shows as a default.
|
| --
| Rawat

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Maybe, maybe not. Do SET first to confirm that the defult DOS sort order has
not been overridden

"PCR" wrote:

> Oh, right, this is how to see it...
>
> (1) "START button, Programs, MS-DOS Prompt"
> (2) E:
> If the drive you wish to DIR is "E:".
> (3) CD Path\To\Folder
> (4) DIR
>
> Type DIR/? to see all options.
>
>
> --
> Thanks or Good Luck,
> There may be humor in this post, and,
> Naturally, you will not sue,
> should things get worse after this,
> PCR
> pcrrcp@netzero.net
> "V S Rawat" <VSRawat@HCLInfinet.com> wrote in message
> news:OPqPJtiIFHA.1280@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> | On 3/6/05 12:11 AM India Time, _V S Rawat_ wrote:
> |
> | > In good old DOS daya, I remember, there was a program in
> | > norton utilities with the name dirsort or something like that.
> | >
> | > It used to sort the names of files in a folder (then called
> | > directory) and write then in ascending order in the folder
> | > index area (FAT?) in the harddisk/floppy.
> | >
> | > Last time I checked the net, I found that it has not been
> | > updated for more than 10 years. I even saw somewhere to use
> | > it in windows at your own risk. Well I am not going to take
> | > that risk.
> | >
> | > Is something like that exists for w98SE?
> | >
> | > It should physically write the names of files in a folder in
> | > ascending order.
> | >
> | > I am not talking about sorting the display in explorer by
> | > file name (clicking above filenames in explorer). Even if
> | > filenames are shown in ascending order, the names are still
> | > in the harddisk in the order in which they get crreated in
> | > the first available space.
> | >
> | > TIA
> |
> | Thinking about it, we can only see the files in explorer
> | view in some ascending/ descending sorted order of various
> | fields listed there.
> |
> | Is there any way in which I can see the files, IN THE ORDER
> | IN WHICH THEY ARE WRITTEN IN FAT for that folder?
> |
> | The way DOS shows as a default.
> |
> | --
> | Rawat
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

There's a reason that it hasn't been updated in more than ten years.

You can achieve a similar effect by sorting files into ascending order in
Explorer, using select all, and copying them to a new folder. Use cut and
paste rather than drag and drop to ensure that they are copied in display
order.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"V S Rawat" <VSRawat@HCLInfinet.com> wrote in message
news:eIdQ$agIFHA.3472@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> In good old DOS daya, I remember, there was a program in norton utilities
> with the name dirsort or something like that.
>
> It used to sort the names of files in a folder (then called directory) and
> write then in ascending order in the folder index area (FAT?) in the
> harddisk/floppy.
>
> Last time I checked the net, I found that it has not been updated for more
> than 10 years. I even saw somewhere to use it in windows at your own risk.
> Well I am not going to take that risk.
>
> Is something like that exists for w98SE?
>
> It should physically write the names of files in a folder in ascending
> order.
>
> I am not talking about sorting the display in explorer by file name
> (clicking above filenames in explorer). Even if filenames are shown in
> ascending order, the names are still in the harddisk in the order in which
> they get crreated in the first available space.
>
> TIA
> --
> Rawat

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On 3/6/05 11:34 AM India Time, _Jeff Richards_ wrote:

> There's a reason that it hasn't been updated in more than ten years.

Sometimes, the reason could be that not enough people are
expressing the need.

Explorer is showing things sorted thus serving most of the
people.

>
> You can achieve a similar effect by sorting files into ascending order in
> Explorer, using select all, and copying them to a new folder. Use cut and
> paste rather than drag and drop to ensure that they are copied in display
> order.

I shall try that, and if it works it will serve my purpose.

But if someone is aware of such a program, do share.

--
Rawat

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

V S Rawat wrote:
> On 3/6/05 11:34 AM India Time, _Jeff Richards_ wrote:
>
>> There's a reason that it hasn't been updated in more than ten years.
>
> Sometimes, the reason could be that not enough people are
> expressing the need.
>
> Explorer is showing things sorted thus serving most of the
> people.
>
>> You can achieve a similar effect by sorting files into ascending order in
>> Explorer, using select all, and copying them to a new folder. Use cut
and
>> paste rather than drag and drop to ensure that they are copied in display
>> order.
>
> I shall try that, and if it works it will serve my purpose.
>
> But if someone is aware of such a program, do share.
>
> --
> Rawat

I think this is the best way, and it should sort them correctly, including
the 8.3 short file names, which is probably the problem here. I have had
to do this myself with mp3 files, since the CD or DVD programs seem
oblivious to long file names, in so far as the sorting sequence on the disk
is concerned. It's a pain, but that's just the way it is.

 

[Vic]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

If you can find a program called "Nuts and Bolts" by Helix Software (they were bought out some time ago) that will do what you want.

