arrange by type in windows xp

[Jimbo]

From years of windows use I've grown comfortable with the "arrange by
type" feature. I had always thought that this feature simply arranged
files by alphabetizing them by their extensions, this was very useful
to me. So either I was wrong about exactly how it worked or it has
changed.

In the version of XP I have now, (XP Pro Version 2002, Service Pack
1), when I arrange by type, the files are not alphabetically arranged
by the extensions - they are alphabetically arranged by the full type
name that is associated with the extension. For example, a .pdf file
isn't found by scanning extensions for P, it is found by scanning the
full type names (not even visible unless you're using the
"view->details") for Adobe Acrobat Document or some such thing.

I'm not really concerned about arguments for or against this method of
sorting. I just want to know if there's a way to change it back. I
would like my files to be arranged alphabetically by extension. Can
anyone help me?

Thanks,
Jim

[Sharon F]

On 2 Mar 2004 08:40:23 -0800, Jimbo wrote:

> From years of windows use I've grown comfortable with the "arrange by
> type" feature. I had always thought that this feature simply arranged
> files by alphabetizing them by their extensions, this was very useful
> to me. So either I was wrong about exactly how it worked or it has
> changed.
>
> In the version of XP I have now, (XP Pro Version 2002, Service Pack
> 1), when I arrange by type, the files are not alphabetically arranged
> by the extensions - they are alphabetically arranged by the full type
> name that is associated with the extension. For example, a .pdf file
> isn't found by scanning extensions for P, it is found by scanning the
> full type names (not even visible unless you're using the
> "view->details") for Adobe Acrobat Document or some such thing.
>
> I'm not really concerned about arguments for or against this method of
> sorting. I just want to know if there's a way to change it back. I
> would like my files to be arranged alphabetically by extension. Can
> anyone help me?
>
> Thanks,
> Jim

The feature still works the same as always. What has changed is the text
for some of the File Types. Many have become more descriptive - such as the
Adobe example you have stated.

You could hand edit all of those descriptions to get things working the way
that you want but it seems like a terrible waste of time. An update or
reinstall of the program involved could quickly reverse all of your hard
work. Seems a better idea to become accustomed to the new descriptions and
work with them as they are.

Not what you wanted to hear probably... maybe someone else has a better
suggestion for you.

Meanwhile, perhaps Searching by file type (*.pdf) will accomplish what you
need?

--
Sharon F
MS MVP - Windows XP Shell/User

[Bob Dietz]

Jimbo wrote:

> From years of windows use I've grown comfortable with the "arrange by
> type" feature. I had always thought that this feature simply arranged
> files by alphabetizing them by their extensions, this was very useful
> to me. So either I was wrong about exactly how it worked or it has
> changed.
>
> In the version of XP I have now, (XP Pro Version 2002, Service Pack
> 1), when I arrange by type, the files are not alphabetically arranged
> by the extensions - they are alphabetically arranged by the full type
> name that is associated with the extension. For example, a .pdf file
> isn't found by scanning extensions for P, it is found by scanning the
> full type names (not even visible unless you're using the
> "view->details") for Adobe Acrobat Document or some such thing.
>
> I'm not really concerned about arguments for or against this method of
> sorting. I just want to know if there's a way to change it back. I
> would like my files to be arranged alphabetically by extension. Can
> anyone help me?
>
> Thanks,
> Jim

PowerDesk 5 will sort by either extension or file type description.
http://www.v-com.com/product/pd_free_trial.html

No doubt other 3rd party file browsers will do so as well.

Bob

[Jimbo]

Thanks for the responses folks.

I was kind of worried that the issue might just be a case of the file
type descriptions changing. Oh well.

Thanks again.
Jim