Windows 95 shortcomings; directory sorting woes.

["Michael Edwards" mje@xxxxxxxx]

                         Michael Edwards.

----------------------------------------
[Norman Bauman:]

>In Windows 98, at least you can use  /? to get a help screen.
----------------------------------------

   I just tried that, and it works for Windows 95. I'm quite surprised it's
there; I don't quite know why: I think it's just because I've become conditioned
not to expect anything convenient in Windows, or anything that clarifies matters
or aids understanding of how things work.
   The problem is that I didn't know about this, and, while I can't be sure it
isn't documented somewhere, I've found that the documentation for Windows 95
(both printed and in the Help screens) is so pathetically inadequate that I tend
not to take it seriously, nor to use it much - so I didn't discover this, even
if it is there.

----------------------------------------
>Unfortunately, you can't type DOS HELP to get a window linking to all the
>DOS commads that are available, or at least I haven't figured out how to
>get such a list.
----------------------------------------

   Pretty sure that's not available in Windows 95. There's no "help.exe",
"help.com", or "help.bat" on my C: drive. I don't know about Windows 98 - I
haven't "upgraded" to it, and see no reason whatsoever to do so, whatever Uncle
Bill might happen to think. As for Windows 2000, a friend told me he'd heard
it's more bug-ridden than ever. I think I'll just continue to suffer under 95,
thanks. I'm so uninterested in upgrading that I don't even *know* if Windows
2000 is out yet. (I really don't understand those people who queued up outside
computer shops in the middle of the night to be sure they got Windows 98 as soon
as it was released in the morning.)

----------------------------------------
>I found one good solution for XTree, and that is ZTree http://ztree.com/,
>a semi-authorized (or tolerated or ignored) clone.
----------------------------------------

   Well, I've been told that the makers of XTree Gold have long since gone out
of business, so I assume there's no-one to object, even if ZTree is
illegitimate. I suppose the designers still exist as human beings, but if
they're not making money out of it now, anyway, I don't suppose they'd bother
with expensive legal action.

----------------------------------------
>The big thing I lose in Windows 9x, particularly with XyWrite, is Norton's
>Directory Sort.
----------------------------------------

   Yes, I think that's one of the programs that freezes the computer. I would
not dare to use it anyway, especially since my DOS version presumably doesn't
know about long file-names. (*I* wouldn't care about losing them, but I think
Windows would.) I miss that, too.

----------------------------------------
>There is a Windows substitute, which however only works
>with 16-bit files and not 32-bit files. If anyone knows how to sort
>directory files in Windows 98, I'd appreciate knowing. A big part of my
>organization used to be to put my XyWrite files into a rational sequence.
----------------------------------------

   I think you might be out of luck there, Norman. I haven't read anything
official, or anything at all, in fact; but, reading between the lines, I get the
impression that Windows 95 (and presumably later versions) have given up the
whole idea of letting you fix a firm directory order.
   Have you ever noticed that, in XTree Gold (DOS version), amongst the
sorting options for file-names, as well as the usual date/time, size, name, and
extension options, you also have "unsorted" - that is, just in whatever order
the file-names are listed in the subdirectory - but in Windows Explorer, and in
fact any Windows program I've ever seen that lists file-names, it *never* shows
file-names in this order? Even when you have sorting options offered, going by
name, extension, size, and so on (as in Windows Explorer), the "unsorted" option
is *never* offered. I find this one of the clearest examples of Windows'
bossiness, its tendency to dictate to the user how he or she should work,
instead of letting the user tell Windows how to do things.
   Moreover, when you save a file, it is likely to change its position in the
directory listing order, too, something which can be easily verified by opening
a DOS box, typing "dir", saving a file in that subdirectory, then typing "dir"
again. Very likely, but not invariably, the newly saved file will appear at the
bottom of the list.
   I suspect Microsoft have adopted some system whereby the positioning of
files in the directory listing is inherently unstable, and that they've simply
decided not to let directory order continue to be something a user can control
any longer - a policy I strongly disagree with, because I've always used
Norton's "dirsort" ("ds" in some versions) as a useful tool for grouping
together files in an order that helps me keep track of things, and grouping
together related files.
   The only way I know of determining file listing order is to copy the files
to the desired subdirectory in the order you want them - but even then, that
order will gradually get disturbed as files are re-saved one by one. It's a
fruitless quest, I'm afraid, and I've just about given it up. That's one more
reason I want to be able to boot on a *real* DOS (6.22 for example) instead of
the pseudo-DOS that comes with Windows 95. 6.22 never behaved like this.
   (The only thing resembling this in DOS 6.22 was when a program (like Turbo
Pascal) keeps a *.bak file every time it saves a *.pas file: the previous *.pas
file is renamed to the *.bak file, and the newly saved version is saved as a new
file; because of this, it will cause some slight disruption of the directory
order. But Windows does this sort of thing all the time, even when *.bak files
are not involved, and the new file simply overwrites the old one.)
   If my assumption is correct in all this, I'm surprised that any version of
directory sorting works at all, even one restricted to 16-bit files, as you ment
ioned.
   (I'm not quite sure what you mean by a 16-bit file: I thought the 16- or
32-bit thing was an attribute of the F.A.T., not of files. I kept to a 16-bit
F.A.T. (which required me to partition my laptop's hard disk into four
partitions), in a desperate attempt (not very successful) to keep as much
compatibility with DOS programs as possible. I think my brother, who's a
high-level computer professional, considers that I'm still trying to live in the
Stone Age (although he's no lover of Micro$oft or Windoze).)

             Regards,
             Michael Edwards.