Nuts and Bolts is an old time (Win 95 days - 1997) suite of programs. Included in the package is a program called 'Disktune' which
is a HD optimizer. As part of it's standard 'reorganize your files' routine it grabs the FAT, deletes unused entries and re-sorts
files according to certain choices, one of which is ASCENDING order (which I use to this day). It does NOT change a long filename's
'short' name (DOS name) so if a programs sorts according to short filenames you are OoL! But from what you've said, it seems this
program will do the trick AND make file access quicker with all the unnecessary FAT entries gone!

Vic
___
"V S Rawat" <VSRawat@HCLInfinet.com> wrote in message news:eIdQ$agIFHA.3472@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> In good old DOS daya, I remember, there was a program in
> norton utilities with the name dirsort or something like that.
>
> It used to sort the names of files in a folder (then called
> directory) and write then in ascending order in the folder
> index area (FAT?) in the harddisk/floppy.
>
> Last time I checked the net, I found that it has not been
> updated for more than 10 years. I even saw somewhere to use
> it in windows at your own risk. Well I am not going to take
> that risk.
>
> Is something like that exists for w98SE?
>
> It should physically write the names of files in a folder in
> ascending order.
>
> I am not talking about sorting the display in explorer by
> file name (clicking above filenames in explorer). Even if
> filenames are shown in ascending order, the names are still
> in the harddisk in the order in which they get crreated in
> the first available space.
>
> TIA
> --
> Rawat

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

That is true, something like SET could override it.

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
"anonymous" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:28E9201A-4D80-4332-9028-CC9DB05FD48C@microsoft.com...
| Maybe, maybe not. Do SET first to confirm that the defult DOS sort
order has
| not been overridden
|
| "PCR" wrote:
|
| > Oh, right, this is how to see it...
| >
| > (1) "START button, Programs, MS-DOS Prompt"
| > (2) E:
| > If the drive you wish to DIR is "E:".
| > (3) CD Path\To\Folder
| > (4) DIR
| >
| > Type DIR/? to see all options.
| >
| >
| > --
| > Thanks or Good Luck,
| > There may be humor in this post, and,
| > Naturally, you will not sue,
| > should things get worse after this,
| > PCR
| > pcrrcp@netzero.net
| > "V S Rawat" <VSRawat@HCLInfinet.com> wrote in message
| > news:OPqPJtiIFHA.1280@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
| > | On 3/6/05 12:11 AM India Time, _V S Rawat_ wrote:
| > |
| > | > In good old DOS daya, I remember, there was a program in
| > | > norton utilities with the name dirsort or something like that.
| > | >
| > | > It used to sort the names of files in a folder (then called
| > | > directory) and write then in ascending order in the folder
| > | > index area (FAT?) in the harddisk/floppy.
| > | >
| > | > Last time I checked the net, I found that it has not been
| > | > updated for more than 10 years. I even saw somewhere to use
| > | > it in windows at your own risk. Well I am not going to take
| > | > that risk.
| > | >
| > | > Is something like that exists for w98SE?
| > | >
| > | > It should physically write the names of files in a folder in
| > | > ascending order.
| > | >
| > | > I am not talking about sorting the display in explorer by
| > | > file name (clicking above filenames in explorer). Even if
| > | > filenames are shown in ascending order, the names are still
| > | > in the harddisk in the order in which they get crreated in
| > | > the first available space.
| > | >
| > | > TIA
| > |
| > | Thinking about it, we can only see the files in explorer
| > | view in some ascending/ descending sorted order of various
| > | fields listed there.
| > |
| > | Is there any way in which I can see the files, IN THE ORDER
| > | IN WHICH THEY ARE WRITTEN IN FAT for that folder?
| > |
| > | The way DOS shows as a default.
| > |
| > | --
| > | Rawat
| >
| >
| >

