Windows XP file name length limit - Microsoft Windows
This is a discussion on Windows XP file name length limit - Microsoft Windows ; Does anyone know how in God's name you configure or tweak the limit on
file name length in XP?
I know it can be done, because I've found that the limit varies over
time, and from one location in my ...
-
Windows XP file name length limit
Does anyone know how in God's name you configure or tweak the limit on
file name length in XP?
I know it can be done, because I've found that the limit varies over
time, and from one location in my directory tree to another, seemingly
autonomously and more-or-less at random. And obviously if it can vary,
it can be deliberately made to vary.
Where is it stored? Why *is* there apparently an individual length limit
per folder, rather than a single global one? (I know it varies, because
I can rename a file and have it succeed, then try to move it and get a
complaint that the name is "too long or invalid" -- the file's name
surely can't have spontaneously grown some disallowed characters from a
mere click and drag without any hand touching the keyboard, so the
destination folder must have a shorter length limit than the source
folder for this to occur.)
It must be somewhere -- a hidden file, a registry key. I've got gobs of
disk space and RAM, so if raising the limit above the default in a lot
of places chews some up I'm OK with that. I'd also like to turn off
whatever space-optimizing is mucking with the limits and setting them
arbitrarily to different values all over my system -- MS always tries to
do something clever and ends up doing something really dumb, it seems,
from quotation marks that won't render properly except in MS Office
products and IE, to the infamous dancing paperclip, to these filesystem
shenanigans...
Odd thing is, there's nothing documented about the limit and how it is
configured. Even the TweakUI power toy doesn't seem to have a setting
for it, and the most obvious Google and regedit searches have turned up
blank. The desktop.ini or folder.ini files perhaps?
Regardless, it's a nuisance. It's apparently somewhere around 128
characters, most of the time, and sometimes and in some directories
maybe as little as 64. That's ludicrously short. When you need a
descriptive name for a file you can't pack much into 64 characters.
I tried one workaround already with astonishing but not very helpful
results. I figured I could just delete and recreate a directory and
move/copy files into it and back out until it came up with a generous
length limit. So I made a sister directory "tmp" for one directory,
moved everything into "tmp", and moved in the additional file that
wouldn't go into the original directory. It went into "tmp" just fine,
so I'd apparently gotten a better limit on the first shot. The fun began
when I nuked the now-empty original directory and renamed "tmp". The
file suddenly could not be opened, used, moved, renamed, deleted ... It
was apparently there, but not accessible somehow. Renaming the directory
back to "tmp" fixed it, thank goodness.
I've since determined that Windows remembers deleted folders, and caches
folder settings of some kind. For example, if I make a directory "foo",
put images in it, and set it to Thumbnails, then make a directory "bar",
leave it on Tiles, and move the images there, then nuke "foo" and rename
"bar", "bar" (now "foo") changes to Thumbnails view. If I'd
shift-clicked Thumbnails to get thumbnails with no text labels, the new
"foo" inherits this also. If I'd forced a short directory to list view
and did the same move files, remove old dir, rename tmp dir trick, it
would now show list view despite the small number of files for which
Tiles would be the default.
It seems the name limit default is perhaps adequate, but the "ghost" of
a deleted folder whose limit somehow got shortened will linger on and
cause any new folder of the same parent that gets given the same name to
inherit the ghost's shoddy limit. So a minimum is: I need to be able to
delete "ghost folders". (As the system administrator, I bloody well
should be able to, and directly twiddle the limit besides!)
Does anyone here know much more about this? My experimentation has
failed to reveal a viable workaround except for the case where it's
acceptable for the path to the files to change, where I can make a new
directory, move the files to it, and just leave the new directory with
its new name, thereby avoiding the ghost of the old one. Renaming
directories even to names that never existed also seems to sometimes
change the limit, usually in the shrinking manner, so subsequently
changing something like "tmp" to something meaningful is problematic
too. Naming it something meaningful in the first place being an option
of course. 
Ultimately, though, I don't want some dodgy workaround that sometimes
works and often means gratuitously rearranging my file system; I want
absolute and uncontested mastery over every bit and byte in this f*@!ing
box. Given what it cost to buy and later upgrade, I think that is my
right...
--
There's only four things you can be certain of: taxes, change, spam, and
death.
-
Re: Windows XP file name length limit
Phil Cartwright wrote:
> Does anyone know how in God's name you configure or tweak the limit on
> file name length in XP?
