old dos files

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by J.Wilson, Apr 29, 2008.

  1. J.Wilson

    J.Wilson Guest

    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?
    J.Wilson, Apr 29, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <4816b4f6$>, "J.Wilson" <yes> did write:

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


    What sort of format are they?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 29, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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.
    Hamish Campbell, Apr 29, 2008
    #3
  4. J.Wilson

    J.Wilson Guest

    "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:fv6d6l$kas$...
    > In article <4816b4f6$>, "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.
    J.Wilson, Apr 29, 2008
    #4
  5. J.Wilson

    J.Wilson Guest

    "Hamish Campbell" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    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"
    J.Wilson, Apr 29, 2008
    #5
  6. J.Wilson

    Dave Taylor Guest

    "J.Wilson" <yes> wrote in news:4816db06$:

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


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

    --
    Ciao, Dave
    Dave Taylor, Apr 29, 2008
    #6
  7. J.Wilson

    Jason Rumney Guest

    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.
    Jason Rumney, Apr 29, 2008
    #7
  8. J.Wilson

    David Empson Guest

    Jason Rumney <> 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
    David Empson, Apr 29, 2008
    #8
  9. J.Wilson

    J.Wilson Guest

    "David Empson" <> wrote in message
    news:1ig6yz1.1icqggz1bxd5diN%...
    > Jason Rumney <> 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
    >


    Thankyou all, I'll show him these replies this morning.
    J.Wilson, Apr 29, 2008
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ÆnÎGmÃ

    Running old dos games in XP

    ÆnÎGmÃ, Jul 19, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    685
    Ron Martell
    Jul 19, 2003
  2. Trevor Smith

    Re: Old Dos games on XP?

    Trevor Smith, Jul 19, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    495
    Trevor Smith
    Jul 19, 2003
  3. Ron Martell

    Re: Old Dos games on XP?

    Ron Martell, Jul 19, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    477
    Ron Martell
    Jul 19, 2003
  4. Don
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,020
    °Mike°
    Feb 11, 2004
  5. Igor Mamuziæ

    IOS DoS defense causes DoS to itself:)

    Igor Mamuziæ, May 12, 2006, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    521
    Igor Mamuzic
    May 20, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page