Hey folks,

>>BTW, if all of the above is true, then Randall's tests were not irrelevant.

Well, I did try to get everyone on the same page with the program to create
15,000 empty files, but no one spoke up. (Shrug.) Doing this would have
eventually led to Naomi's machine (and a few others) that were using the
old DOS file names by default.

>...because I probably don't have short filenames activated by default. I still do see
>them in software which needs them, but not elsewhere.

Someone wrote in a thread article (previous thread?) here that there is a registry
switch to do this, if I remember correctly. I'll Google it and see what gives.

>So I think Randall should write an article on this, at least on Wiki.

LOL! Ok. (Very BIG GRIN!). I most definitely have the verbosity for such an
article :^) :^).

>This "dir with wildcards may return unexpected results if it searches short names" is such a landmine,
>which is probably very hard to test, that it may just bite anyone at any old time. We actually need to
>know WHEN may dir command (and other API that it uses) switch to short names, under what circumstances,
>what settings (and WHERE!) etc etc.

Yes...and what versions of Windows has short names set by default. One would expect NT, 2K, and XP to
be long-named by default, but maybe they figured it would bust too many apps or something. Man -- DOS
is like a pit-bull terrier that bites you on the rump and won't let go! :^) :^)

Regards,

Randall