> Regardless, it's a nuisance. It's apparently somewhere around 128
> characters, most of the time, and sometimes and in some directories
> maybe as little as 64. That's ludicrously short. When you need a
> descriptive name for a file you can't pack much into 64 characters.
As far as I know it is 256 characters, 0-255. You seem to have a problem
somewhere.
-
Re: Windows XP file name length limit
Phil Cartwright wrote:
>I know it can be done, because I've found that the limit varies over
>time, and from one location in my directory tree to another, seemingly
>autonomously and more-or-less at random. And obviously if it can vary,
>it can be deliberately made to vary.
If you understood that, why have you ignored the tiny fact that the path
is included in the total filename length? So each character in the path
is cut off the 256 possible. So this limit does not only include
filename.example, but c:\documents and
settings\username\this\that\whatnot\somewhere\deep \down and so on.
If your file has a name of, say, 100 characters, and the directory path
where it is has 160 characters, you're past the 256 limit.
JK'07
-
Re: Windows XP file name length limit
Jan Kannemacher wrote:
> Phil Cartwright wrote:
>
>
>>I know it can be done, because I've found that the limit varies over
>>time, and from one location in my directory tree to another, seemingly
>>autonomously and more-or-less at random. And obviously if it can vary,
>>it can be deliberately made to vary.
>
>
> If you understood that, why have you ignored the tiny fact that the path
> is included in the total filename length? So each character in the path
> is cut off the 256 possible. So this limit does not only include
> filename.example, but c:\documents and
> settings\username\this\that\whatnot\somewhere\deep \down and so on.
>
> If your file has a name of, say, 100 characters, and the directory path
> where it is has 160 characters, you're past the 256 limit.
Well that was bloody stupid of Microsoft! How is anyone supposed to pack
any kind of descriptive information in there, then, even with
subdirectories, or properly organize their files?
Anyway you have failed to answer my question: Where is this limit
adjusted? Obviously it's inadequate, and probably for lots of people,
not just me. Where can it be configured for those who need more?
Remember, I've got disk space to burn...
--
There's only four things you can be certain of: taxes, change, spam, and
death.
-
Re: Windows XP file name length limit
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:06:12 -0400, Phil Cartwright
wrote:
>Jan Kannemacher wrote:
>> Phil Cartwright wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I know it can be done, because I've found that the limit varies over
>>>time, and from one location in my directory tree to another, seemingly
>>>autonomously and more-or-less at random. And obviously if it can vary,
>>>it can be deliberately made to vary.
>>
>>
>> If you understood that, why have you ignored the tiny fact that the path
>> is included in the total filename length? So each character in the path
>> is cut off the 256 possible. So this limit does not only include
>> filename.example, but c:\documents and
>> settings\username\this\that\whatnot\somewhere\deep \down and so on.
>>
>> If your file has a name of, say, 100 characters, and the directory path
>> where it is has 160 characters, you're past the 256 limit.
>
>Well that was bloody stupid of Microsoft! How is anyone supposed to pack
>any kind of descriptive information in there, then, even with
>subdirectories, or properly organize their files?
Assuming we're talking about NTFS and not FAT32, the "255 characters
for path+file" is a limitation of Explorer, not the filesystem itself.
NTFS supports paths up to 32,000 Unicode characters long, with each
component up to 255 characters.
Explorer -and the Windows API- limits you to 260 characters for the
path, which include drive letter, colon, separaing slashes and a
terminating null character. It's possible to read a longer path in
Windows if you start it with a \\
See
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...ing_a_file.asp
-
Re: Windows XP file name length limit
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> Explorer -and the Windows API- limits you to 260 characters for the
> path, which include drive letter, colon, separaing slashes and a
> terminating null character. It's possible to read a longer path in
> Windows if you start it with a \\
How do you lengthen this? If NTFS/the operating system supports more,
and it's just broken user applications causing all the trouble, I want
to be able to use more.
--
There's only four things you can be certain of: taxes, change, spam, and
death.
-
Re: Windows XP file name length limit
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>Explorer -and the Windows API- limits you to 260 characters for the
>path, which include drive letter, colon, separaing slashes and a
>terminating null character. It's possible to read a longer path in
>Windows if you start it with a \\
I remember only too well how certain people screwed up my backups in the
office. Backup Exec can't save files if the path- and filename is too
long, thus marking the entire backup as failed - and OF COURSE the next
file somebody wants to be restored is one of them.
