Why are there still 8.3 filenames in the modern OS?

[teddymines]

I thought the new filesystems and OS's would take advantage of longer filenames. But at least in NT 4.0 there are still NTOSKRNL.EXE, BOOTSECT.DOS, regedt32.exe, vwipxspx.exe. Why can't they use longer names such as "NT OS Kernel" or "Reg Edit 32"?

Also, why are extensions still important? Can't the OS determine the file type just by looking at it, then launch the associated app? It seems like giving the user the ability to change file.exe to file.jpg is just inviting trouble.

And why can't I use any characters in a file name, like Expense Report 10/10/2001: A "closer" look. It seems like any human-readable characters in the first 128 ASCII characters should be allowed. Use those extended characters for internal things like volume and directory delineators.

Do remnants of the DOS era still live on in modern operating systems?????

 

[Nothinman]

Because it's still a hack on top of an old system with backwards compatibility issues throughout.

Filetyping by looking at 'magic' numbers or fingerprints works well (see the 'file' command on Linux) but it's not 100% reliable as not every filetype has a fingerprint and some have the same one (all MS office docs have the same header no matter what app created them).

You sound like you want a Mac, it has been doing everything you're talking about for years, the only difference is the filetype information is saved in a resource fork not determined from the data, but you still get the same effect.

 

[BreakApart]

teddymines,
It appears you are over-looking the most important reason files still follow the 8.3 guidline.

***DOS boodisk access and the ability to locate the correct file.***

There are still many admins who prefer to use FAT on the boot partition. In the event they need to use a boot disk, they will be able to boot, find and then modify the CORRECT file(s)-(such as boot.ini)

By not following the 8.3 standard or formatting the drive in another format(ntfs), easy access to the files using a boot disk would be MUCH more complicated...

Good Luck

 

[Damascus]

<< teddymines,
It appears you are over-looking the most important reason files still follow the 8.3 guidline.

***DOS boodisk access and the ability to locate the correct file.***

There are still many admins who prefer to use FAT on the boot partition. In the event they need to use a boot disk, they will be able to boot, find and then modify the CORRECT file(s)-(such as boot.ini)

By not following the 8.3 standard or formatting the drive in another format(ntfs), easy access to the files using a boot disk would be MUCH more complicated...

Good Luck >>



Shouldn't that antiquated boot disk style be updated to a more modern
one? One that supports NTFS? I can't imagine it'd be that difficult.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< And why can't I use any characters in a file name, like Expense Report 10/10/2001: A "closer" look. It seems like any human-readable characters in the first 128 ASCII characters should be allowed. Use those extended characters for internal things like volume and directory delineators. >>



I think that may have to do with the fact that some non-alphanumeric characters mean something in the shell. "/" on most OSes Ive used is for directories. ""s mean to use exactly what is there instead of trying to interpret it.