This is a Firefox question, I think, with serious Win10 overtones.
Though there are other ways to do this, a big technical mystery is what interests me here:
I can't find a directory, but Everything says it's there.
I wanted to copy just some of the add-ons from a Firefox profile to a
new profile.
A) Firefox tells me that the profile I'm using is in
C:\Users\mmm\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\v51v33yo.default-release
and Everything says that its add-ons are in
C:\Users\mmm\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\v51v33yo.default-release\extensions
B) For simplified backup I put the new profile in
C:\Data\FFProfiles
and the 2 addons I later added using the usual add-on manager are in C:\Data\FFProfiles\extensions.
"Everything" shows that A\extensions has 9 .xpi files and indeed,
counting the ones I disabled, I have exactly 9, but when I went to the
file manager to copy them to the B,
the A directory existed, C:\Data\FFProfiles\extensions ,
but the B Directory
C:\Users\mmm\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\v51v33yo.default-release\extensions
is not shown, even though that very directory is shown 9 times in
Everything!!
The file manager does show the higher level directory:
C:\Users\mmm\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\v51v33yo.default-release
So I thought, maybe I'm using a 32-bit file manager. I know from
experience they will not show every file. (Specifically the HOSTS file
does not show.) so I went to the file manager included in 64-bit
Windows10 and I also dl'd Explorer++'s 64 bit version. Neither showed
the extensions subdirectory. In fact each shows 7 subdirectories and
one file, but in the brand new profile B (C:\Data\FFProfiles), there are shown 22 subdirectories (and one file), meaning 15 that aren't shown for
the long established profile, including bookmarkbackups, crashes**, extension-store, and minidumps***. **Crashes and maybe all the others
show up in Everything, but not in any of 3 file managers!!! How can
this be?
I long ago set windows to show Hidden Files and in the win10 file
manager, there were checkboxes and Hidden and Extensions (like .txt)
were both already checked. Unchecking and then rechecking didn't change things.
***I hope I've been clear. I can give you a whole list of the other 11 missing subdirectories, if you want, and other details.
This is a Firefox question, I think, with serious Win10 overtones.While there may be other ways, the easiest and fastest is to copy the
Though there are other ways to do this, a big technical mystery is what interests me here:
I can't find a directory, but Everything says it's there.
I wanted to copy just some of the add-ons from a Firefox profile to a
new profile.
A) Firefox tells me that the profile I'm using is in
C:\Users\mmm\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\v51v33yo.default-release
and Everything says that its add-ons are in
C:\Users\mmm\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\v51v33yo.default-release\extensions
B) For simplified backup I put the new profile in
C:\Data\FFProfiles
and the 2 addons I later added using the usual add-on manager are in C:\Data\FFProfiles\extensions.
"Everything" shows that A\extensions has 9 .xpi files and indeed,
counting the ones I disabled, I have exactly 9, but when I went to the
file manager to copy them to the B,
the A directory existed, C:\Data\FFProfiles\extensions ,
but the B Directory
C:\Users\mmm\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\v51v33yo.default-release\extensions
is not shown, even though that very directory is shown 9 times in
Everything!!
The file manager does show the higher level directory:
C:\Users\mmm\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\v51v33yo.default-release
So I thought, maybe I'm using a 32-bit file manager. I know from
experience they will not show every file. (Specifically the HOSTS file
does not show.) so I went to the file manager included in 64-bit
Windows10 and I also dl'd Explorer++'s 64 bit version. Neither showed
the extensions subdirectory. In fact each shows 7 subdirectories and
one file, but in the brand new profile B (C:\Data\FFProfiles), there are shown 22 subdirectories (and one file), meaning 15 that aren't shown for
the long established profile, including bookmarkbackups, crashes**, extension-store, and minidumps***. **Crashes and maybe all the others
show up in Everything, but not in any of 3 file managers!!! How can
this be?
I long ago set windows to show Hidden Files and in the win10 file
manager, there were checkboxes and Hidden and Extensions (like .txt)
were both already checked. Unchecking and then rechecking didn't change things.
***I hope I've been clear. I can give you a whole list of the other 11 missing subdirectories, if you want, and other details.
On Sat, 25 Nov 2023 23:05:29 -0500, micky wrote:
This is a Firefox question, I think, with serious Win10 overtones.
Though there are other ways to do this, a big technical mystery is what
interests me here:
I can't find a directory, but Everything says it's there.
I wanted to copy just some of the add-ons from a Firefox profile to a
new profile.
A) Firefox tells me that the profile I'm using is in
C:\Users\mmm\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\v51v33yo.default-release
Odd. I have _two_ folders - one with the \Local\ as above and one with \Roaming\ instead.
The one which Firefox's about:support tells me is the one with \Roaming\.
and Everything says that its add-ons are in
C:\Users\mmm\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\v51v33yo.default-release\extensions
My extensions sub-folder is in the one with \Roaming\, not in the one with \Local\.
.....
Maybe try looking in >C:\Users\mmm\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\v51v33yo.default-release\extensions
with \Roaming\ instead of \Local\
In article <rvg5mi5ktd4o3n3u1stj5hu6tgaodflp39@4ax.com>,
micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
{snippy]
***I hope I've been clear. I can give you a whole list of the other 11
missing subdirectories, if you want, and other details.
I don't understand... :-/
Why are you attempting to use/copy anything out of the >...\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profile?
This is a lost cause... as the Local profile stored there only contains a >small part of the real/full Profile.
Your full, day to day in use Profile is usually in >...\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\nnnxxx123.default
Example:
--------
My ...\AppData \Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\nnnxxx123.default, contains >2,645 files and 17 folders.
My day to day in use Profile at, >...\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\nnnxxx123.default, contains >11,363 files and 4,049 folders.
That's a lot of difference... :-)
D.
While there may be other ways, the easiest and fastest is to copy the >contents of Profile A to Profile B. Once you have the profile in B,
open Firefox Profile B and go to TOOLS, ADD-ONS MANAGER. Review and
delete all of the items that you don't want in Profile B. Clear the
cache, and any thing you don't want. Install any Addons that are still >needed in B.
This way is the simplest, and does not run the risk of of messing
something up in the Config file.
When I accepted a volunteer position with the Church his is the way I
got Firefox running on the chruch computer that came with the position.
In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sun, 26 Nov 2023 04:06:44 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
explorer.exe 32-bit versus 64-bit, is a NON-ISSUE.
32-bit matters if some 32-bit DLLs were missing,
or a visual studio runtime 32 bit version was missing,
or a .NET 32-bit thing was missing. But for 64-bit file pointers,
32-bit runtimes have had 64-bit pointers for eons.
The 32-bit and 64-bit programs would be functionally equivalent.
I'm not sure if we're disagreeing or not, but I promise you that a
32-bit file manager will not see certain files. It's been 10 years and
I don't remember if I found more than one, but I know I tried 4 32-big
file managers that I had started using befofre I realized there could be
a problem, and none would see the HOSTS file.
explorer.exe 32-bit versus 64-bit, is a NON-ISSUE.
32-bit matters if some 32-bit DLLs were missing,
or a visual studio runtime 32 bit version was missing,
or a .NET 32-bit thing was missing. But for 64-bit file pointers,
32-bit runtimes have had 64-bit pointers for eons.
The 32-bit and 64-bit programs would be functionally equivalent.
*******
I'm not seeing an attempt to use attributes.
[Picture]
https://i.postimg.cc/fb8ZdN2B/extension-storage-115-ESR.gif
That's 115ESR (a test for a Win7 user), where I've switched the
Profile selection to the regular release, as a demo of Profile Manager.
The folder and file, for my test extension "Emoji", are visible.
I used about:profiles to easily access the folder the browser is using.
There is an Open button (for the Root directory in this case).
You're claiming a file like this, is not visible. I can see it.
It's not Hidden. dir /ah folder_part would have shown a Hidden item.
I don't need to use dir /ah to see this.
C:\Users\bullwinkle\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\vfoi5r0q.default-release\extensions\emoji@saveriomorelli.com.xpi
This is the Attribute table, when using bitfield info about a file.
Files have more than the three basic MSDOS attributes now, so the
table is larger.
