Vista - Why still a 260 character path limit ?

As pointed out in a recent blog entry at CodeHorror the 260 characters limit
for a file path still exists in Vista.
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000729.html

This limit is not that hard to hit like some people pointed out in the
comments. It would be interesting to hear why this arbitrary short limit is
still being enforced even though the NTFS filesystem supports paths of 32000
characters. The backwards compatibility argument is not valid since that
could have easily been solved by enforcing this limit when a program runs in
any of the compatibility modes.

So, why in the year 2006/2007 is there still a 260 max character limitation
on filenames and paths ? Microsoft ? Vista team ?

KL.

Its called backwards compatiblity.


Please note the author's comment:

I think 260 characters of path is more than enough rope to hang ourselves
with. If you're running into path length limitations, the real problem isn't
the operating system, or even the computers. The problem is the deep, dark
pit of hierarchies the human beings have dug themselves into.


Bill F.

"KL" <noname@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eLLcN%23nDHHA.4404@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
> As pointed out in a recent blog entry at CodeHorror the 260 characters
> limit for a file path still exists in Vista.
> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000729.html
>
> This limit is not that hard to hit like some people pointed out in the
> comments. It would be interesting to hear why this arbitrary short limit
> is still being enforced even though the NTFS filesystem supports paths of
> 32000 characters. The backwards compatibility argument is not valid since
> that could have easily been solved by enforcing this limit when a program
> runs in any of the compatibility modes.
>
> So, why in the year 2006/2007 is there still a 260 max character
> limitation on filenames and paths ? Microsoft ? Vista team ?
>
> KL.
>
>

Like I said, that argument is not valid. And the argument that long paths
would be a dark pit, well, read this:
http://eamon.nerbonne.org/2006/11/wh...-bad-idea.html

It's actually a potential security problem to not allow deeper paths.

I was hoping someone from the Vista group was on this ng.

KL.


"Bill Frisbee" <wfrisbee@comcastx.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:583D071B-2EBE-4015-B690-AB8809E92D5D@microsoft.com...
> Its called backwards compatiblity.
>
>
> Please note the author's comment:
>
> I think 260 characters of path is more than enough rope to hang ourselves
> with. If you're running into path length limitations, the real problem
> isn't the operating system, or even the computers. The problem is the
> deep, dark pit of hierarchies the human beings have dug themselves into.
>
>
> Bill F.

Bill Frisbee wrote:
> Its called backwards compatiblity.
>
>
> Please note the author's comment:
>
> I think 260 characters of path is more than enough rope to hang
> ourselves with. If you're running into path length limitations, the real
> problem isn't the operating system, or even the computers. The problem
> is the deep, dark pit of hierarchies the human beings have dug
> themselves into.
>
>
> Bill F.

With this kind of backwards compatibility, MS is just tightening the
noose around their neck. What kind of nonce chops their toes off to
spite their foot?


>
> "KL" <noname@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:eLLcN%23nDHHA.4404@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>
>> As pointed out in a recent blog entry at CodeHorror the 260 characters
>> limit for a file path still exists in Vista.
>> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000729.html
>>
>> This limit is not that hard to hit like some people pointed out in the
>> comments. It would be interesting to hear why this arbitrary short
>> limit is still being enforced even though the NTFS filesystem supports
>> paths of 32000 characters. The backwards compatibility argument is not
>> valid since that could have easily been solved by enforcing this limit
>> when a program runs in any of the compatibility modes.
>>
>> So, why in the year 2006/2007 is there still a 260 max character
>> limitation on filenames and paths ? Microsoft ? Vista team ?
>>
>> KL.
>>
>>
>

"Nina DiBoy" <nin@di.boy> wrote in message
news:eka599$5m4$1@aioe.server.aioe.org...
> With this kind of backwards compatibility, MS is just tightening the noose
> around their neck.

What "noose" is that? Is that the "noose" of 95% market share?

Mike

Mike wrote:
> "Nina DiBoy" <nin@di.boy> wrote in message
> news:eka599$5m4$1@aioe.server.aioe.org...
>> With this kind of backwards compatibility, MS is just tightening the
>> noose around their neck.
>
> What "noose" is that? Is that the "noose" of 95% market share?
>
> Mike
>

Putting aside the fact that their software is so buggy (speaking of past
versions of windows, this has yet to be seen with Vista) and the major
(and easiest) target for malware, this is a problem which has existed
since I can remember. Multiple problems combine to form the noose.
They pack more and more bloat and DRM into their products. They also
ridiculously inflate their prices and profit margin. They treat their
customers like criminals. MS is truly more and more testing the market
to see how much of their crap it will bear. They will eventually pass
the breaking point where most people will not put up with their crap
anymore.

They supposedly rewrote 60% of the OS code from XP for Vista. I can't
believe they didn't fix this problem.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Nina DiBoy" <nin@di.boy> wrote in message
news:456a32b3$0$21189$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> Putting aside the fact that their software is so buggy (speaking of past
> versions of windows, this has yet to be seen with Vista)

Putting aside the fact that *all* software is buggy - particularly anything
as complex as an OS.

>and the major (and easiest) target for malware,

Due to the 95% market share.

> this is a problem which has existed since I can remember.

Except that it's not a problem for very many. If it was, it would have
been "fixed".

> Multiple problems combine to form the noose. They pack more and more bloat
> and DRM into their products.

Like everyone else. Take a look at Apple.

> They also ridiculously inflate their prices and profit margin.

Like everyone else. Take a look at Apple.

> They treat their customers like criminals.

No, they are just making it harder for them to become criminals. If they
truly *are* customers, then they can not be criminals.

They are just making it harder for the pirates. Sounds to me like this is
hitting a little too close to home for you.

> MS is truly more and more testing the market to see how much of their crap
> it will bear. They will eventually pass the breaking point where most
> people will not put up with their crap anymore.

Uh huh. The EXACT same things were said about XP's activation. Yep, MS
sure drove away all of their customers with XP, didn't they!!!!

Vista's activation is no worse than XP's, so I can't see what you are
whining about. If anything, people are used to it now and won't even
notice.

> They supposedly rewrote 60% of the OS code from XP for Vista. I can't
> believe they didn't fix this problem.

Because it's not a problem. Or maybe it was in the 40% that they didn't
rewrite?

Frankly, I've never heard anyone complain about this before.

Mike