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

There's no such thing as an 'unused entry' in a FAT, so this product sounds
to me like snake oil.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"Vic" <nospam@bogusaddress.com> wrote in message
news:enAfPcqIFHA.572@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> If you can find a program called "Nuts and Bolts" by Helix Software (they
> were bought out some time ago) that will do what you want.
>
> Nuts and Bolts is an old time (Win 95 days - 1997) suite of programs.
> Included in the package is a program called 'Disktune' which
> is a HD optimizer. As part of it's standard 'reorganize your files'
> routine it grabs the FAT, deletes unused entries and re-sorts
> files according to certain choices, one of which is ASCENDING order (which
> I use to this day). It does NOT change a long filename's
> 'short' name (DOS name) so if a programs sorts according to short
> filenames you are OoL! But from what you've said, it seems this
> program will do the trick AND make file access quicker with all the
> unnecessary FAT entries gone!
>
> Vic
> ___
> "V S Rawat" <VSRawat@HCLInfinet.com> wrote in message
> news:eIdQ$agIFHA.3472@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> In good old DOS daya, I remember, there was a program in
>> norton utilities with the name dirsort or something like that.
>>
>> It used to sort the names of files in a folder (then called
>> directory) and write then in ascending order in the folder
>> index area (FAT?) in the harddisk/floppy.
>>
>> Last time I checked the net, I found that it has not been
>> updated for more than 10 years. I even saw somewhere to use
>> it in windows at your own risk. Well I am not going to take
>> that risk.
>>
>> Is something like that exists for w98SE?
>>
>> It should physically write the names of files in a folder in
>> ascending order.
>>
>> I am not talking about sorting the display in explorer by
>> file name (clicking above filenames in explorer). Even if
>> filenames are shown in ascending order, the names are still
>> in the harddisk in the order in which they get crreated in
>> the first available space.
>>
>> TIA
>> --
>> Rawat
>
>

 

[Vic]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Don't be so quick on the draw Jeff, you can make yourself look bad, especially with an unmerited, harsh, WRONG remark!

When a user 'deletes' a file from a HD the file is NOT actually deleted with a conventional setup in Win98. Instead the FAT entry
for the file is changed thus making it LOOK like the file has been deleted! The first character of the FAT entry is changed to a '@'
if I recall correctly (it's been a while). Because of this FAT entry change the file cannot be seen as existing on the HD by
conventional means (e.g. Explorer), yet the file will still exist on your HD until that space is overwritten. So if you delete a
hundred files from your Win98 TEMP directory, you really do not delete anything, only the first character of the files FAT entry is
changed making it LOOK like the files were deleted. This is common knowledge. In fact, any file recovery program will look for the
deleted file by looking for its FAT entry, beginning with a '@', and proceed from there!

Without special recovery software a deleted file results in an UNUSED (maybe better stated as UNNECESSARY) ENTRY IN THE FAT! In
essence the FAT entry is wasted space and Helix's Disktune removed these unnecessary entries.

For those wanting to know more about how FAT works, do a Google search. For those wanting to know more about Helix's Nuts and Bolts
software, Google search: "Nuts and Bolts" Helix

There are a number of web pages with information still available.

Vic
___
"Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message news:ekwr5FrIFHA.1392@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> There's no such thing as an 'unused entry' in a FAT, so this product sounds
> to me like snake oil.
> --
> Jeff Richards
> MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
> "Vic" <nospam@bogusaddress.com> wrote in message
> news:enAfPcqIFHA.572@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > If you can find a program called "Nuts and Bolts" by Helix Software (they
> > were bought out some time ago) that will do what you want.
> >
> > Nuts and Bolts is an old time (Win 95 days - 1997) suite of programs.
> > Included in the package is a program called 'Disktune' which
> > is a HD optimizer. As part of it's standard 'reorganize your files'
> > routine it grabs the FAT, deletes unused entries and re-sorts
> > files according to certain choices, one of which is ASCENDING order (which
> > I use to this day). It does NOT change a long filename's
> > 'short' name (DOS name) so if a programs sorts according to short
> > filenames you are OoL! But from what you've said, it seems this
> > program will do the trick AND make file access quicker with all the
> > unnecessary FAT entries gone!
> >
> > Vic
> > ___
> > "V S Rawat" <VSRawat@HCLInfinet.com> wrote in message
> > news:eIdQ$agIFHA.3472@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >> In good old DOS daya, I remember, there was a program in
> >> norton utilities with the name dirsort or something like that.
> >>
> >> It used to sort the names of files in a folder (then called
> >> directory) and write then in ascending order in the folder
> >> index area (FAT?) in the harddisk/floppy.
> >>
> >> Last time I checked the net, I found that it has not been
> >> updated for more than 10 years. I even saw somewhere to use
> >> it in windows at your own risk. Well I am not going to take
> >> that risk.
> >>
> >> Is something like that exists for w98SE?
> >>
> >> It should physically write the names of files in a folder in
> >> ascending order.
> >>
> >> I am not talking about sorting the display in explorer by
> >> file name (clicking above filenames in explorer). Even if
> >> filenames are shown in ascending order, the names are still
> >> in the harddisk in the order in which they get crreated in
> >> the first available space.
> >>
> >> TIA
> >> --
> >> Rawat
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On 3/7/05 6:28 AM India Time, _Jeff Richards_ wrote:

> There's no such thing as an 'unused entry' in a FAT, so this product sounds
> to me like snake oil.

Think about this:

create 5 files in current folder in explorer.

File1
File2
File3
File4
File5

(content or ext does not matter)

Now delete File2, File3, File4

So you are left with

File1
File5

Isn't there any empty entry in FAT?

--
Rawat

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

It may be an unnecessary FAT entry by some definitions, but it's not an
*unused* FAT entry.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"Vic" <nospam@bogusaddress.com> wrote in message
news:eKaONjsIFHA.1396@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Don't be so quick on the draw Jeff, you can make yourself look bad,
especially with an unmerited, harsh, WRONG remark!
>
> When a user 'deletes' a file from a HD the file is NOT actually
deleted with a conventional setup in Win98. Instead the FAT entry
> for the file is changed thus making it LOOK like the file has been
deleted! The first character of the FAT entry is changed to a '@'
> if I recall correctly (it's been a while). Because of this FAT entry
change the file cannot be seen as existing on the HD by
> conventional means (e.g. Explorer), yet the file will still exist on
your HD until that space is overwritten. So if you delete a
> hundred files from your Win98 TEMP directory, you really do not delete
anything, only the first character of the files FAT entry is
> changed making it LOOK like the files were deleted. This is common
knowledge. In fact, any file recovery program will look for the
> deleted file by looking for its FAT entry, beginning with a '@', and
proceed from there!
>
> Without special recovery software a deleted file results in an UNUSED
(maybe better stated as UNNECESSARY) ENTRY IN THE FAT! In
> essence the FAT entry is wasted space and Helix's Disktune removed
these unnecessary entries.
>
> For those wanting to know more about how FAT works, do a Google
search. For those wanting to know more about Helix's Nuts and Bolts
> software, Google search: "Nuts and Bolts" Helix
>
> There are a number of web pages with information still available.
>
> Vic
> ___
> "Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message
news:ekwr5FrIFHA.1392@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > There's no such thing as an 'unused entry' in a FAT, so this product
sounds
> > to me like snake oil.
> > --
> > Jeff Richards
> > MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
> > "Vic" <nospam@bogusaddress.com> wrote in message
> > news:enAfPcqIFHA.572@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > If you can find a program called "Nuts and Bolts" by Helix
Software (they
> > > were bought out some time ago) that will do what you want.
> > >
> > > Nuts and Bolts is an old time (Win 95 days - 1997) suite of
programs.
> > > Included in the package is a program called 'Disktune' which
> > > is a HD optimizer. As part of it's standard 'reorganize your
files'
> > > routine it grabs the FAT, deletes unused entries and re-sorts
> > > files according to certain choices, one of which is ASCENDING
order (which
> > > I use to this day). It does NOT change a long filename's
> > > 'short' name (DOS name) so if a programs sorts according to short
> > > filenames you are OoL! But from what you've said, it seems this
> > > program will do the trick AND make file access quicker with all
the
> > > unnecessary FAT entries gone!
> > >
> > > Vic
> > > ___
> > > "V S Rawat" <VSRawat@HCLInfinet.com> wrote in message
> > > news:eIdQ$agIFHA.3472@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > >> In good old DOS daya, I remember, there was a program in
> > >> norton utilities with the name dirsort or something like that.
> > >>
> > >> It used to sort the names of files in a folder (then called
> > >> directory) and write then in ascending order in the folder
> > >> index area (FAT?) in the harddisk/floppy.
> > >>
> > >> Last time I checked the net, I found that it has not been
> > >> updated for more than 10 years. I even saw somewhere to use
> > >> it in windows at your own risk. Well I am not going to take
> > >> that risk.
> > >>
> > >> Is something like that exists for w98SE?
> > >>
> > >> It should physically write the names of files in a folder in
> > >> ascending order.
> > >>
> > >> I am not talking about sorting the display in explorer by
> > >> file name (clicking above filenames in explorer). Even if
> > >> filenames are shown in ascending order, the names are still
> > >> in the harddisk in the order in which they get crreated in
> > >> the first available space.
> > >>
> > >> TIA
> > >> --
> > >> Rawat
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Vic]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

In the reply above I said:
> The first character of the FAT entry is changed to a '@' if I recall correctly (it's been a while).

Did some 'brush-up' study and found, the first character of the FAT is changed to a question mark '?' (I said "if I recall
correctly"). This can easily be confirmed by the following:

rename a file in explorer to @whatever-else-you-want-to-call-it.TXT
explorer (or DOS for that matter) will accept it

now try renaming a file to ?whatever-else-you-want-to-call-it.TXT
explorer (or DOS) will reject it because the question mark is used as the first character in a deleted file entry in the FAT and
CANNOT be used in a standard filename.