Anyway. 256 or 260 is usually sufficient, after all the content is
supposed to be in the FILE, not the NAME. Anybody who's running into
trouble with this limitation shouldn't produce big comments about
"broken applications" but give a thought to proper organisation of
things. Millions of people all over the world never have any problems
with this limit...
JK'07
-
Re: Windows XP file name length limit
Jan Kannemacher wrote:
> Anyway. 256 or 260 is usually sufficient, after all the content is
> supposed to be in the FILE, not the NAME. Anybody who's running into
> trouble with this limitation shouldn't produce big comments about
> "broken applications" but give a thought to proper organisation of
> things. Millions of people all over the world never have any problems
> with this limit...
And if there's a reason not to alter the file itself? (I can think of
plenty. Copyright; the file is functional, e.g. an executable; the file
is indexed somewhere by hash, so it cannot be altered without becoming
unfindable by another method...)
Besides, it's been admitted that the limit in the OS internals is 32000.
That truly ought to be enough for anybody. Any stricter limit is the
result of the application layer. Apparently Backup Exec is awful, awful
software, much as we already knew Explorer and its close cousin Internet
Exploder to be...
But I suppose divergent, changing, arbitrary, random, and too-small
limits are to be expected from Bill "640K" Gates, even now over a decade
after he supposedly learned his lesson.
--
There's only four things you can be certain of: taxes, change, spam, and
death.
-
Re: Windows XP file name length limit
Jan Kannemacher wrote:
> Phil Cartwright wrote:
>
>> I know it can be done, because I've found that the limit varies over
>> time, and from one location in my directory tree to another,
>> seemingly autonomously and more-or-less at random. And obviously if
>> it can vary, it can be deliberately made to vary.
>
> If you understood that, why have you ignored the tiny fact that the
> path is included in the total filename length? So each character in
> the path is cut off the 256 possible. So this limit does not only
> include filename.example, but c:\documents and
> settings\username\this\that\whatnot\somewhere\deep \down and so on.
>
>
> If your file has a name of, say, 100 characters, and the directory
> path where it is has 160 characters, you're past the 256 limit.
Thanks for that reminder Jan, that is exactly the situation of course, I
forgot the stuff about the path. My folder paths are rarely more than
two or three deep.
-
Re: Windows XP file name length limit
Phil Cartwright wrote:
> Jan Kannemacher wrote:
>
>> Anyway. 256 or 260 is usually sufficient, after all the content is
>> supposed to be in the FILE, not the NAME. Anybody who's running into
>> trouble with this limitation shouldn't produce big comments about
>> "broken applications" but give a thought to proper organisation of
>> things. Millions of people all over the world never have any problems
>> with this limit...
>
>
> And if there's a reason not to alter the file itself? (I can think of
> plenty. Copyright; the file is functional, e.g. an executable; the file
> is indexed somewhere by hash, so it cannot be altered without becoming
> unfindable by another method...)
>
> Besides, it's been admitted that the limit in the OS internals is 32000.
> That truly ought to be enough for anybody. Any stricter limit is the
> result of the application layer. Apparently Backup Exec is awful, awful
> software, much as we already knew Explorer and its close cousin Internet
> Exploder to be...
>
> But I suppose divergent, changing, arbitrary, random, and too-small
> limits are to be expected from Bill "640K" Gates, even now over a decade
> after he supposedly learned his lesson.
Well?
I still don't see anyone suggesting a fix. Why is that?
--
There's only four things you can be certain of: taxes, change, spam, and
death.
-
Re: Windows XP file name length limit
Phil Cartwright wrote:
> Phil Cartwright wrote:
>> Jan Kannemacher wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway. 256 or 260 is usually sufficient, after all the content is
>>> supposed to be in the FILE, not the NAME. Anybody who's running into
>>> trouble with this limitation shouldn't produce big comments about
>>> "broken applications" but give a thought to proper organisation of
>>> things. Millions of people all over the world never have any
>>> problems with this limit...
>>
>>
>> And if there's a reason not to alter the file itself? (I can think of
>> plenty. Copyright; the file is functional, e.g. an executable; the
>> file is indexed somewhere by hash, so it cannot be altered without
>> becoming unfindable by another method...)
>>
>> Besides, it's been admitted that the limit in the OS internals is
>> 32000. That truly ought to be enough for anybody. Any stricter limit
>> is the result of the application layer. Apparently Backup Exec is
>> awful, awful software, much as we already knew Explorer and its
>> close cousin Internet Exploder to be...
