![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|
Welcome to Vista Forums we are your forum to discuss Windows Vista x64 and x86 systems. Whether you need help or just want to post an idea you have on Vista, this is the forum for you.
br> br> |
| |||||||
![]() |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| | #1 (permalink) |
| Guest | Strange dir d*. results Hi all Just mucking around today, began DOS prompt as admin: cd\ into root of c Drive. Issued dir d*.* command Expected a list of all documents and folders in the root of C starting with the letter D, and instead got this: C:\>dir d*.* Volume in drive C has no label. Volume Serial Number is 5440-F38A Directory of C:\ 01/05/2007 07:01 AM <DIR> temp 0 File(s) 0 bytes 1 Dir(s) 27,550,375,936 bytes free C:\> Issued dir t*.* and got the listing one would expect from a command. Why does the letter d appear wrong? Any ideas or thoughts? Steve |
| | #2 (permalink) |
| Guest | Re: Strange dir d*. results Steven Andrews wrote: > Hi all > > Just mucking around today, began DOS prompt as admin: cd\ into root of > c Drive. Issued dir d*.* command > Expected a list of all documents and folders in the root of C starting > with the letter D, and instead got this: > > C:\>dir d*.* > Volume in drive C has no label. > Volume Serial Number is 5440-F38A > > Directory of C:\ > > 01/05/2007 07:01 AM <DIR> temp > 0 File(s) 0 bytes > 1 Dir(s) 27,550,375,936 bytes free > > C:\> > > Issued dir t*.* and got the listing one would expect from a command. Why > does the letter d appear wrong? > > Any ideas or thoughts? Try dir /x d*.* What is the result? There may for some reason be a short name for temp that begins with the letter 'd'. -- Olof Lagerkvist ICQ: 724451 Web: http://here.is/olof |
| | #3 (permalink) |
| Guest | Re: Strange dir d*. results Olof Lagerkvist wrote: > Steven Andrews wrote: > >> Hi all >> >> Just mucking around today, began DOS prompt as admin: cd\ into root >> of c Drive. Issued dir d*.* command >> Expected a list of all documents and folders in the root of C starting >> with the letter D, and instead got this: >> >> C:\>dir d*.* >> Volume in drive C has no label. >> Volume Serial Number is 5440-F38A >> >> Directory of C:\ >> >> 01/05/2007 07:01 AM <DIR> temp >> 0 File(s) 0 bytes >> 1 Dir(s) 27,550,375,936 bytes free >> >> C:\> >> >> Issued dir t*.* and got the listing one would expect from a command. >> Why does the letter d appear wrong? >> >> Any ideas or thoughts? > > > Try > > dir /x d*.* > > What is the result? There may for some reason be a short name for temp > that begins with the letter 'd'. > Spot on. Results: C:\>dir /x d*.* Volume in drive C has no label. Volume Serial Number is 5440-F38A Directory of C:\ 01/05/2007 07:01 AM <DIR> DAVEYK~1.LOC temp 0 File(s) 0 bytes 1 Dir(s) 27,531,538,432 bytes free C:\> Oddly enough, this Vista Ultimate PC was previously connected to a domain called DaveyK.local. I normally use the dir cmd as I "don't trust" the windows search function. But now I'm questioning even that. However the rest of the files with 8.3 filenames are the usual (first6)~X.ext. Why does this one differ? Renaming the directory destroyed the 8.3 filename. This must be because the directory was created on the old domain, and all the other directories were created new / renamed / or reused. A new trap for young and old players alike! |
| | #4 (permalink) |
| Guest | Re: Strange dir d*. results that is different. try dir d* or dir my* "Steven Andrews" <applecontrolreset@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uGQ8c7UkHHA.4112@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Hi all > > Just mucking around today, began DOS prompt as admin: cd\ into root of > c Drive. Issued dir d*.* command > Expected a list of all documents and folders in the root of C starting > with the letter D, and instead got this: > > C:\>dir d*.* > Volume in drive C has no label. > Volume Serial Number is 5440-F38A > > Directory of C:\ > > 01/05/2007 07:01 AM <DIR> temp > 0 File(s) 0 bytes > 1 Dir(s) 27,550,375,936 bytes free > > C:\> > > Issued dir t*.* and got the listing one would expect from a command. > Why does the letter d appear wrong? > > Any ideas or thoughts? > > Steve > |
| | #5 (permalink) |
| Guest | Re: Strange dir d*. results Steven Andrews wrote: > Oddly enough, this Vista Ultimate PC was previously connected to a > domain called DaveyK.local. I normally use the dir cmd as I "don't > trust" the windows search function. But now I'm questioning even that. I would say that there is really no reasons not to trust either of them, but there are a few things that could be good to be aware of when using them. > However the rest of the files with 8.3 filenames are the usual > (first6)~X.ext. Why does this one differ? Don't know, not supposed to be so really. The short name should be automatically set to a generated "abbreviated variant" when a file or directory is renamed. In earlier versions there was a registry setting to disable auto-generation of short names, unfortunately I don't know if that has changed in Vista or if it behaves different now. > Renaming the directory destroyed the 8.3 filename. This must be because > the directory was created on the old domain, and all the other > directories were created new / renamed / or reused. Short names can be changed manually with the 'fsutil' command: fsutil file setshortname C:\the_long_named_file.txt SHORTNAM.TXT -- Olof Lagerkvist ICQ: 724451 Web: http://here.is/olof |
| | #6 (permalink) |