FYI
Vic

"Vic" <nospam@bogusaddress.com> wrote in message news:eKaONjsIFHA.1396@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Don't be so quick on the draw Jeff, you can make yourself look bad, especially with an unmerited, harsh, WRONG remark!
>
> When a user 'deletes' a file from a HD the file is NOT actually deleted with a conventional setup in Win98. Instead the FAT entry
> for the file is changed thus making it LOOK like the file has been deleted! The first character of the FAT entry is changed to a
'@'
> if I recall correctly (it's been a while). Because of this FAT entry change the file cannot be seen as existing on the HD by
> conventional means (e.g. Explorer), yet the file will still exist on your HD until that space is overwritten. So if you delete a
> hundred files from your Win98 TEMP directory, you really do not delete anything, only the first character of the files FAT entry
is
> changed making it LOOK like the files were deleted. This is common knowledge. In fact, any file recovery program will look for the
> deleted file by looking for its FAT entry, beginning with a '@', and proceed from there!
>
> Without special recovery software a deleted file results in an UNUSED (maybe better stated as UNNECESSARY) ENTRY IN THE FAT! In
> essence the FAT entry is wasted space and Helix's Disktune removed these unnecessary entries.
>
> For those wanting to know more about how FAT works, do a Google search. For those wanting to know more about Helix's Nuts and
Bolts
> software, Google search: "Nuts and Bolts" Helix
>
> There are a number of web pages with information still available.
>
> Vic
> ___
> "Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message news:ekwr5FrIFHA.1392@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > There's no such thing as an 'unused entry' in a FAT, so this product sounds
> > to me like snake oil.
> > --
> > Jeff Richards
> > MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
> > "Vic" <nospam@bogusaddress.com> wrote in message
> > news:enAfPcqIFHA.572@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > If you can find a program called "Nuts and Bolts" by Helix Software (they
> > > were bought out some time ago) that will do what you want.
> > >
> > > Nuts and Bolts is an old time (Win 95 days - 1997) suite of programs.
> > > Included in the package is a program called 'Disktune' which
> > > is a HD optimizer. As part of it's standard 'reorganize your files'
> > > routine it grabs the FAT, deletes unused entries and re-sorts
> > > files according to certain choices, one of which is ASCENDING order (which
> > > I use to this day). It does NOT change a long filename's
> > > 'short' name (DOS name) so if a programs sorts according to short
> > > filenames you are OoL! But from what you've said, it seems this
> > > program will do the trick AND make file access quicker with all the
> > > unnecessary FAT entries gone!
> > >
> > > Vic
> > > ___
> > > "V S Rawat" <VSRawat@HCLInfinet.com> wrote in message
> > > news:eIdQ$agIFHA.3472@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > >> In good old DOS daya, I remember, there was a program in
> > >> norton utilities with the name dirsort or something like that.
> > >>
> > >> It used to sort the names of files in a folder (then called
> > >> directory) and write then in ascending order in the folder
> > >> index area (FAT?) in the harddisk/floppy.
> > >>
> > >> Last time I checked the net, I found that it has not been
> > >> updated for more than 10 years. I even saw somewhere to use
> > >> it in windows at your own risk. Well I am not going to take
> > >> that risk.
> > >>
> > >> Is something like that exists for w98SE?
> > >>
> > >> It should physically write the names of files in a folder in
> > >> ascending order.
> > >>
> > >> I am not talking about sorting the display in explorer by
> > >> file name (clicking above filenames in explorer). Even if
> > >> filenames are shown in ascending order, the names are still
> > >> in the harddisk in the order in which they get crreated in
> > >> the first available space.
> > >>
> > >> TIA
> > >> --
> > >> Rawat
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Vic]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Rawat, I am not sure what you are wanting to illustrate below.

You said:

> Now delete File2, File3, File4
>
> So you are left with
>
> File1
> File5
>
> Isn't there any empty entry in FAT?

In the above example, using explorer, you will only see these files (File1, File5) after deleting Files 2-3, BUT if you view the FAT
you will see:

File1
?ile2
?ile3
?ile4
File5

To repeat, Files 2-3 have NOT been removed from the disk when they were deleted, as I stated in a previous reply it only LOOKS like
they were deleted because the FAT was CHANGED (the FAT entry still exists). And only the first character of that file entry was
changed in the FAT, the disk allocation information is kept intact. A file recovery utility can recover these files until/unless the
HD space the deleted file occupies has been overwritten. That's why ERASE programs look at the allocated disk space for a file to be
deleted and overwrite, overwrite, overwrite that space. Overwriting (multiple times) it the only way to insure file information is
non-recoverable!

Vic
___

"V S Rawat" <VSRawat@HCLInfinet.com> wrote in message news:egFOr2uIFHA.3876@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> On 3/7/05 6:28 AM India Time, _Jeff Richards_ wrote:
>
> > There's no such thing as an 'unused entry' in a FAT, so this product sounds
> > to me like snake oil.
>
> Think about this:
>
> create 5 files in current folder in explorer.
>
> File1
> File2
> File3
> File4
> File5
>
> (content or ext does not matter)
>
> Now delete File2, File3, File4
>
> So you are left with
>
> File1
> File5
>
> Isn't there any empty entry in FAT?
>
> --
> Rawat

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Vic" <nospam@bogusaddress.com> wrote in message news:OXkQnUxIFHA.2356@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> In the reply above I said:
>> The first character of the FAT entry is changed to a '@' if I recall correctly (it's been a while).
>
> Did some 'brush-up' study and found, the first character of the FAT is changed to a question mark '?' (I said "if I recall
> correctly").


Most undelete utils display a ? as to say "I don't know what it was".

You're confusing the FAT with the directory. They are two different structures.
File information such as name, date, starting cluster number, etc, are kept
in the directory. When you delete a file the first character of the name is
changed to 0xE5 (hex) (not an ascii ? 0x3F), and the cluster pointers
in the FAT are freed to be used by another file.

None of the file's dir info is removed (except that char), including the
start cluster number and the filesize, so the file can be easily reconstructed
if its data hasn't been overwritten, AND the file isn't fragmented.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On 3/7/05 6:26 PM India Time, _Vic_ wrote:

> In the reply above I said:
>
>>The first character of the FAT entry is changed to a '@' if I recall correctly (it's been a while).
>
>
> Did some 'brush-up' study and found, the first character of the FAT is changed to a question mark '?' (I said "if I recall
> correctly"). This can easily be confirmed by the following:
>
> rename a file in explorer to @whatever-else-you-want-to-call-it.TXT
> explorer (or DOS for that matter) will accept it
>
> now try renaming a file to ?whatever-else-you-want-to-call-it.TXT
> explorer (or DOS) will reject it because the question mark is used as the first character in a deleted file entry in the FAT and
> CANNOT be used in a standard filename.
>
> FYI
> Vic

No.

I think ? is rejected because ? (like *) is the wildcard for
search.

you can search file?.txt and that will bring File1.txt, File
a.txt et.c

--
Rawat


>
> "Vic" <nospam@bogusaddress.com> wrote in message news:eKaONjsIFHA.1396@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
>>Don't be so quick on the draw Jeff, you can make yourself look bad, especially with an unmerited, harsh, WRONG remark!
>>
>>When a user 'deletes' a file from a HD the file is NOT actually deleted with a conventional setup in Win98. Instead the FAT entry
>>for the file is changed thus making it LOOK like the file has been deleted! The first character of the FAT entry is changed to a
>
> '@'
>
>>if I recall correctly (it's been a while). Because of this FAT entry change the file cannot be seen as existing on the HD by
>>conventional means (e.g. Explorer), yet the file will still exist on your HD until that space is overwritten. So if you delete a
>>hundred files from your Win98 TEMP directory, you really do not delete anything, only the first character of the files FAT entry
>
> is
>
>>changed making it LOOK like the files were deleted. This is common knowledge. In fact, any file recovery program will look for the
>>deleted file by looking for its FAT entry, beginning with a '@', and proceed from there!
>>
>>Without special recovery software a deleted file results in an UNUSED (maybe better stated as UNNECESSARY) ENTRY IN THE FAT! In
>>essence the FAT entry is wasted space and Helix's Disktune removed these unnecessary entries.
>>
>>For those wanting to know more about how FAT works, do a Google search. For those wanting to know more about Helix's Nuts and
>
> Bolts
>
>>software, Google search: "Nuts and Bolts" Helix
>>
>>There are a number of web pages with information still available.
>>
>>Vic
>>___
>>"Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message news:ekwr5FrIFHA.1392@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>
>>>There's no such thing as an 'unused entry' in a FAT, so this product sounds
>>>to me like snake oil.
>>>--
>>>Jeff Richards
>>>MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
>>>"Vic" <nospam@bogusaddress.com> wrote in message
>>>news:enAfPcqIFHA.572@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>>If you can find a program called "Nuts and Bolts" by Helix Software (they
>>>>were bought out some time ago) that will do what you want.
>>>>
>>>>Nuts and Bolts is an old time (Win 95 days - 1997) suite of programs.
>>>>Included in the package is a program called 'Disktune' which
>>>>is a HD optimizer. As part of it's standard 'reorganize your files'
>>>>routine it grabs the FAT, deletes unused entries and re-sorts
>>>>files according to certain choices, one of which is ASCENDING order (which
>>>>I use to this day). It does NOT change a long filename's
>>>>'short' name (DOS name) so if a programs sorts according to short
>>>>filenames you are OoL! But from what you've said, it seems this
>>>>program will do the trick AND make file access quicker with all the
>>>>unnecessary FAT entries gone!
>>>>
>>>>Vic
>>>>___
>>>>"V S Rawat" <VSRawat@HCLInfinet.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:eIdQ$agIFHA.3472@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>>>In good old DOS daya, I remember, there was a program in
>>>>>norton utilities with the name dirsort or something like that.
>>>>>
>>>>>It used to sort the names of files in a folder (then called
>>>>>directory) and write then in ascending order in the folder
>>>>>index area (FAT?) in the harddisk/floppy.
>>>>>
>>>>>Last time I checked the net, I found that it has not been
>>>>>updated for more than 10 years. I even saw somewhere to use
>>>>>it in windows at your own risk. Well I am not going to take
>>>>>that risk.
>>>>>
>>>>>Is something like that exists for w98SE?
>>>>>
>>>>>It should physically write the names of files in a folder in
>>>>>ascending order.
>>>>>
>>>>>I am not talking about sorting the display in explorer by
>>>>>file name (clicking above filenames in explorer). Even if
>>>>>filenames are shown in ascending order, the names are still
>>>>>in the harddisk in the order in which they get crreated in
>>>>>the first available space.
>>>>>
>>>>>TIA
>>>>>--
>>>>>Rawat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

