If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Shortcut Deletion ???
I don't know if I believe this. Really.
I had two folders in which I had a shortcut to the same file. I deleted one of those folders. Guess what? The shortcut in the second folder seems no longer valid because the file to which it is a shortcut was deleted by the deletion which seemed to have deleted the file also. That means if I have folders containing shortcuts to the same file(s), and I delete one of the folders then I lose all the files shortcut'ed to. Wow! I lost some data files I think. Tell me I am wrong. Love xxxx |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Shortcut Deletion ???
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Shortcut Deletion ???
xxxxx wrote:
I don't know if I believe this. Really. I had two folders in which I had a shortcut to the same file. I deleted one of those folders. Guess what? The shortcut in the second folder seems no longer valid because the file to which it is a shortcut was deleted by the deletion which seemed to have deleted the file also. That means if I have folders containing shortcuts to the same file(s), and I delete one of the folders then I lose all the files shortcut'ed to. Wow! I lost some data files I think. Tell me I am wrong. Was it a shortcut you delete (a .lnk file)? Or might it have been a hard link to the file? When you delete a hard link, you also delete the file (so all other hard/soft links are no longer valid because you deleted the file. A symbolic link (which is not the same as a shortcut) can be a soft link or a hard link. Deleting a soft link has no effect on a file. Deleting a hard link also deletes the file. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_link Hard links are just another name (record in the file system) to the same file. You can have multiple hard links with different names and in different folders all referencing the same file. When you deleted the folder, you know you are deleting all the files inside of it, too. Well, the hard link is pointing at the file (whether it is in the deleted folder or elsewhere), and deleting the folder deleted the hard link which results in deleting the file no matter where it is. A shortcut is a .lnk file that merely notes where is a target (file, folder, URI). It is not actually linked to or equivalent to the target, so deleting the shortcut results in merely deleting the .lnk file for that shortcut. My recollection is that the target (file) is not deleted unless you directly delete the target (but the hard links survive yet are invalid because their target is gone) or you delete all hard links. That is, when deleting hard links, the target file gets deleted when you delete the last hard link. You might have had a hard link in one folder and a shortcut (.lnk file) in the other folder. Deleting the folder with the last remaining hard link means deleting the file while the shortcut is unaffected but now points to a file that no longer exists. Hard links do not show in a 'dir' command. Windows Explorer will not show a shortcut icon for them, but instead show them as a regular file. Hard links are indistinguishable from the target file. Don't know what you have as a "shortcut" in one folder and as the "shortcut" in the other folder that you deleted. Just how were these "shortcuts" created? By you by right-clicking in the folder, selecting New, and picking Shortcut? Or did you use the "mklink /h" command or some program created the hard link(s)? To know if there are any hard links on a file, run (in a command shell perhaps with elevated priviliges): fsutil hardlink list [path\]filename You had folderA and folderB. In each folder was a shortcut (.lnk file) pointing to the same sourceFile. Was sourceFile in the folderA you deleted? If so, deleting folderA would delete both the shortcut to sourceFile in that folder along with the sourceFile in that same folder. Afterward, all other shortcuts, like in folderB, would no longer be valid because they're still pointing to sourcefile in folderA that you deleted. Say you started with: FolderA FolderB _______________________ _______________________ | | | | | sourceFile | | otherFiles | | | | | | shortcut_sourceFile | | shortcut_sourceFile | |_______________________| |_______________________| Then you delete FolderA and are left with: FolderB _______________________ | | | otherFiles | | | | shortcut_sourceFile | |_______________________| Since sourceFile was back in FolderA that you deleted, shortcut_sourceFile is no longer valid since its target no longer exists (that was back in FolderA). However, if sourceFile was not in the folder, as in: FolderA FolderB _______________________ _______________________ | | | | | someFiles | | otherFiles | | | | | | shortcut_sourceFile | | shortcut_sourceFile | |_______________________| |_______________________| FolderC _______________________ | | | sourceFile | | | | moreFiles | |_______________________| Then deleting FolderA would leave you: FolderB FolderC _______________________ _______________________ | | | | | otherFiles | | sourceFile | | | | | | shortcut_sourceFile | | moreFiles | |_______________________| |_______________________| Since sourceFile still exists (in FolderC), the shortcut_sourceFile in FolderB is still valid. Just where was sourceFile before you deleted any folders? Deleting shortcuts (.lnk files) does not affect the target file; that is, deleting a shortcut doesn't touch the target file. Conversely, you can delete the target file which will have no effect on the shortcut UNTIL you decide to use the shortcut which will then be unable to find its target (as you deleted it). Windows/File Explorer likes to hide special files. Even if you configure it to NOT "hide extensions for known filetypes", it will still not show a shortcut as a .lnk file. Your only clue that the file is a shortcut is the overlay arrow on the file's icon. Windows Explorer will override that view setting for those filetypes that have a NeverShowExt data item defined for the filetype. For example, the .lnk file (lnkfile) is defined at: HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\lnkfile Doesn't matter what is the value of the NeverShowExt data item. If it exists or not decides whether Windows/File Explorer will show that filetype's extension. Say you have a mydoc.txt file and create a shortcut to it. You'll normally see mydoc.txt and another mydoc.txt but the latter will have the arrow overlay on the file's icon. If you want to actually see the .lnk extension, delete the NeverShowExt data item under the lnkfile registry entry (you'll probably want to backup that registry key before editing it). To effect the registry edit, you'll need to logout and back in (or kill explorer.exe and reload it using Task Manager, or use a command shell to use taskkill and then run explorer.exe). Voila, all those shortcut files will now have an extension of .lnk shown for them. If you want them hidden again, either import the .reg file you created before as a backup or create the NeverShowExt data item (REG_SZ type) and kill and reload explorer.exe. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Shortcut Deletion ???
In article , says...
xxxxx wrote: I don't know if I believe this. Really. I had two folders in which I had a shortcut to the same file. I deleted one of those folders. Guess what? The shortcut in the second folder seems no longer valid because the file to which it is a shortcut was deleted by the deletion which seemed to have deleted the file also. That means if I have folders containing shortcuts to the same file(s), and I delete one of the folders then I lose all the files shortcut'ed to. Wow! I lost some data files I think. Tell me I am wrong. Was it a shortcut you delete (a .lnk file)? Or might it have been a hard link to the file? When you delete a hard link, you also delete the file (so all other hard/soft links are no longer valid because you deleted the file. A symbolic link (which is not the same as a shortcut) can be a soft link or a hard link. Deleting a soft link has no effect on a file. Deleting a hard link also deletes the file. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_link Hard links are just another name (record in the file system) to the same file. You can have multiple hard links with different names and in different folders all referencing the same file. When you deleted the folder, you know you are deleting all the files inside of it, too. Well, the hard link is pointing at the file (whether it is in the deleted folder or elsewhere), and deleting the folder deleted the hard link which results in deleting the file no matter where it is. A shortcut is a .lnk file that merely notes where is a target (file, folder, URI). It is not actually linked to or equivalent to the target, so deleting the shortcut results in merely deleting the .lnk file for that shortcut. My recollection is that the target (file) is not deleted unless you directly delete the target (but the hard links survive yet are invalid because their target is gone) or you delete all hard links. That is, when deleting hard links, the target file gets deleted when you delete the last hard link. You might have had a hard link in one folder and a shortcut (.lnk file) in the other folder. Deleting the folder with the last remaining hard link means deleting the file while the shortcut is unaffected but now points to a file that no longer exists. Sounds to me like you deleted a shortcut to the actual file which invalidated a shortcut to that shortcut. Note : double clicking the shortcut to the shortcut would do same thing as double clicking deleted shortcut used to do so you may not have even ever noticed it was a shortcut to a shortcut unless you actually looked (e.g. Open File Location) because of this behaviour |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Shortcut Deletion ???
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Shortcut Deletion ???
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Shortcut Deletion ???