| Guest | Re: Strange dir d*. results Olof Lagerkvist wrote: > Steven Andrews wrote: > >> Oddly enough, this Vista Ultimate PC was previously connected to a >> domain called DaveyK.local. I normally use the dir cmd as I "don't >> trust" the windows search function. But now I'm questioning even that. > > > I would say that there is really no reasons not to trust either of them, > but there are a few things that could be good to be aware of when using > them. > >> However the rest of the files with 8.3 filenames are the usual >> (first6)~X.ext. Why does this one differ? > > > Don't know, not supposed to be so really. The short name should be > automatically set to a generated "abbreviated variant" when a file or > directory is renamed. In earlier versions there was a registry setting > to disable auto-generation of short names, unfortunately I don't know if > that has changed in Vista or if it behaves different now. > >> Renaming the directory destroyed the 8.3 filename. This must be >> because the directory was created on the old domain, and all the other >> directories were created new / renamed / or reused. > > > Short names can be changed manually with the 'fsutil' command: > > fsutil file setshortname C:\the_long_named_file.txt SHORTNAM.TXT > I haven't still haven't worked out why it was different to itself. It shocked me a little as I use paths and filenames in batch files to automate certain things, this just made me wonder if I'm setting myself up to delete the windows directory by accident one day. The behaviour is the same in XP as well, I just never noticed it. I always thought that 8.3 filenames were automatically generated, never realised you could manually change them. Thank you very much for your help in clarifying this for me. Take care Steve |
| | #7 (permalink) |
| Guest | Re: Strange dir d*. results Hello Steve, you may also want to run dir /a d*.* to pick up all folders with attributes on them like documents and settings for example Thanks, Darrell Gorter[MSFT] This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights -------------------- |>Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 06:30:23 +1000 |>From: Steven Andrews <applecontrolreset@hotmail.com> |>User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) |>MIME-Version: 1.0 |>Subject: Re: Strange dir d*. results |>References: <uGQ8c7UkHHA.4112@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl> <uBq6vMVkHHA.1624@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl> <O4IYsDWkHHA.4852@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl> <#hm7yDZkHHA.4628@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl> |>In-Reply-To: <#hm7yDZkHHA.4628@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl> |>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed |>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit |>Message-ID: <OE0x1#akHHA.744@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl> |>Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.vista.file_management |>NNTP-Posting-Host: cpe-58-161-249-19.nsw.bigpond.net.au 58.161.249.19 |>Lines: 1 |>Path: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl |>Xref: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl microsoft.public.windows.vista.file_management:3374 |>X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.vista.file_management |> |>Olof Lagerkvist wrote: |>> Steven Andrews wrote: |>> |>>> Oddly enough, this Vista Ultimate PC was previously connected to a |>>> domain called DaveyK.local. I normally use the dir cmd as I "don't |>>> trust" the windows search function. But now I'm questioning even that. |>> |>> |>> I would say that there is really no reasons not to trust either of them, |>> but there are a few things that could be good to be aware of when using |>> them. |>> |>>> However the rest of the files with 8.3 filenames are the usual |>>> (first6)~X.ext. Why does this one differ? |>> |>> |>> Don't know, not supposed to be so really. The short name should be |>> automatically set to a generated "abbreviated variant" when a file or |>> directory is renamed. In earlier versions there was a registry setting |>> to disable auto-generation of short names, unfortunately I don't know if |>> that has changed in Vista or if it behaves different now. |>> |>>> Renaming the directory destroyed the 8.3 filename. This must be |>>> because the directory was created on the old domain, and all the other |>>> directories were created new / renamed / or reused. |>> |>> |>> Short names can be changed manually with the 'fsutil' command: |>> |>> fsutil file setshortname C:\the_long_named_file.txt SHORTNAM.TXT |>> |> |>I haven't still haven't worked out why it was different to itself. It |>shocked me a little as I use paths and filenames in batch files to |>automate certain things, this just made me wonder if I'm setting myself |>up to delete the windows directory by accident one day. |> |>The behaviour is the same in XP as well, I just never noticed it. I |>always thought that 8.3 filenames were automatically generated, never |>realised you could manually change them. |> |>Thank you very much for your help in clarifying this for me. |> |>Take care |> |>Steve |> |
| |
| |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Request.Url.GetLeftPart(UriPartial.Authority) - strange results | TimW | .NET General | 0 | 2 Weeks Ago 11:25 AM |
| Google results | Teresa Fernandes | Vista General | 2 | 07-19-2008 03:51 PM |
| Strange Vista Benchmark Results | Locke | Vista General | 28 | 04-06-2008 01:31 PM |
| Search Results | Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin] | Vista General | 5 | 11-08-2007 06:52 PM |
| Hit Test Results | Kevin Hoffman | Avalon | 4 | 03-29-2006 01:08 AM |