The FAT contains one entry for each cluster in the partition. That entry
either indicates that the cluster is in use by a file (because it contains a
pointer to the next cluster, or an EOF marker) or it indicates that the
cluster is empty or bad. Therefore, every single FAT entry is always in
use - knowing that a cluster is empty and available (or bad) is just as
important as knowing that it's in use.

In fact, since FAT entries are accessed by calculating an offset from the
start of the table, it is simply not possible to 'delete' an entry. Doing so
would make the table invalid and corrupt the whole file system. That's why
these sorts of programs are dangerous.

Your description actually sounds more like a directory entry than a FAT
entry.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"Vic" <nospam@bogusaddress.com> wrote in message
news:eKaONjsIFHA.1396@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Don't be so quick on the draw Jeff, you can make yourself look bad,
> especially with an unmerited, harsh, WRONG remark!
>
> When a user 'deletes' a file from a HD the file is NOT actually deleted
> with a conventional setup in Win98. Instead the FAT entry
> for the file is changed thus making it LOOK like the file has been
> deleted! The first character of the FAT entry is changed to a '@'
> if I recall correctly (it's been a while). Because of this FAT entry
> change the file cannot be seen as existing on the HD by
> conventional means (e.g. Explorer), yet the file will still exist on your
> HD until that space is overwritten. So if you delete a
> hundred files from your Win98 TEMP directory, you really do not delete
> anything, only the first character of the files FAT entry is
> changed making it LOOK like the files were deleted. This is common
> knowledge. In fact, any file recovery program will look for the
> deleted file by looking for its FAT entry, beginning with a '@', and
> proceed from there!
>
> Without special recovery software a deleted file results in an UNUSED
> (maybe better stated as UNNECESSARY) ENTRY IN THE FAT! In
> essence the FAT entry is wasted space and Helix's Disktune removed these
> unnecessary entries.
>
> For those wanting to know more about how FAT works, do a Google search.
> For those wanting to know more about Helix's Nuts and Bolts
> software, Google search: "Nuts and Bolts" Helix
>
> There are a number of web pages with information still available.
>
> Vic
> ___
> "Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message
> news:ekwr5FrIFHA.1392@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> There's no such thing as an 'unused entry' in a FAT, so this product
>> sounds
>> to me like snake oil.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

V S Rawat wrote :
}On 3/6/05 11:34 AM India Time, _Jeff Richards_ wrote:
}
}> There's a reason that it hasn't been updated in more than ten years.
}
}Sometimes, the reason could be that not enough people are
}expressing the need.
}
}Explorer is showing things sorted thus serving most of the
}people.
}
}>
}> You can achieve a similar effect by sorting files into ascending
}> order in
}> Explorer, using select all, and copying them to a new folder. Use
}> cut and
}> paste rather than drag and drop to ensure that they are copied in
}> display
}> order.
}
}I shall try that, and if it works it will serve my purpose.
}
}But if someone is aware of such a program, do share.

Try searching for a program called "LFNSORT".

Ken

--
<<< Remove the '4' to reply via email >>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Kentiguous wrote:
> V S Rawat wrote :
> }On 3/6/05 11:34 AM India Time, _Jeff Richards_ wrote:
> }
> }> There's a reason that it hasn't been updated in more than ten years.
> }
> }Sometimes, the reason could be that not enough people are
> }expressing the need.
> }
> }Explorer is showing things sorted thus serving most of the people.
> }
> }>
> }> You can achieve a similar effect by sorting files into ascending order
in
> }> Explorer, using select all, and copying them to a new folder. Use cut
and
> }> paste rather than drag and drop to ensure that they are copied in
display
> }> order.
> }
> }I shall try that, and if it works it will serve my purpose.
> }
> }But if someone is aware of such a program, do share.
>
> Try searching for a program called "LFNSORT".
>
> Ken

Yes, but that is an old program, as I recall, so it might be a bit risky to
use it. In fact, if I remember correctly, there WERE some caveats
mentioned in its documentation.
Much better to do as we already said (cut and paste the group of files to
get the 8.3 filenames sorted properly).