😉 Good Guy 😉 wrote:
On 28/07/2019 21:30, wrote: My problems all startted when I bought a cheap $10 2TB usb stick from China. I'll not do that again. Yes blame the Chinese for your Shortcut Deletion problem. The Chinese are controlling everything on your machine. I suspect they are also controlling your brain so you'll remain completely stupid for the rest of your life, Did you know that Donald Trump is really frightened of them so he decided to impose tariffs on them. It's too late for idiots like you to compete with them. They are highly educated than nutters like you. 1TB USB3 flash stick $180 (18x what the OP paid) https://www.newegg.com/patriot-model...82E16820221063 1TB USB 3.1 CMFVYGTX3C-1TB $300 (30x what the OP paid) https://www.newegg.com/corsair-model...82E16820236344 Those are examples of real products, not $10 counterfeits. The $10 counterfeits have 8GB or 16GB of flash inside, plus a controller programmed with a max_val instead of the correct value for the size of the device. Counterfeits claim sizes of either 1TB or 2TB, and only cost $10. The $10 is a fair price for the 8GB or 16GB of flash inside. Here is a tech demo of a 4TB drive, using 1.33Tbit 96L QLC flash (flaky pastry). The TypeC connector is on the end of a cable captive to the device. It would take 24 chips of the 96L to equal 4TB, so they'd have to be silicon dice bonded to the PCB. They could also stack chips, but that would increase the bulk of the device. https://www.anandtech.com/show/13823...pe-at-ces-2019 https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/fvMH...DSC02208_2.jpg That would range around $1200 and wouldn't be worth it. (Because it's QLC.) But at that size, there's probably an SSD controller in there instead of a conventional USB flash controller. Just for the channel count. So it is technically possible to build such drives, even if that one isn't for sale quite yet. And depending on the write rate, might be useless for any practical purpose. And here is a picture of one of the thick ones. It uses flex cables and folds to fit the plastic casing. They've done something amazing with the cables, if you believe these photos. Normally where flex cables bond to a PCB, "it's a mess". This is unbelievably tidy. https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qim...a1bd0e80e8e6-c https://geeks.hu/sites/default/files...predator_5.JPG Paul |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Shortcut Deletion ???
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 23:10:58 -0400, Paul
wrote: ? Good Guy ? wrote: On 28/07/2019 21:30, wrote: My problems all startted when I bought a cheap $10 2TB usb stick from China. I'll not do that again. Yes blame the Chinese for your Shortcut Deletion problem. The Chinese are controlling everything on your machine. I suspect they are also controlling your brain so you'll remain completely stupid for the rest of your life, Did you know that Donald Trump is really frightened of them so he decided to impose tariffs on them. It's too late for idiots like you to compete with them. They are highly educated than nutters like you. 1TB USB3 flash stick $180 (18x what the OP paid) https://www.newegg.com/patriot-model...82E16820221063 1TB USB 3.1 CMFVYGTX3C-1TB $300 (30x what the OP paid) https://www.newegg.com/corsair-model...82E16820236344 Those are examples of real products, not $10 counterfeits. The $10 counterfeits have 8GB or 16GB of flash inside, plus a controller programmed with a max_val instead of the correct value for the size of the device. Counterfeits claim sizes of either 1TB or 2TB, and only cost $10. The $10 is a fair price for the 8GB or 16GB of flash inside. Here is a tech demo of a 4TB drive, using 1.33Tbit 96L QLC flash (flaky pastry). The TypeC connector is on the end of a cable captive to the device. It would take 24 chips of the 96L to equal 4TB, so they'd have to be silicon dice bonded to the PCB. They could also stack chips, but that would increase the bulk of the device. https://www.anandtech.com/show/13823...pe-at-ces-2019 https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/fvMH...DSC02208_2.jpg That would range around $1200 and wouldn't be worth it. (Because it's QLC.) But at that size, there's probably an SSD controller in there instead of a conventional USB flash controller. Just for the channel count. So it is technically possible to build such drives, even if that one isn't for sale quite yet. And depending on the write rate, might be useless for any practical purpose. And here is a picture of one of the thick ones. It uses flex cables and folds to fit the plastic casing. They've done something amazing with the cables, if you believe these photos. Normally where flex cables bond to a PCB, "it's a mess". This is unbelievably tidy. https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qim...a1bd0e80e8e6-c https://geeks.hu/sites/default/files...predator_5.JPG Paul Thanks Paul At least your replies are informative and helpful. I appreciate your time. xxxxx |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|