Filename limitations with Windows and DVDs/CDs

Topic

New Reply

---

LangaList Plus

Filename limitations with Windows and DVDs/CDs

By Fred Langa ”Path too long” problems can plague file-copy operations and DVD/CD burning in all versions of Windows. Here’s a refresher on filename conventions. Plus: A reader wonders why I never cover Symantec/Norton security products — the reply might surprise you!

---

The full text of this column is posted at windowssecrets.com/langalist-plus/about-filename-limits-in-windows-and-dvdscds/ (opens in a new window/tab).

Columnists typically cannot reply to comments here, but do incorporate the best tips into future columns.

Reply | Quote

Replies

In the article, you wrote:

The UDF file system (Universal Disk Format) is somewhat less restrictive still, with no arbitrary limit on folder depth. The Optical Storage Technology Association UDF specification (see OSTA spec page) lists the allowable maximum file/folder-name length as 256 bytes — not characters.

Characters can require anywhere from seven to 32 bits, depending on the format and medium used. But typically one character is eight bits. So, in general, UDF usually allows for 32-character file/folder-name lengths, too.

256 BYTES, with eight BITS per character, and eight bits per byte, is 256 characters, as I am sure you will be kicking yourself about 😉

Reply | Quote

Regarding Norton. I,too, used Norton but quickly lost interest after Symantec took over. Now I know why it “smelled” wrong to me.
But I have a similar question: Why isn’t Zone Alarm Extreme Security rated?

Reply | Quote

I,too, used Norton but quickly lost interest after Symantec took over.

Same here. I loved Norton Utilities in the 80s/90s, and stayed with them after Symantec took over. But my experience mirrors Fred’s, a steady decline in product quality. Shame Symantec also bought PC Tools around that time, which was a decent competitor to Norton for a while until it went flaky.

Kudos to Fred for calling Symantec out.

Why isn’t Zone Alarm Extreme Security rated?

I have no experience with ZA recently, but maybe a decade ago and more, one of the first general troubleshooting questions was “Are you using ZA?”. It used to break way more software than its competitors at that time.

Hopefully ZA’s rehab has been a lot more successful than Symantec’s.

Lugh.
~
Alienware Aurora R6; Win10 Home x64 1803; Office 365 x32
i7-7700; GeForce GTX 1060; 16GB DDR4 2400; 1TB SSD, 256GB SSD, 4TB HD

Reply | Quote

Fred writes in his column that,

I think running Symantec products is worse than running no security software at all.

Given the requisite technical knowledge, that should be easy enough to test: set up identical PCs (possibly as virtual machines), one running a Norton (Symantec) product and the other one no security software, then expose them to the same malware packages and infected websites, and see how they each fare throughout.

Anybody around with the time and expertise to run this test?

Reply | Quote

That should be easy enough to test … expose them to the same malware packages and infected websites

You miss Fred’s point, Jorge. Namely, that when you know you’re unprotected, you are either extremely careful or using a machine you don’t mind losing.

Whereas with Symantec installed, an uninformed user would think they are protected and not take extreme care with valuable data.

Lugh.
~
Alienware Aurora R6; Win10 Home x64 1803; Office 365 x32
i7-7700; GeForce GTX 1060; 16GB DDR4 2400; 1TB SSD, 256GB SSD, 4TB HD

Reply | Quote

You miss Fred’s point, Jorge. Namely, that when you know you’re unprotected, you are either extremely careful or using a machine you don’t mind losing.

Whereas with Symantec installed, an uninformed user would think they are protected and not take extreme care with valuable data.

I totally understand what Fred is saying. What I’m suggesting is that Fred’s statement is a testable proposition that should be fairly easy to prove or disprove by someone with the requisite time and expertise.

Look, I have my own problems with Norton/Symantec products. For several years they have been going down the Microsoft path of both uglifying and dumbing down the interface, in addition to removing features. But IMO it borders on the absurd to claim that it’s better not to run any security software at all than to run one of their products. Unless we pulled the Ethernet plug on the PC, we could not be careful enough to match the level of security as we received e-mail and visited websites. Remember: “no security software at all” means no ad blockers, no spam filter, no behavior blocker. Everything comes in unhindered and you have no way to stop it, or even to know it’s getting in.

Reply | Quote

Re: Symantec
I must agree with JorgeA on this.
The statement “I think running Symantec products is worse than running no security software at all” is completely unsupportable.
All of the major A/V vendors have their strengths, weaknesses and past issues; a Google search will attest to that. I have many commercial/industrial clients running Symantec Endpoint Protection and it has performed quite well especially in comparison to some other enterprise A/V solutions.
Mark

Reply | Quote

I’ve had the same experience as Fred.
I’d used other Symantec bloatware prior and was very disappointed to hear they took over Norton. We’d used them throughout the office. And indeed, within the year, we’d replaced them. They had turned out to be the cause of lockups, slowdowns and other unacceptable issues.

I get Fred’s point although perhaps his wording was not ideal. Lugh put it well. The issue is people acting like they’re protected when they’re not the way they think they are. Kind of like Mercedes gained a reputation for being a very safe car. Then they got sloppy and built unsafe cars but people where still buying them for the safety.

Reply | Quote