> <<< Remove the '4' to reply via email >>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Bill in Co. wrote <##qM27PJFHA.732@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>:
}Kentiguous wrote:
}> V S Rawat wrote :
}> }On 3/6/05 11:34 AM India Time, _Jeff Richards_ wrote:
}> }
}> }> There's a reason that it hasn't been updated in more than ten
}> }> years.
}> }
}> }Sometimes, the reason could be that not enough people are
}> }expressing the need.
}> }
}> }Explorer is showing things sorted thus serving most of the people.
}> }
}> }>
}> }> You can achieve a similar effect by sorting files into ascending
}> }> order in
}> }> Explorer, using select all, and copying them to a new folder. Use
}> }> cut and
}> }> paste rather than drag and drop to ensure that they are copied in
}> }> display order.
}> }
}> }I shall try that, and if it works it will serve my purpose.
}> }
}> }But if someone is aware of such a program, do share.
}>
}> Try searching for a program called "LFNSORT".
}>
}> Ken
}
}Yes, but that is an old program, as I recall, so it might be a bit
}risky to
}use it. In fact, if I remember correctly, there WERE some caveats
}mentioned in its documentation.

Have you tried LFNSORT, Bill?

There are inherent risks when running any program, regardless of age.
And, you're correct, there are some caveats listed in the docs.

}Much better to do as we already said (cut and paste the group of files
}to get the 8.3 filenames sorted properly).

Much better to copy, then delete, possibly megabytes of files, than to
quickly re-order the associated directory entries? Much better to end
up with fragmentation, and unused directory entries?

LFNSORT 1.5a works fine, here (Win98se, FAT32), sorting directories that
contain between 300 and 400 entries (I usually run it in a DOS window).
I haven't tried it on larger directories, yet. It'll do things that
would be difficult or impossible to do in Explorer, it'll work in
real-mode DOS, and it has a 'simulation' mode for testing purposes.
And, I do recommend that the OP reads the documentation, first.

Ken

--
<<< Remove the '4' to reply via email >>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Kentiguous wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote <##qM27PJFHA.732@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>:
> }Kentiguous wrote:
> }> V S Rawat wrote :
> }> }On 3/6/05 11:34 AM India Time, _Jeff Richards_ wrote:
> }> }
> }> }> There's a reason that it hasn't been updated in more than ten
> }> }> years.
> }> }
> }> }Sometimes, the reason could be that not enough people are
> }> }expressing the need.
> }> }
> }> }Explorer is showing things sorted thus serving most of the people.
> }> }
> }> }>
> }> }> You can achieve a similar effect by sorting files into ascending
> }> }> order in
> }> }> Explorer, using select all, and copying them to a new folder. Use
> }> }> cut and
> }> }> paste rather than drag and drop to ensure that they are copied in
> }> }> display order.
> }> }
> }> }I shall try that, and if it works it will serve my purpose.
> }> }
> }> }But if someone is aware of such a program, do share.
> }>
> }> Try searching for a program called "LFNSORT".
> }>
> }> Ken
> }
> }Yes, but that is an old program, as I recall, so it might be a bit risky
to
> }use it. In fact, if I remember correctly, there WERE some caveats
> }mentioned in its documentation.
>
> Have you tried LFNSORT, Bill?

Yes. But AGES ago, admitedly.

> There are inherent risks when running any program, regardless of age.
> And, you're correct, there are some caveats listed in the docs.

Yes, and you have NONE of them when you sort by copy and paste, plus it's a
lot easier and faster just doing this. And you don't have to drop down into
DOS at all - you can just stay in windows the whole time.

> }Much better to do as we already said (cut and paste the group of files
> }to get the 8.3 filenames sorted properly).
>
> Much better to copy, then delete, possibly megabytes of files, than to
> quickly re-order the associated directory entries? Much better to end
> up with fragmentation, and unused directory entries?

Yes. And defragging is no big deal. After you've done the copy and
paste, you can run defrag. That's no biggie. And the whole thing is
done in windows, and is completely fail proof, unlike LFNSORT.

> LFNSORT 1.5a works fine, here (Win98se, FAT32), sorting directories that
> contain between 300 and 400 entries (I usually run it in a DOS window).
> I haven't tried it on larger directories, yet. It'll do things that
> would be difficult or impossible to do in Explorer, it'll work in
> real-mode DOS, and it has a 'simulation' mode for testing purposes.

Well, ok, but I don't know how many of us need that, at this point in time.

> And, I do recommend that the OP reads the documentation, first.
>
> Ken
>
> --
> <<< Remove the '4' to reply via email >>>