File attributes can be read with [administrator] fsutil usn readdata FileNameAbsolutePath
Constants - the following attribute values are returned by the GetFileAttributes function:
FILE_ATTRIBUTE_READONLY = 1 (0x1) \
FILE_ATTRIBUTE_HIDDEN = 2 (0x2) \___ Original DOS set
FILE_ATTRIBUTE_SYSTEM = 4 (0x4) /
FILE_ATTRIBUTE_DIRECTORY = 16 (0x10)
FILE_ATTRIBUTE_ARCHIVE = 32 (0x20)
FILE_ATTRIBUTE_NORMAL = 128 (0x80)
FILE_ATTRIBUTE_TEMPORARY = 256 (0x100)
FILE_ATTRIBUTE_SPARSE_FILE = 512 (0x200)
FILE_ATTRIBUTE_REPARSE_POINT = 1024 (0x400) <--- new compression uses a ReparsePoint + custom
FILE_ATTRIBUTE_COMPRESSED = 2048 (0x800) <--- old compression
FILE_ATTRIBUTE_OFFLINE = 4096 (0x1000)
FILE_ATTRIBUTE_NOT_CONTENT_INDEXED = 8192 (0x2000)
FILE_ATTRIBUTE_ENCRYPTED = 16384 (0x4000)
Now, I'm going to feed that whacking-great absolute path, to the
fsutil command. Note that a person COULD turn off their USN,
in which case the command would not work. Most people have a
functional USN on NTFS C: drive.
emoji@saveriomorelli.com.xpi
File Attributes : 0x20 # Archive bit, part of "backup management"
# This may track whether a file has been backed up.
The other aspect, would be permissions or ACLs. Which is
actually a complex subject. It takes fifty web pages (screens
of text) to explain it all. And the guy writing the thesis in
one case, stopped, and wrote "this particular variant is so
obscure, it is not worth writing up". Just to give some idea
that even the OCD of the world, have limits :-)
Now, everybody, even Bullwinkle, has Full Control of that file.
The permissions do not prevent access.
But if you're looking in the wrong profile folder, then naturally
there is no Extensions folder :-)
*******
Now, let's use nfi.exe and check the entry.
[Admin Command Prompt -- program reads the $MFT to bypass permissions]
nfi.exe C: > nfi_c_out.txt # Instead of doing all of C: , I can just feed it the file.
# But for your first run, do it as shown. You can learn a lot
# about how badly your C: needs cleaning, from that file.
Perfectly normal looking for a Win10 file. The file is 45MB, so you expect it to take some space.
"Size on disk" in Properties is 46,374,912 or 90576 sectors. Which agrees exactly with B - A + 1 sectors below.
\Users\bullwinkle\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\vfoi5r0q.default-release\extensions\emoji@saveriomorelli.com.xpi
$STANDARD_INFORMATION (resident)
$FILE_NAME (resident)
$FILE_NAME (resident)
$DATA (nonresident)
logical sectors 52962272-53052847 (0x32823e0-0x32985af)
A check from Linux shows that there is only one Filenum 57362,
so the file does not have two filenames and no hardlink is present.
ls -Ri * shows the filenum field. If the same filenum appears
multiple times in Linux, then the file has "hardlinks".
*******
If you need a copy of nfi.exe, you can get it here. It is inside that ZIP file.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150223112102/http://download.microsoft.com/download/win2000srv/utility/3.0/nt45/en-us/oem3sr2.zip
nfi.exe c: > nfi_c_out.txt
notepad nfi_c_out.txt # Open in Notepad
Paul
At the OS filesystem driver level, a 32 bit OS has a problem reading
huge sizes.
I promise you that a 32-bit file manager will not see certain files.
It's been 10 years and I don't remember if I found more than one, but
I know I tried 4 32-big file managers that I had started using
befofre I realized there could be a problem, and none would see the
HOSTS file.
In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sun, 26 Nov 2023 08:16:44 -0500,Fat 8 year old fingers ;-}
knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> wrote:
While there may be other ways, the easiest and fastest is to copy the
contents of Profile A to Profile B. Once you have the profile in B,
open Firefox Profile B and go to TOOLS, ADD-ONS MANAGER. Review and
delete all of the items that you don't want in Profile B. Clear the
I will save that for next time. In this case I didn't want the open tabs
or history or bookmarks, and I think I could have copied and deleted
them but this was more direct. After restarting FF, I did have to go
to the add-on manager, like you say, and the new add-ons were there but disabled, and I had to approve enabling them.
cache, and any thing you don't want. Install any Addons that are still
needed in B.
This way is the simplest, and does not run the risk of of messing
something up in the Config file.
When I accepted a volunteer position with the Church his is the way I
got Firefox running on the chruch computer that came with the position.
"his", not "this". A freudian slip perhaps?
micky wrote:
I promise you that a 32-bit file manager will not see certain files.
