<CT> Re: Windes 2000 & LFNs

  • From: "MOY, WILLIAM" <BMOY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "'calmira_tips@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <calmira_tips@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:28:49 -0500

David Burgess wrote:
===>snip<===
I don't know it well enough - my comments were based on what little I've
seen of it, and an early trial version which I downloaded and almost
immediately deleted - but I _very_ much doubt if it'll run LFNs on its own.
The version I looked at ran under DOS, and didn't have LFN support.

Hummmph!  Windes 2000, a Windows95 clone *without* LFN.  How ingenious!
Dare I ask if anyone on the list has had any experience with WindesME??

===>snip<===
It isn't DOS 7 per se which
gives you LFNs, it's the a separate (I think) API which is implemented by
DOS 7 under Win9x. For example, if you just run native DOS 7 without Win95,
you only get short name support.

API?? (Application Program Interface?? I'm guessing.)  I don't know a thing
about APIs or how to load them.  Can it be loaded from config.sys?  What
happens when one tries to load it under DOS earlier than 7.00?  Does the
Calmira team have to re-write this API and gear it to earlier DOSes to apply
their LFN?  questions, questions, questions...

I've heard about the utility LFNDOS (never used it though) but I thought
it's main purpose was to have some kind of compatibility w 95 files under
regular DOS.  To read a floppy created by Win95.  I can't imagine how it
would help out once you work with the LFN file and save it from pre LFN Win
Apps.  Sounds too cumbersome if it's not part of the OS; I mean, I think I'd
rather maintain 8.3 filenames if I had to work between different DOSes.  

I remember reading from a computer magazine (a long long time ago, when Macs
ruled the LFN game) that DOS will *never* have long filenames because of the
inherent fundamental limitations of the original DOS structure and that when
it does, it will be a completely new animal.  I still think Windows LFN is
just a work-around patch that has become an OS standard.

I loved the old DOS tip that any DOS file can actually have a LFN under 255
characters -*ahem*, just as long as there's a backward-slash occurring every
8th character or less.  I've always been fascinated by this tip and wondered
how one could adapt/automate this without counting letters and hiding the
slashes.  (and I'm sure there's a problem with deeply nested
files/foldernames too.)
So much for wishing...  

I'm glad to know that there was a *trial* version Windes 2000, now I won't
feel so bad asking for this version.  Anyone??

-Bill



-----Original Message-----
From: David Burgess [mailto:d.burgess@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 1:26 PM
To: calmira_tips@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: <CT> Re: Windes 2000 & LFNs




----- Original Message -----
From: "MOY, WILLIAM" <BMOY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <calmira_tips@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 6:03 PM
Subject: <CT> Windes 2000 & LFNs


>
> I'm still very curious though, about Windes 2000 long filename handling
> capability -can anyone tell me if this "clone" manages to use LFNs like
> Win95 (on 286 CPUs!??!)  Because of list member's descriptions of Windes
> 2000 (crappy, cartoonish), is it possible to think that it consists of
> original code!?!  If it was simply a re-use of Win95 code, I would expect
it
> to look very similar or exactly like Win95.  So I hope to spark interest
> that it may be capable to finally apply LFN to Calmira in the same way.
>
> Another factor I'm really interested in is if it is able to run without
> booting off Win95 type DOS.  Win95 does not run off DOS systems 7.00 or
> earlier.  If so, then LFNs are hopefully not directly in conflict with DOS
> versions or their respective boot files (io.sys, msdos.sys, command.com.)
>
I don't know it well enough - my comments were based on what little I've
seen of it, and an early trial version which I downloaded and almost
immediately deleted - but I _very_ much doubt if it'll run LFNs on its own.
The version I looked at ran under DOS, and didn't have LFN support.

I'm sure it's DOS-based; it'll almost certainly run, therefore, off DOS 6
and probably off DOS 5 - v.5 is generally reckoned to be the minimum system
for modern DOS programs.

It might support LFNs if you run it under Win9x. It isn't DOS 7 per se which
gives you LFNs, it's the a separate (I think) API which is implemented by
DOS 7 under Win9x. For example, if you just run native DOS 7 without Win95,
you only get short name support.

SEAL and Qube, the other programs I mentioned, _do_ support LFNs when you
run them under Win9x, as do a number of DOS-based file managers - but the
question is for these programs and for Windes - why would you want or need
to?

There's another option - the free utility LFNDOS implements the LFN API
under DOS 6, and possibly lower - your files come out in two columns, long
and short names, as in the 9x DOS prompt. SEAL and Qube both support LFNs in
this mode, but they run at a crawl. Has anyone else tried this and found a
way round the speed issue? The machine I'm running isn't cutting-edge, but
it's not prehistoric either (P133, 64Mb), and if there's a way to make
either program workably fast, it would be a help.





--
To unsubscribe, send a message to listar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe calmira_tips" in the body.
OR visit http://freelists.dhs.org


--
To unsubscribe, send a message to listar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe calmira_tips" in the body.
OR visit http://freelists.dhs.org



Other related posts: