Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > old dos files

Reply
Thread Tools

old dos files

 
 
J.Wilson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-29-2008
A friend has 'thousands' of these which do not have extensions and wants to retain
them as such but want to access them with winxp and latest screens but when he accesses
a file winxp changes the order of his file making it difficult for him to find it again.
He wants to keep these files in the old dos format because he says they are a lot smaller.

Is there a way to control the list order of old dos 'files' in winxp?


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-29-2008
In article <4816b4f6$(E-Mail Removed)>, "J.Wilson" <yes> did write:

> A friend has 'thousands' of these which do not have extensions ...


What sort of format are they?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Hamish Campbell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-29-2008
On Apr 29, 5:41*pm, "J.Wilson" <yes> wrote:
> A friend has 'thousands' *of these which do not have extensions and wants to retain
> them as such but want to access them with winxp and latest screens but when he accesses
> a file winxp changes the order of his file making it difficult for him to find it again.
> He wants to keep these files in the old dos format because he says they are a lot smaller.
>
> Is there a way to control the list order of old dos 'files' in winxp?


If your 'friend' (sorry - it just sounds like one of those questions)
made them read-only, windows wouldn't be able to modify them on
opening.

Although what program is he opening them with?? Normally you'd have to
click yes to save changes to a file.
 
Reply With Quote
 
J.Wilson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-29-2008

"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in message
news:fv6d6l$kas$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <4816b4f6$(E-Mail Removed)>, "J.Wilson" <yes> did write:
>
>> A friend has 'thousands' of these which do not have extensions ...

>
> What sort of format are they?


I don't know. fat16? They date back to the eighties.


 
Reply With Quote
 
J.Wilson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-29-2008

"Hamish Campbell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
On Apr 29, 5:41 pm, "J.Wilson" <yes> wrote:
> A friend has 'thousands' of these which do not have extensions and wants to retain
> them as such but want to access them with winxp and latest screens but when he accesses
> a file winxp changes the order of his file making it difficult for him to find it again.
> He wants to keep these files in the old dos format because he says they are a lot smaller.
>
> Is there a way to control the list order of old dos 'files' in winxp?


If your 'friend' (sorry - it just sounds like one of those questions)
made them read-only, windows wouldn't be able to modify them on
opening.

Although what program is he opening them with?? Normally you'd have to
click yes to save changes to a file.

I think he mentioned Wordperfect or something similar.

Can you change the attributes on early dos 'files"


 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-29-2008
"J.Wilson" <yes> wrote in news:4816db06$(E-Mail Removed):

> Can you change the attributes on early dos 'files"
>


That command has been around for ages. It is called "Attrib"

--
Ciao, Dave
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jason Rumney
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-29-2008
On Apr 29, 6:41 am, "J.Wilson" <yes> wrote:
> A friend has 'thousands' of these which do not have extensions and wants to retain
> them as such but want to access them with winxp and latest screens but when he accesses
> a file winxp changes the order of his file making it difficult for him to find it again.
> He wants to keep these files in the old dos format because he says they are a lot smaller.
>
> Is there a way to control the list order of old dos 'files' in winxp?


Its rather difficult to figure out what the real problem is here with
the information you've given, so I'm going to make some big guesses
which could turn out to be wrong.

First I'm going to guess that the files *do* have extensions, but
Windows is configured not to show them. My reasoning is that hiding
extensions is the default setting for Windows XP, and old DOS programs
(and even new Windows programs) rely on file extensions quite heavily.

Second, I'm going to guess that he is looking at the files in
Explorer, and that that particular folder is set to Arrange Icons by
Modification time. I don't know if that is the default, but it is one
of the options, and the only one that would cause files to move around
when they were opened and saved.

If the above is correct, then the answer is to open the folder where
these files live in Explorer, and under the "View" menu go to the
"Arrange Icons by" submenu and choose something other than "Modified".
Since you seem to be focusing on the fact that the files don't seem to
have extensions as being relevant, "Type" might be the option he
wants. Otherwise if the files really don't have extensions, "Name" is
another option.

Finally, if your friend is using FAT16 to save on disk space, then he
is misguided. FAT16 has a fixed block size of (I think) 2k. FAT32 has
a variable block size, so can be more space efficient when needed.
When FAT32 was first introduced, and disk space still an issue, it was
common to reclaim disk space by converting a FAT16 drive to FAT32 with
a 512 byte block size.
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Empson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-29-2008
Jason Rumney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Finally, if your friend is using FAT16 to save on disk space, then he
> is misguided. FAT16 has a fixed block size of (I think) 2k. FAT32 has
> a variable block size, so can be more space efficient when needed.