It's been 10 years and I don't remember if I found more than one, but
I know I tried 4 32-big file managers that I had started using
befofre I realized there could be a problem, and none would see the
HOSTS file.
even using "run as administrator"?
On 11/26/2023 3:47 PM, knuttle wrote:
On 11/26/2023 2:09 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sun, 26 Nov 2023 08:16:44 -0500,Fat 8 year old fingers ;-}
knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> wrote:
While there may be other ways, the easiest and fastest is to copy the
contents of Profile A to Profile B. Once you have the profile in B,
open Firefox Profile B and go to TOOLS, ADD-ONS MANAGER. Review and >>>> delete all of the items that you don't want in Profile B. Clear the
I will save that for next time. In this case I didn't want the open tabs >>> or history or bookmarks, and I think I could have copied and deleted
them but this was more direct. After restarting FF, I did have to go
to the add-on manager, like you say, and the new add-ons were there but
disabled, and I had to approve enabling them.
cache, and any thing you don't want. Install any Addons that are still >>>> needed in B."his", not "this". A freudian slip perhaps?
This way is the simplest, and does not run the risk of of messing
something up in the Config file.
When I accepted a volunteer position with the Church his is the way I
got Firefox running on the chruch computer that came with the position. >>>
Try 80 years old
Andy Burns wrote:
even using "run as administrator"?
I'm always logged in with an
admistrator's id -- so that would be a Yes -- but iirc that's not the
same as adminstrative priveleges -- so that would be a No.
So, have any of you tried it?Which file manager?
micky wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
even using "run as administrator"?
I'm always logged in with an
admistrator's id -- so that would be a Yes -- but iirc that's not the
same as adminstrative priveleges -- so that would be a No.
that's right, just being an admin user doesn't automatically use your
admin rights
So, have any of you tried it?
hich file manager?
...I promise you that a 32-bit file manager will not see certain files.
Carlos E. R. wrote:
At the OS filesystem driver level, a 32 bit OS has a problem reading huge sizes.
Even then, not really ... Win32 API uses two LONG integers for the high and low "halves" of a 64bit pointer for file seeking.
On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 14:20:34 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
...I promise you that a 32-bit file manager will not see certain files.
I've never encountered that and don't remember anyone bringing it up before. I
hope the mystery gets solved.
# This stanza suggests Micky may be correct, for really old OSes.
On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 14:20:34 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
...I promise you that a 32-bit file manager will not see certain files.
I've never encountered that and don't remember anyone bringing it up before. I >hope the mystery gets solved.
On 11/26/2023 5:07 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 14:20:34 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
...I promise you that a 32-bit file manager will not see certain files.
I've never encountered that and don't remember anyone bringing it up before. I
hope the mystery gets solved.
This could be a W95/W98 issue, but unlikely to be a Win2K/WinXP issue.
As far as I can remember, both of the latter two had msvcrt.dll.
There could be some sort of temporal dividing line, between what
Micky was seeing, and today.
I was putting LARGEFILE support in my MinGW32 programs, so that
involves 64-bit offsets. And there are still some minor tricks,
even in a 64-bit environment. There are some #DEFINEs you have to do.
I've always been able to access the HOSTS file.
(And especially when
it was on FAT32 :-) )
Paul
In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sun, 26 Nov 2023 08:02:56 +0000 (GMT),
Dave <news@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
In article <rvg5mi5ktd4o3n3u1stj5hu6tgaodflp39@4ax.com>,
micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
{snippy]
***I hope I've been clear. I can give you a whole list of the other 11
missing subdirectories, if you want, and other details.
I don't understand... :-/
Why are you attempting to use/copy anything out of the
...\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profile?
This is a lost cause... as the Local profile stored there only contains a
small part of the real/full Profile.
Apparently I had used roaming. Aha, I was using about:profiles and it
gives two profiles with the same name in the right-most part,
default-release and default, and each has a root directory and a local directory, and the first is in roaming and the other in local. That accounts for the difference of 7 vs 22 subdirs.
And I guess that accounts for main part of my question also. I didn't realize there would be two files ending in v51v33yo.default-release and didn't notice there were two different directories 3 levels higher.
Strangely complicated but I'm sure they had a reason. But when I
created that third profile and put it in data/FFProfiles, it only had
one directory.
Your full, day to day in use Profile is usually in
...\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\nnnxxx123.default
Example:
--------
My ...\AppData \Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\nnnxxx123.default, contains >> 2,645 files and 17 folders.
