Slashdot Mirror


Why Are We Still Using 8.3 Filenames?

FreekyGeek writes incredulously: "Here's a simple question: Why the heck is everyone still using 8.3 character file names for everything downloadable? We don't use 8.3 filenames for our own stuff. Every Real Operating System, and even toy GUI shells like Windows now support long file names. So why are we still using a filename convention that's almost 20 years old? Why do we have to deal with hard drives full of files named 'vcd43bup.exe' instead of 'Video Card Driver Update version 4.3 -- English'?" So can we really get rid of them?

"Who can remember those cryptic names 30 minutes after downloading them, let alone three months later? Are there still enough people out there using Windows 3.11 that we need this?

I suggest that as an industry, IT just decides 'It's time to move on from 8.3.' I mean, come on. This is ridiculous."

7 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Microsoft Compiler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4

    I'm posting anonymously because I'm violating yet another NDA here...

    Microsoft's internal compiler (the one they use to build their own apps) still can't handle filenames longer than 8+3. That's why all object files even in the latest version of Windows 2000 are still 8+3 (TASKMGR.EXE, XACTSRV.DLL, etc)

  2. I agree, but... by Adam+Wiggins · · Score: 4

    There's a happy medium in there somewhere wherein filenames are descriptive but not unreasonably long. Certainly I think that spaces are rather silly - it has long been a convention to seperate different "objects" with spaces, so even though you _can_ use them in filenames, I don't really think that you should. Especially when you consider that spaces aren't allowed in URLs, which have become almost as - or perhaps more - important than regular files.

    For the file example you mentioned, I think the filename should be something like MatroxG400driverV4.3en.exe, although even that is pushing my limit on filename length.

  3. Re:OK by Matthew+Weigel · · Score: 4

    Bzzzt, sorry. OS/2, MacOS, and BeOS all solved the 'file extension/file type' problem a long time ago, without the MS hack that leads to 'x.jpg.vbs' exploits in MIME clients. MacOS has the most consistent way of doing things (specifically for downloaded files), but they all handle it.

    OS/2 (and possibly BeOS) also support command-line querying and setting of file types, and Unix has had the file 'magic' command for some time to identify file types based on their contents.

    --
    --Matthew
  4. Re:Why do we have /usr and /usr/src? by Phoukka · · Score: 4

    Um, for what little it's worth (about .00002 last I checked... :) "usr" actually stands for Unix System Resources.

  5. Re:Why do we have /usr and /usr/src? by AtrN · · Score: 4

    /etc == Edit These Carefully
    /var == Very Active Records

  6. Cross compatibility among heterogenous platforms by sporktoast · · Score: 4

    Try this:

    Put a Wintel-formatted floppy (1.44M, ZIP, JAZ, LS-120, whatever) into a Macintosh. Move a long-named Mac file onto it. Bring it to a Windoze box, look for the file. Put a long-named Windoze file on it. Sneaker the disk back to the Mac. Look for the second file.

    Post your results here.

    --
    In a related story, the IRS has recently ruled that the cost of Windows upgrades can NOT be deducted as a gambling loss.
  7. Speaking personally... by arnald · · Score: 5

    Being a Haiku fan, all my filenames on Linux are in 5.7.5 format. I find it helps me attain inner calm whenever I have to use emacs to load a file. :-)

    --
    arnald