Windows explorer and creating a filename which gets sorted /after/ the letters ?

Apd wrote:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
In message , Apd writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
No, Everything isn't _called_ everything; it _is_ everything.

It's a program called Everything, is it not?

Yes, but nothing else has "Everything" as its name; whoever you've
snipped said "Agent Ransack" was a unique name - I was saying, so is
"Everything".

It's a rather inappropriate name for a prog that finds only filenames.

In - mild - 'defense of 'Everything', its shortcut is named 'Search
Everything', which is - IMO - appropriate, since it 'searches' for and
finds every file on your system (and if you want on other systems). (As
has been explained, it doesn't actually search, but filters its list of
files/folders.)

I don't know why a program that finds only filenames would be
considered useful.

Well, lots of us do find it useful;

Most other search software finds files and content so why would you
not choose one of those instead?

Well, actually it *can* search for content ('A word or phrase in the
file:'), but that's not its primary purpose.

Its primary purpose is finding files/filenames and, because of the way
it works, it does that blindingly fast. But if you don't need/want the
speed, it's probably not for you.

I haven't *needed* it until know either, but sometimes I have been
chasing for "Where the expletive does some_software keep that
file/data/whatever!?", so now I know about 'Everything' it's nice to
know that I can search the 600,000 files on my system in a split second.

But as always, YMMV/YMWV.

[...]

On 06/10/2019 00:08:15, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , mick
writes:
On 05/10/2019 15:13:46, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Mayayana
writes:
[]
But that's backward, unless you live in Europe. If

No, the US way is backward, or at least illogical (-:

Yes to both. They will eventually catch up and adopt the metric system one
day. :-)
I was taught the english system at school, but once I started work in
engineering and began to use the metric system is was so obvious it was a
more rational system to use. So easy to learn as well. 50 plus years on I
still occasionally compare imperial weights and measures, but metric is
always first choice.

I was only referring to the date format (-:! (Of which the US one is neither
large-medium-small nor small-medium-large.) As for the weights and measures,
they're not exclusive to the US: although legally we're metric here in the
UK, there are plenty who are militantly attached to the imperial measures.
(Some of which are different to the US ones, confusingly having the same name
- the gallon being the one that springs to mind, but I think there are
others. Or are used in different ways, such as the inclusion of stones.)
Personally, having been brought up after the metric system was nominally
brought into schools but also in Germany, I'm more metric than many of my
generation, but I still find the inch more suitable for a range of
measurements, think of people's height in feet and inches, people's weight in
stones and pounds (just in pounds is as meaningless to me as in kilogrammes),
and fuel consumption in miles per gallon. (My last car returned 62 mpg on the
last tankful before it went to the scrappie. I liked that car!)

I had such a folder I'd probably call it Jan-1-19. I also

I don't think Mick meant he had a folder for 01 January, just that he had
one for January, which he _named_ 01 January to make it (and the other
similarly-named month folders) appear in order. (The names of the months
aren't in alphabetical order.)

Yes, that is what I meant.
[]
I _do_ have folders named something like 2019\10\5, though not in my
images area.

All my image file names are named by 'year - number'
e.g. this year they start at 2019 - 00001
as of today the last image filed is 2019 - 8861

Categorising, naming, tagging, sorting, keywords or whatever is all done in
ACDsee Ultimate Pro.

Presumably that keeps "albums" (alba?), as files in a proprietary format,
that's not readable by competing similar software?

Yes, although I do add a description about an image in the EXIF
properties which is readable.

--
mick

In message , Apd writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
In message , Apd writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
No, Everything isn't _called_ everything; it _is_ everything.

It's a program called Everything, is it not?

Yes, but nothing else has "Everything" as its name; whoever you've
snipped said "Agent Ransack" was a unique name - I was saying, so is
"Everything".

It's a rather inappropriate name for a prog that finds only filenames.

I was concentrating on uniqueness; appropriateness is a different matter
(-:. Though as Frank has said, (a) you _can_ find a (somewhat shaky)
justification for the name, (b) apparently it can search inside, though
that's not its primary function, and I'd still use AR for that.

I don't know why a program that finds only filenames would be
considered useful.

Well, lots of us do find it useful;

Most other search software finds files and content so why would you
not choose one of those instead?

Because it's blindingly fast once running, and also I find it very easy
to use. Note: I'm not telling you to use it! (Though I'd _advise_ you to
_try_ it if you hadn't said you rarely search by part-filename.)

see posts in the last year or so (at
least), at least in the 7 and XP 'groups (I haven't been in the 10 one
for long so can't say for there).

I follow all 3 but skim read or skip many posts. There's just too much
waffle, not enough getting-to-the-point (answering unasked questions
and speculation when an OP gives insufficient info), poor snipping/
trimming and much is of little interest to me. Not to mention the
pantomime: "Oh no, it isn't - oh yes it is" that gets us nowhere.

Like you and me over Everything for example (-:.
[]
The
replace feature sounds useful - and potentially very dangerous!

Yes. Useful progs are often dangerous

Agreed.

(I've never used the replace
option). I particularly like the binary search option.

"Flobalob" actually means "Flowerpot" in Oddle-Poddle.

I know but it still sounds like a fart in a bath.

LOL! [That was below my .sig separator.]