My day to day in use Profile at,
...\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\nnnxxx123.default, contains
11,363 files and 4,049 folders.
That's a lot of difference... :-)
D.
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Sun, 26 Nov 2023 19:48:16 -0500, Paul ><nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
# This stanza suggests Micky may be correct, for really old OSes.
I am always correct. In high school I was voted the Most Refined Boy in
the sophomore class.
I would have thought this was an inevitable problem with language, were
it not for MS's other more ridiculous double uses of words
Andy Burns wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
At the OS filesystem driver level, a 32 bit OS has a problem reading huge sizes.
Even then, not really ... Win32 API uses two LONG integers for the high and low "halves" of a 64bit pointer for file seeking.
There are some comments in here, regarding behaviors of older
and much older OSes.
C:\MinGW\include\stdio.h
FILE * fopen64 (const char *, const char *); /* filename, filemode */
# This stanza suggests Micky may be correct, for really old OSes.
# And less correct for modern OSes. Maybe WinXP had proper 64 bit offsets
# while it was a 32-bit OS. it suggests that MSVCRT (C runtime), did not
# always exist. And whatever came before, had a different stdio.h .
micky wrote:
I would have thought this was an inevitable problem with language, were
it not for MS's other more ridiculous double uses of words
And now, Windows is not just the name of an operating system, it's also
the name of an app ... *that* won't be confusing.
<https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-app/overview>
So I thought, maybe I'm using a 32-bit file manager. I know from
experience they will not show every file. (Specifically the HOSTS file
does not show.)
Will no one take the HOSTS challenge? Use a 32-bit file manager
micky wrote:
Will no one take the HOSTS challenge? Use a 32-bit file manager
which one?
On 11/27/2023 2:28 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
micky wrote:
Will no one take the HOSTS challenge? Use a 32-bit file manager
which one?
IIRC, FreeCommander did not show the HOSTS file.
Here's the page to download FreeCommander's 32-bit file manager. >https://freecommander.com/en/downloads/
Here's the page to download the portable version. >https://freecommander.com/en/downloads-portable/
On 11/27/2023 2:28 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
micky wrote:
Will no one take the HOSTS challenge? Use a 32-bit file manager
which one?
IIRC, FreeCommander did not show the HOSTS file.
Here's the page to download FreeCommander's 32-bit file manager. https://freecommander.com/en/downloads/
Here's the page to download the portable version. https://freecommander.com/en/downloads-portable/
It's due to "funky" redirection tricks.^^^^^^^^
32bit apps trying to reach %windir%\system32 get shown %windir%\syswow6
instead, the drivers folder there doesn't have an etc folder in it.
IIRC, FreeCommander did not show the HOSTS file.
It's due to "funky" redirection tricks.
On 11/27/2023 2:28 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
micky wrote:
Will no one take the HOSTS challenge? Use a 32-bit file manager
which one?
IIRC, FreeCommander did not show the HOSTS file.
Here's the page to download FreeCommander's 32-bit file manager. https://freecommander.com/en/downloads/
Here's the page to download the portable version. https://freecommander.com/en/downloads-portable/
On 2023-11-27 22:16, AllanH wrote:
On 11/27/2023 2:28 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
micky wrote:
Will no one take the HOSTS challenge? Use a 32-bit file manager
which one?
IIRC, FreeCommander did not show the HOSTS file.
Here's the page to download FreeCommander's 32-bit file manager.
https://freecommander.com/en/downloads/
Here's the page to download the portable version.
https://freecommander.com/en/downloads-portable/
If this is something that happened with a particular file browser, then >chances are it is not due to be 32 bit, but to some bug in that
particular file browser.
Otherwise, it would happen with all 32 bit file
browsers.
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 22:55:37 +0100, "Carlos
E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-11-27 22:16, AllanH wrote:
On 11/27/2023 2:28 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
micky wrote:
Will no one take the HOSTS challenge? Use a 32-bit file manager
which one?
IIRC, FreeCommander did not show the HOSTS file.
Here's the page to download FreeCommander's 32-bit file manager.
https://freecommander.com/en/downloads/
Here's the page to download the portable version.
https://freecommander.com/en/downloads-portable/
If this is something that happened with a particular file browser, then >>chances are it is not due to be 32 bit, but to some bug in that
particular file browser.
That's exactly why I tried 2 or 3 more.
