Union site: www.cn-dos.net Forum site: www.cn-dos.net/forum
DOS stands for freedom, openness and progress. Let us work hard, learn from the openness and GNU spirit of FreeDOS and Linux, and together build and grow a free GNU GPL world!
Credits 3,467 Posts 1,616 Joined 2004-06-21 00:00 21-year member UID 27148
Status Offline
Originally posted by DOSforever at 2009-5-30 02:28 PM:
Sometimes useful. First tell me if there is such software, then I'll tell you what it's used for, heh heh.
Only heard of software for FAT table sorting of music files in MP3 players under Windows, nothing else heard of.
I think this kind of sorting is only useful for players, right?
Credits 4,639 Posts 2,239 Joined 2005-01-30 00:00 21-year member UID 35785 Gender Male
Status Offline
Oh? An MP3 player can sort music files by the FAT table? I've never heard of that before. Why does an MP3 player need to physically sort music files? How does FAT sort? Move the needed files to the front? Just like what SPEEDISK can do?
I can't think of my specific use right now. Anyway, I encountered a strange problem when dealing with files one by one before. The following description might be the reason for my problem, but I didn't encounter the same problem
When you use wildcards to specify set, FOR scans the directory and finds each file which matches the wildcard name(s) you specified. If, during the processing of the FOR command, you create a new file that could be included in set, it may or may not appear in a some later iteration of the same FOR command. Whether or not the new file appears depends on its physical location in the directory structure. For example, if you use FOR to execute a command for all .TXT files, and the command also creates one or more new .TXT files, those new files may or may not be processed during the current FOR command, depending on where they are placed in the physical structure of the directory. This is a Windows constraint over which the command processor has no control. Therefore, in order to achieve consistent results you should construct FOR commands which do not create files that could become part of set for the current command.
Also, the loading order in the 'Start' -> 'Programs' -> 'Startup' item in Windows 98 is related to the physical order in FDT. I haven't tried Windows NTs, so I don't know.
Anyway, I think just display sorting is not enough. Sometimes physical sorting is better.
Credits 3,467 Posts 1,616 Joined 2004-06-21 00:00 21-year member UID 27148
Status Offline
Some older MP3 players are rather stupid. The playback order is according to the file order in the FAT table. So someone wrote a FAT table sorting software.
In addition, the startup items you mentioned. It seems that now people rarely put the items into "Start" -> "Programs" -> "Startup", but directly in the auto-run items of the registry. The loading order depends on the registry order.
Credits 4,639 Posts 2,239 Joined 2005-01-30 00:00 21-year member UID 35785 Gender Male
Status Offline
Yes, generally, current automatic runs are placed in the various startup items in the registry. I mainly manually put the things I need into the 'Startup' item. Also, it seems that there's no way to sort the key items in the registry as needed; delete and then recreate? Of course, the 'Startup' item is just an example I gave, and I mainly want to talk about another reason.
Credits 3,467 Posts 1,616 Joined 2004-06-21 00:00 21-year member UID 27148
Status Offline
Originally posted by DOSforever at 2009-6-1 08:09 AM:
Of course, the "Startup" item is just an example I gave. What I mainly talk about is another reason.
Is your other reason referring to the for loop?
Are you sure that under the nt cmd environment, the for loop order is still cycled according to the FAT table order?
Credits 4,639 Posts 2,239 Joined 2005-01-30 00:00 21-year member UID 35785 Gender Male
Status Offline
Yes, the FOR command is a main reason, and there are other issues, I can't remember for a moment. In short, I like natural sorting, not "pretend" sorting. One thing to note is that I'm talking about FDT, not FAT, and this is not only in the Windows command line environment, but also in the DOS environment. The MP3 player you mentioned earlier, does it sort FAT or FDT?
Credits 3,467 Posts 1,616 Joined 2004-06-21 00:00 21-year member UID 27148
Status Offline
Originally posted by DOSforever at 2009-6-2 11:19 AM:
Yes, the FOR command is a main reason, and there are other issues, I can't remember for a moment. In short, I like natural sorting instead of "pretended" sorting.
There is one thing to note is that what I said is directory entry sorting
But this kind of sorting should only be useful for FAT partitions, and NTFS partitions do not have this concept
Credits 4,639 Posts 2,239 Joined 2005-01-30 00:00 21-year member UID 35785 Gender Male
Status Offline
Hehe, I knew you'd bring up NTFS. Yes, although it's not called FDT in NTFS, there should be a similar concept, and there's always an order in which directory entries are arranged.
Now this unimportant issue doesn't need to be studied too much. The important thing is whether there is such a software, even if it can only operate on the FAT file system.
Credits 3,467 Posts 1,616 Joined 2004-06-21 00:00 21-year member UID 27148
Status Offline
Originally posted by DOSforever at 2009-6-3 09:02 AM:
Hehe, I knew you'd bring up NTFS. Yes, although it's not called FDT in NTFS, there should be a similar concept. There's always an order in which directory entries are arranged.
Now this is not important...
Now it seems there is no such software, and I forgot the name of the software that sorted mp3s before