FAT16 is much worse than that.

FAT16 has variable cluster sizes, but you can only have about 65500
clusters per volume.

(All of the following assumes hard drives, which use 512 bytes per
sector.)

For volume sizes up to 32 MB, you can have 512 byte clusters but it
might use larger ones for efficiency reasons. Volumes larger than 32 MB
have a minimum cluster size of at least 1 KB. Minimum cluster sizes then
double each time you cross another power of two volume size (roughly).

512 MB to 1 GB volumes have a minimum cluser size of 16 KB.
1 GB to 2 GB volumes must use 32 KB clusters.

That's the limit for FAT16. Larger volumes must use FAT32 (or NTFS, or
some other file system).

Assuming random file sizes, then on average you are wasting half a
cluster per file. If you have lots of small files on a 2 GB FAT16 volume
you could be wasting hundreds of megabytes compared to what could be
stored on it with FAT32.

The number of clusters per FAT16 volume also limits the number of files
per volume, as you can't store multiple files in a single cluster.

FAT32 can have many more clusters per volume. In theory it allows 28-bit
cluster numbers (268 million clusters), and a maximum volume size of 2
TB (due to another limited size field in the volume header). Some
operating systems have smaller limits, e.g. 32 GB.

FAT32 can operate with 512 byte clusters for volume sizes up to 128 GB,
but might default to somewhat larger clusters for efficiency reasons.
Above 128 GB, the minimum cluster size will be at least 1 KB, reching 8
KB when you hit the 2 TB volume size limit.

--
David Empson
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
J.Wilson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-29-2008

"David Empson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:1ig6yz1.1icqggz1bxd5diN%(E-Mail Removed) ...
> Jason Rumney <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Finally, if your friend is using FAT16 to save on disk space, then he
>> is misguided. FAT16 has a fixed block size of (I think) 2k. FAT32 has
>> a variable block size, so can be more space efficient when needed.

>
> FAT16 is much worse than that.
>
> FAT16 has variable cluster sizes, but you can only have about 65500
> clusters per volume.
>
> (All of the following assumes hard drives, which use 512 bytes per
> sector.)
>
> For volume sizes up to 32 MB, you can have 512 byte clusters but it
> might use larger ones for efficiency reasons. Volumes larger than 32 MB
> have a minimum cluster size of at least 1 KB. Minimum cluster sizes then
> double each time you cross another power of two volume size (roughly).
>
> 512 MB to 1 GB volumes have a minimum cluser size of 16 KB.
> 1 GB to 2 GB volumes must use 32 KB clusters.
>
> That's the limit for FAT16. Larger volumes must use FAT32 (or NTFS, or
> some other file system).
>
> Assuming random file sizes, then on average you are wasting half a
> cluster per file. If you have lots of small files on a 2 GB FAT16 volume
> you could be wasting hundreds of megabytes compared to what could be
> stored on it with FAT32.
>
> The number of clusters per FAT16 volume also limits the number of files
> per volume, as you can't store multiple files in a single cluster.
>
> FAT32 can have many more clusters per volume. In theory it allows 28-bit
> cluster numbers (268 million clusters), and a maximum volume size of 2
> TB (due to another limited size field in the volume header). Some
> operating systems have smaller limits, e.g. 32 GB.
>
> FAT32 can operate with 512 byte clusters for volume sizes up to 128 GB,
> but might default to somewhat larger clusters for efficiency reasons.
> Above 128 GB, the minimum cluster size will be at least 1 KB, reching 8
> KB when you hit the 2 TB volume size limit.
>
> --
> David Empson
> (E-Mail Removed)


Thankyou all, I'll show him these replies this morning.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
IOS DoS defense causes DoS to itself:) Igor MamuziŠ Cisco 2 05-19-2006 11:59 PM
Outsmarting DOS C compiler to print to USB printer -- use DOS interrupt? tomhr C Programming 27 01-12-2006 04:09 PM
[newbie]How to install python under DOS and is there any Wxpython can be installed under dos? john san Python 19 02-18-2005 12:05 PM
Unable to run MS-DOS in Windows and DOS properties tabs missing Don Computer Support 5 02-11-2004 07:20 PM
Executing DOS (yes, DOS) program from within Python? Ben Fairbank Python 2 10-07-2003 08:51 AM



Advertisments