It was the main reason I replied to your post!

A sort of underwater Trump, would that be?

Heh!


(-: [Does your email/news software not remove signatures below a .sig
separator?]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If a cluttered desk is characteristic of a cluttered mind, what does an empty
desk mean ?

"Mayayana" on Sun, 6 Oct 2019 08:40:53 -0400
typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
"pyotr filipivich" wrote

| ?? Underscore sorts after characters. But did I say AA*?
|
| It may have. I know that Win 7 underscore comes before numbers,
| which come before letters.
|

I see you're right. I'd assumed it was done in sort order,
which is numeric (ASCII/ANSI). In that system _ comes after
capital letters and before lowercase. But { comes after
all characters and still sorts ahead of them in Explorer.
So I guess they just made up their own system for
Explorer.

Maybe they had to do that to accommodate
you old-timers who were used to an 8.3 system and had
to use _ if they wanted a space.

I doubt they would be so accommodating to my considerations. They
haven't when it came to enhancing "the computer experience" elsewhere.

--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
In message , Apd writes:
It's a rather inappropriate name for a prog that finds only filenames.

I was concentrating on uniqueness; appropriateness is a different matter
(-:.

Ok.

Though as Frank has said, (a) you _can_ find a (somewhat shaky)
justification for the name, (b) apparently it can search inside, though
that's not its primary function, and I'd still use AR for that.

So I see.

Most other search software finds files and content so why would you
not choose one of those instead?

Because it's blindingly fast once running, and also I find it very easy
to use. Note: I'm not telling you to use it! (Though I'd _advise_ you to
_try_ it if you hadn't said you rarely search by part-filename.)

Yes, and I'm not in that much of a hurry and don't have gigabytes of
stuff.

I follow all 3 but skim read or skip many posts. There's just too much
waffle, not enough getting-to-the-point (answering unasked questions
and speculation when an OP gives insufficient info), poor snipping/
trimming and much is of little interest to me. Not to mention the
pantomime: "Oh no, it isn't - oh yes it is" that gets us nowhere.

Like you and me over Everything for example (-:.

Well, not really because I've learnt something about these search
programs and we're not doing a pantomime.

(-: [Does your email/news software not remove signatures below a .sig
separator?]

Of course not - it's an ancient version of OE! I format all my posts
in a very capable text-editor before sending. Can't allow OE to muck
them up.

In message , Apd writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
[]
Because it's blindingly fast once running, and also I find it very easy
to use. Note: I'm not telling you to use it! (Though I'd _advise_ you to
_try_ it if you hadn't said you rarely search by part-filename.)

Yes, and I'm not in that much of a hurry and don't have gigabytes of
stuff.

I don't really, but I do have files where there's more than one place it
would have been valid to put them.
[]
programs and we're not doing a pantomime.

Oh yes we are ... (sorry.)

(-: [Does your email/news software not remove signatures below a .sig
separator?]

Of course not - it's an ancient version of OE! I format all my posts
in a very capable text-editor before sending. Can't allow OE to muck
them up.

Have you ever investigated OE-Quotefix? You can get it from
https://www.majorgeeks.com/files/det...quotefix.html; unfortunately
the author's explanation of what it does is no longer there, but there's
a snap at
https://web.archive.org/web/20150907...um.de/~jain/so
ftware/outlook-quotefix/

I _think_ that knows about .sig separators.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The first banjo solo I played was actually just a series of mistakes. In fact
it was all the mistakes I knew at the time. - Tim Dowling, RT2015/6/20-26

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
Have you ever investigated OE-Quotefix?

I know about it but have never bothered to check it out. I'm
content with the way things are.

I _think_ that knows about .sig separators.

I believe it can fix the bad sig delimiter that OE inserts.
I don't use sigs but I will comment on other people's sometimes.

Apd wrote:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
[...]

Because it's blindingly fast once running, and also I find it very easy
to use. Note: I'm not telling you to use it! (Though I'd _advise_ you to
_try_ it if you hadn't said you rarely search by part-filename.)

Yes, and I'm not in that much of a hurry and don't have gigabytes of
stuff.

Note that - at least for me, and probably for many/most people - it's
not just about *your* files, but also about *'their'* files.

For example folders such as '\Program Files', '\Program Files (x86)',
\ProgramData and - especially - \Windows, contain *hundreds of thousands*
of files. Just \Windows has 235,000 files on my (8.1) system!

'Everything' makes it very easy (and fast) to find a needle in that
haystack.

[...]

"Frank Slootweg" wrote:
Apd wrote:
Yes, and I'm not in that much of a hurry and don't have gigabytes of
stuff.

Note that - at least for me, and probably for many/most people - it's
not just about *your* files, but also about *'their'* files.

True.

For example folders such as '\Program Files', '\Program Files (x86)',
\ProgramData and - especially - \Windows, contain *hundreds of thousands*
of files. Just \Windows has 235,000 files on my (8.1) system!

Yes, that's the problem post-XP - too much bloat. Fortunately, I don't
have to put up with it. All my stuff is on Win2k or XP. Win7 I hardly
use and then only for the web or messing with my smartphone. Win10 I
abandoned in disgust (reinstalled 7).

'Everything' makes it very easy (and fast) to find a needle in that
haystack.

Ok.