Otherwise, it would happen with all 32 bit file
browsers.
And it did.
More posts by 3 people and no one has accepted the HOSTS challenge!
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 17:47:57 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 22:55:37 +0100, "Carlos
E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-11-27 22:16, AllanH wrote:
On 11/27/2023 2:28 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
micky wrote:
Will no one take the HOSTS challenge? Use a 32-bit file manager
which one?
IIRC, FreeCommander did not show the HOSTS file.
Here's the page to download FreeCommander's 32-bit file manager.
https://freecommander.com/en/downloads/
Here's the page to download the portable version.
https://freecommander.com/en/downloads-portable/
If this is something that happened with a particular file browser, then
chances are it is not due to be 32 bit, but to some bug in that
particular file browser.
That's exactly why I tried 2 or 3 more.
Otherwise, it would happen with all 32 bit file
browsers.
And it did.
More posts by 3 people and no one has accepted the HOSTS challenge!
Sorry, one of the 3 did accept,
Plus I'm waiting for Paul's image to load. Aha, he seems to have found
it too with FreeCommander (and win7 Premium), even though Allen used it
and didn't find it (with unknown OS). Could the OS make a difference,
could Home vs. Pro?
Andy Burns wrote:
It's due to "funky" redirection tricks.
<https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/winprog64/file-system-redirector>
On 11/27/2023 2:28 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
micky wrote:
Will no one take the HOSTS challenge? Use a 32-bit file manager
which one?
IIRC, FreeCommander did not show the HOSTS file.
Here's the page to download FreeCommander's 32-bit file manager. >https://freecommander.com/en/downloads/
Here's the page to download the portable version. >https://freecommander.com/en/downloads-portable/
On 11/27/2023 4:16 PM, AllanH wrote:
On 11/27/2023 2:28 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
micky wrote:
Will no one take the HOSTS challenge? Use a 32-bit file manager
which one?
IIRC, FreeCommander did not show the HOSTS file.
Here's the page to download FreeCommander's 32-bit file manager.
https://freecommander.com/en/downloads/
Here's the page to download the portable version.
https://freecommander.com/en/downloads-portable/
[Picture]
https://i.postimg.cc/wT4Lycqs/bar-bet-2243.gif
Paul
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 15:16:16 -0600, AllanH <nospam@unokix.invalid> wrote:
On 11/27/2023 2:28 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
micky wrote:
Will no one take the HOSTS challenge? Use a 32-bit file manager
which one?
IIRC, FreeCommander did not show the HOSTS file.
Here's the page to download FreeCommander's 32-bit file manager. >>https://freecommander.com/en/downloads/
This one did not find it for me either, not the file or the etc
directory. This was not one I'd used before. That was called somethingelse-commander.
Here's the page to download the portable version. >>https://freecommander.com/en/downloads-portable/
On 11/27/23 8:20 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 15:16:16 -0600, AllanH
<nospam@unokix.invalid> wrote:
On 11/27/2023 2:28 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
micky wrote:
Will no one take the HOSTS challenge? Use a 32-bit file manager
which one?
IIRC, FreeCommander did not show the HOSTS file.
Here's the page to download FreeCommander's 32-bit file manager. >>>https://freecommander.com/en/downloads/
This one did not find it for me either, not the file or the etc
directory. This was not one I'd used before. That was called
somethingelse-commander.
Midnight commander? Linux, but supposedly windows too. Long ago there
was a similar but better DOS thing (BEFORE Norton), but I can't remember
its name.
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 17:47:57 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 22:55:37 +0100, "Carlos
E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-11-27 22:16, AllanH wrote:
On 11/27/2023 2:28 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
micky wrote:
Will no one take the HOSTS challenge? Use a 32-bit file manager
which one?
IIRC, FreeCommander did not show the HOSTS file.
Here's the page to download FreeCommander's 32-bit file manager.
https://freecommander.com/en/downloads/
Here's the page to download the portable version.
https://freecommander.com/en/downloads-portable/
If this is something that happened with a particular file browser, then
chances are it is not due to be 32 bit, but to some bug in that
particular file browser.
That's exactly why I tried 2 or 3 more.
Otherwise, it would happen with all 32 bit file
browsers.
And it did.
More posts by 3 people and no one has accepted the HOSTS challenge!