>>
>> But I suppose divergent, changing, arbitrary, random, and too-small
>> limits are to be expected from Bill "640K" Gates, even now over a
>> decade after he supposedly learned his lesson.
>
> Well?
>
> I still don't see anyone suggesting a fix. Why is that?
Because there isn't a fix dumb****. You can use 256/250 characters
(inclufing the path) as you've been told. This is programmed into
Windows. So you have the choice of reprogramming Windows to change it or
putting up with it like everyone else does..
-
Re: Windows XP file name length limit
John of Aix wrote:
> Phil Cartwright wrote:
>
>>Phil Cartwright wrote:
>>
>>>Jan Kannemacher wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Anyway. 256 or 260 is usually sufficient, after all the content is
>>>>supposed to be in the FILE, not the NAME. Anybody who's running into
>>>>trouble with this limitation shouldn't produce big comments about
>>>>"broken applications" but give a thought to proper organisation of
>>>>things. Millions of people all over the world never have any
>>>>problems with this limit...
>>>
>>>
>>>And if there's a reason not to alter the file itself? (I can think of
>>>plenty. Copyright; the file is functional, e.g. an executable; the
>>>file is indexed somewhere by hash, so it cannot be altered without
>>>becoming unfindable by another method...)
>>>
>>>Besides, it's been admitted that the limit in the OS internals is
>>>32000. That truly ought to be enough for anybody. Any stricter limit
>>>is the result of the application layer. Apparently Backup Exec is
>>>awful, awful software, much as we already knew Explorer and its
>>>close cousin Internet Exploder to be...
>>>
>>>But I suppose divergent, changing, arbitrary, random, and too-small
>>>limits are to be expected from Bill "640K" Gates, even now over a
>>>decade after he supposedly learned his lesson.
>>
>>Well?
>>
>>I still don't see anyone suggesting a fix. Why is that?
>
> Because there isn't a fix dumb****.
Excuse me? How rude!
> You can use 256/250 characters
> (inclufing the path) as you've been told. This is programmed into
> Windows. So you have the choice of reprogramming Windows to change it or
> putting up with it like everyone else does..
Wrong answer.
I've already been told that the OS and filesystem support longer. It's
Explorer that doesn't. Of course most apps use Explorer under the hood
to display file choose dialogs and the like, so this affects just about
everything...
Anyway I find it hard to believe that something like this wouldn't be
configurable somewhere -- especially given that as I've already noted it
seems to vary from place to place and from time to time all by its lonesome.
Regardless, I will not accept useless answers such as "tough". If I ask
for a workaround for a problem I will be satisfied by a workaround for
that problem, but not by being ignored, told to simply live with it, or
fobbed off in any unhelpful way. And I certainly will not be satisfied
by an insulting response with gratuitous namecalling from a little child
like you! If you cannot or will not respect your elders when they ask
for advice, then go play in traffic or something.
--
There's only four things you can be certain of: taxes, change, spam, and
death.
-
Re: Windows XP file name length limit
Phil Cartwright wrote:
>But I suppose divergent, changing, arbitrary, random, and too-small
>limits are to be expected from Bill "640K" Gates, even now over a decade
>after he supposedly learned his lesson.
Oh, he is being punished for this. By having know-it-all customers.
JK'07
-
Re: Windows XP file name length limit
Phil Cartwright wrote:
> John of Aix wrote:
>> Phil Cartwright wrote:
>>
>>> Phil Cartwright wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jan Kannemacher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Anyway. 256 or 260 is usually sufficient, after all the content is
>>>>> supposed to be in the FILE, not the NAME. Anybody who's running
>>>>> into trouble with this limitation shouldn't produce big comments
>>>>> about "broken applications" but give a thought to proper
>>>>> organisation of things. Millions of people all over the world
>>>>> never have any problems with this limit...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And if there's a reason not to alter the file itself? (I can think
>>>> of plenty. Copyright; the file is functional, e.g. an executable;
>>>> the file is indexed somewhere by hash, so it cannot be altered
>>>> without becoming unfindable by another method...)
>>>>
>>>> Besides, it's been admitted that the limit in the OS internals is
>>>> 32000. That truly ought to be enough for anybody. Any stricter
>>>> limit is the result of the application layer. Apparently Backup
>>>> Exec is awful, awful software, much as we already knew Explorer
>>>> and its close cousin Internet Exploder to be...
