Page 1 of 1
Do you use the "Len" column?
Posted: 04 Mar 2008 19:46
by admin
I won't remove it but I'm thinking about not filling it when it's hidden. This would mean about 5% more speed in browsing and searching. The tiny disadvantage would be: you cannot sort by Len while Len is hidden.
Posted: 04 Mar 2008 20:20
by j_c_hallgren
Given that I have it showing all the time, that change really wouldn't affect me...
Posted: 04 Mar 2008 20:51
by Dirhael
I can't remember having used it more than once just to see what that column did, so I'm all for changing it if it means a speed increase.
Posted: 04 Mar 2008 21:21
by serendipity
I never quite understood why people care so much about the length of a filename (sorry for my ignorance

).
If you teach me some tricks that i am missing then i might use it. But otherwise its as dead as a Dodo for me.
Posted: 04 Mar 2008 21:57
by j_c_hallgren
serendipity wrote:I never quite understood why people care so much about the length of a filename (sorry for my ignorance

).
The reason that I leave it displayed is that it makes it easier to use on those occasions when I really need it...
And when do I need it?
When I'm cleaning up some temporary files and am unable to delete some because the total length is too long (>255), I can use this to locate them and then reduce the folder/file name via renames so that it's within limits.
I've also used it on rare occasion to help me locate a file that I couldn't remember name of, but I knew that it had a short name or a really long name, etc.
Posted: 04 Mar 2008 22:14
by serendipity
Thanks JC. Is that >255 len deleting issue a Win2K thing? Because i just deleted a 257 len file on my WinXP.
In any case, I voted for "never" because i dont see myself using it.
Posted: 04 Mar 2008 22:39
by RalphM
No problem with that change.
If I need it, I can still have it...
Posted: 04 Mar 2008 22:50
by j_c_hallgren
serendipity wrote:Thanks JC. Is that >255 len deleting issue a Win2K thing? Because i just deleted a 257 len file on my WinXP.
I'm not 100% sure if it was exactly >255 or maybe a bit more...but I've had files that refuse to delete because it gets a "Filename too long" type error...and by reducing it to 255 or less, I'm then able to delete it.
This most typically occurs with cache type files...such as from IE.
Posted: 04 Mar 2008 23:03
by jacky
I think path > 255 characters can cause issue when used on CDs or such, too.
Anyways : I never show it, I never use it. If the only downside is that we cannot sort by Len while the column is hidden, then for about 5% more speed I'd say don't even question and stop filling it when hidden !
Len is usefull, but i would vote for something else...
Posted: 05 Mar 2008 13:40
by itsme28m
> 255 characters are not only for cd's.
Everything that is formatted in FAT12, FAT 16 and FAT 32 has this limitation just to give an example.
I would rather vote for a search file with a len greater then 255 (or better, an option to the user to fill in a number, but also a box to just choose 255).
Then you have just all the right files to shorten the names for putting them on cd/usb stick.
hmm, i also see this is for NTFS thesame??? maybe i'm not understanding it anymore but look at this under limitations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems
Greetings,
Steve
hmmm....
Posted: 27 Mar 2008 14:32
by ramza__x
i will go for speed, coz it will affect everyone