Sorry, one of the 3 did accept,
Plus I'm waiting for Paul's image to load. Aha, he seems to have found
it too with FreeCommander (and win7 Premium), even though Allen used it
and didn't find it (with unknown OS). Could the OS make a difference,
could Home vs. Pro?
On 11/27/2023 4:57 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 17:47:57 -0500, micky
<NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 22:55:37 +0100, "Carlos
E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-11-27 22:16, AllanH wrote:
On 11/27/2023 2:28 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
micky wrote:
Will no one take the HOSTS challenge? Use a 32-bit file manager >>>>>>which one?
IIRC, FreeCommander did not show the HOSTS file.
Here's the page to download FreeCommander's 32-bit file manager.
https://freecommander.com/en/downloads/
Here's the page to download the portable version.
https://freecommander.com/en/downloads-portable/
If this is something that happened with a particular file browser, then >>>> chances are it is not due to be 32 bit, but to some bug in that
particular file browser.
That's exactly why I tried 2 or 3 more.
Otherwise, it would happen with all 32 bit file
browsers.
And it did.
More posts by 3 people and no one has accepted the HOSTS challenge!
Sorry, one of the 3 did accept,
Plus I'm waiting for Paul's image to load. Aha, he seems to have found
it too with FreeCommander (and win7 Premium), even though Allen used it
and didn't find it (with unknown OS). Could the OS make a difference,
could Home vs. Pro?
My original OS was Win8.1 (64-bit). I upgraded to Win10 over a year ago. FreeCommander's 32-bit version is limited with 64-bit versions of
Windows, according to this.
https://freecommander.com/en/faq-freecommander/#using-32-on-64
https://i.postimg.cc/wT4Lycqs/bar-bet-2243.gif
On 11/27/23 8:20 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 15:16:16 -0600, AllanH <nospam@unokix.invalid> wrote:
On 11/27/2023 2:28 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
micky wrote:
This one did not find it for me either, not the file or the etc
directory.  This was not one I'd used before. That was called
somethingelse-commander.
Midnight commander? Linux, but supposedly windows too. Long ago there
was a similar but better DOS thing (BEFORE Norton), but I can't remember
its name.
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 22:55:37 +0100, "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-11-27 22:16, AllanH wrote:
On 11/27/2023 2:28 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
micky wrote:
Will no one take the HOSTS challenge? Use a 32-bit file manager
which one?
IIRC, FreeCommander did not show the HOSTS file.
Here's the page to download FreeCommander's 32-bit file manager.
https://freecommander.com/en/downloads/
Here's the page to download the portable version.
https://freecommander.com/en/downloads-portable/
If this is something that happened with a particular file browser, then
chances are it is not due to be 32 bit, but to some bug in that
particular file browser.
That's exactly why I tried 2 or 3 more.
Otherwise, it would happen with all 32 bit file
browsers.
And it did.
More posts by 3 people and no one has accepted the HOSTS challenge!
On 11/27/23 9:10 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
On 11/27/23 8:20 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 15:16:16 -0600, AllanH
<nospam@unokix.invalid> wrote:
On 11/27/2023 2:28 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
micky wrote:
Will no one take the HOSTS challenge? Use a 32-bit file manager
which one?
IIRC, FreeCommander did not show the HOSTS file.
Here's the page to download FreeCommander's 32-bit file manager. >>>>https://freecommander.com/en/downloads/
This one did not find it for me either, not the file or the etc
directory. This was not one I'd used before. That was called
somethingelse-commander.
Midnight commander?
Linux, but supposedly windows too. Long ago there
was a similar but better DOS thing (BEFORE Norton), but I can't remember
its name.
Jeez, maybe it was for cp/m...
On 2023-11-27 23:47, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 22:55:37 +0100, "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-11-27 22:16, AllanH wrote:
On 11/27/2023 2:28 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
micky wrote:
Will no one take the HOSTS challenge? Use a 32-bit file manager
which one?
IIRC, FreeCommander did not show the HOSTS file.
Here's the page to download FreeCommander's 32-bit file manager.
https://freecommander.com/en/downloads/
Here's the page to download the portable version.
https://freecommander.com/en/downloads-portable/
If this is something that happened with a particular file browser, then
chances are it is not due to be 32 bit, but to some bug in that
particular file browser.
That's exactly why I tried 2 or 3 more.
Otherwise, it would happen with all 32 bit file
browsers.
And it did.
More posts by 3 people and no one has accepted the HOSTS challenge!
I don't have a Windows machine at this location.