>>>>
>>>> But I suppose divergent, changing, arbitrary, random, and too-small
>>>> limits are to be expected from Bill "640K" Gates, even now over a
>>>> decade after he supposedly learned his lesson.
>>>
>>> Well?
>>>
>>> I still don't see anyone suggesting a fix. Why is that?
>>
>> Because there isn't a fix dumb****.
>
> Excuse me? How rude!
Tough. You are repeating a question whose answer you have been given.
That's the way it is in Windows. You can write you own OS if you like,
or find another one that does what you want but however much yu insist,
you won't turn water into wine.
-
Re: Windows XP file name length limit
John of Aix wrote:
>>>Because there isn't a fix dumb****.
>>
>>Excuse me? How rude!
>
> Tough. You are repeating a question whose answer you have been given.
It's called "asking for a second opinion", and the correct response is
for someone ELSE to give their opinion about the SYMPTOMS, not for the
SAME respondent to give an unsolicited opinion about something IRRELEVANT.
So when I ask for a second opinion after you've given one about the
symptoms, that doesn't mean you now volunteer one about my intelligence
or parentage or any other topic on which you see fit; it means you shut
up and someone else, if they have a different or better idea about my
original problem, should feel free to speak up.
Arsehole.
If I told a doctor I wanted a second opinion, I'd expect a referral to
another physician, not an insulting and useless response. If I got the
latter, I'd find another physician myself and the first one would be out
one customer. In this case, I won't be taking any actual money and going
elsewhere, but ... I will still be going elsewhere.
In other words ...
- PLONK -
Have a nice day.
--
There's only four things you can be certain of: taxes, change, spam, and
death.
-
Re: Windows XP file name length limit
Phil Cartwright wrote:
> John of Aix wrote:
>>>> Because there isn't a fix dumb****.
>>>
>>> Excuse me? How rude!
>>
>> Tough. You are repeating a question whose answer you have been given.
>
> It's called "asking for a second opinion", and the correct response is
> for someone ELSE to give their opinion about the SYMPTOMS, not for the
> SAME respondent to give an unsolicited opinion about something
> IRRELEVANT.
You were given the reply several times by different people yet you
insisted on repeating the question. For me that is the sign of a
stubborn dope and I told you so. That that displeases you, of course it
does, no-one likes to be called a fool, but that's the way I see it and
I'm not in the least politically correct so I say what I think.
-
Re: Windows XP file name length limit
Phil Cartwright wrote:
>If I told a doctor I wanted a second opinion, I'd expect a referral to
>another physician, not an insulting and useless response.
You don't want a second opinion, you want somebody to write what you
want to see. This is called "ignoring reality".
As it was already said, ask Microsoft to change it or use another
operating system. I would suggest the second option, because it would
spare the Windows newsgroups more of your self-righteous "I want it this
way, so tell me how it's done".
JK'07
-
Re: Windows XP file name length limit
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:41:40 -0400, Phil Cartwright
wrote:
>Phil Cartwright wrote:
>> Jan Kannemacher wrote:
>I still don't see anyone suggesting a fix. Why is that?
Microsoft's "fix" was included in my post. Use \\?\ to access the
long path/filename
One way to do this:
Click START
Click RUN
type:
\\?\C:\Really\Long\Path\To\Really_Long_Filename.ex t
and press enter.
Or write your own API. ;-)
-
Re: Windows XP file name length limit
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:41:40 -0400, Phil Cartwright
> wrote:
>
>
>>Phil Cartwright wrote:
>>
>>>Jan Kannemacher wrote:
>
>
>>I still don't see anyone suggesting a fix. Why is that?
>
>
> Microsoft's "fix" was included in my post. Use \\?\ to access the
> long path/filename
>
> One way to do this:
> Click START
> Click RUN
> type:
> \\?\C:\Really\Long\Path\To\Really_Long_Filename.ex t
> and press enter.
This won't make Explorer let me rename the file, or open it, however.
--
There's only four things you can be certain of: taxes, change, spam, and
death.
-
Re: Windows XP file name length limit
A possibly related question:
I've occasionally run into problems when trying to copy or move files
on Windows systems where Windows Explorer reports a "filename too long"
diagnostic and stops copying. Is there any way to configure this so
that it will continue copying the remaining files in spite of the error?
When using xcopy this is done with the the "/c" option. However, when
copying a lot of files xcopy will sometimes abend with an "out of memory"
error.
--
Roger Blake
(Subtract 10s for email.)