Anyway, Andy did post the explanation of the mystery, and now it makes
sense, sort of.
On 11/28/2023 1:54 AM, AllanH wrote:
On 11/27/2023 4:57 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 17:47:57 -0500, micky
<NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 22:55:37 +0100, "Carlos >>>> E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-11-27 22:16, AllanH wrote:
On 11/27/2023 2:28 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
micky wrote:
Will no one take the HOSTS challenge? Use a 32-bit file manager >>>>>>>which one?
IIRC, FreeCommander did not show the HOSTS file.
Here's the page to download FreeCommander's 32-bit file manager.
https://freecommander.com/en/downloads/
Here's the page to download the portable version.
https://freecommander.com/en/downloads-portable/
If this is something that happened with a particular file browser, then >>>>> chances are it is not due to be 32 bit, but to some bug in that
particular file browser.
That's exactly why I tried 2 or 3 more.
Otherwise, it would happen with all 32 bit file
browsers.
And it did.
More posts by 3 people and no one has accepted the HOSTS challenge!
Sorry, one of the 3 did accept,
Plus I'm waiting for Paul's image to load. Aha, he seems to have found
it too with FreeCommander (and win7 Premium), even though Allen used it
and didn't find it (with unknown OS). Could the OS make a difference,
could Home vs. Pro?
My original OS was Win8.1 (64-bit). I upgraded to Win10 over a year ago.
FreeCommander's 32-bit version is limited with 64-bit versions of
Windows, according to this.
https://freecommander.com/en/faq-freecommander/#using-32-on-64
There are solutions to those problems on this page.
https://freecommander.com/en/version-summary/
I don't remember seeing those solutions when I was using the 32-bit version.
On 2023-11-28 06:10, The Real Bev wrote:
On 11/27/23 8:20 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 15:16:16 -0600, AllanH <nospam@unokix.invalid> wrote:
On 11/27/2023 2:28 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
micky wrote:
This one did not find it for me either, not the file or the etc
directory.  This was not one I'd used before. That was called
somethingelse-commander.
Midnight commander? Linux, but supposedly windows too. Long ago there >> was a similar but better DOS thing (BEFORE Norton), but I can't remember
its name.
Xtree?
Carlos E. R. wrote:
Andy did post the explanation of the mystery, and now it makes
sense, sort of.
But almost everyone will be like me. They don't know anything about redirection.
If he's using a 32-big file manager because it has
features others don't
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 28 Nov 2023 14:49:17 +0100, "Carlos[...]
E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-11-27 23:47, micky wrote:
More posts by 3 people and no one has accepted the HOSTS challenge!
I don't have a Windows machine at this location.
You are forgiven.
Anyway, Andy did post the explanation of the mystery, and now it makes >sense, sort of.
But almost everyone will be like me. They don't know anything about redirection. If he's using a 32-big file manager because it has
features others don't (including the built-in File Explorer) or he's not willing to pay for a newer one, or just hasn't gotten around to doing
that, he'll think the file is not there when it is. He'll run around in circles like I did for a while. Most people don't use newsgroups for
help, or even webpages, and their friends know little more than they do, especially this obscure stuff.
On 11/28/23 3:07 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-28 06:10, The Real Bev wrote:
On 11/27/23 8:20 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 15:16:16 -0600,
AllanH <nospam@unokix.invalid> wrote:
On 11/27/2023 2:28 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
micky wrote:
This one did not find it for me either, not the file or the etc
directory.  This was not one I'd used before. That was called
somethingelse-commander.
Midnight commander? Linux, but supposedly windows too. Long ago
there was a similar but better DOS thing (BEFORE Norton), but I can't
remember its name.
Xtree?
Could be, but it looked like MC rather than a 'tree' display. XTree
sounded familiar, though. I hunted for a while but couldn't find
anything that stood out.
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 22:05:52 -0800, The Real<snip>
Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/27/23 9:10 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
Midnight commander?
I think it was Total Commander, but Midnight Commander must be a fine
fellow, who solves crimes with his wit and super-powers.
Paul wrote:
    https://i.postimg.cc/wT4Lycqs/bar-bet-2243.gif
Win7 32bit or 64bit?
On 2023-11-28 16:58, The Real Bev wrote:
On 11/28/23 3:07 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-28 06:10, The Real Bev wrote:
On 11/27/23 8:20 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 15:16:16 -0600,
AllanH <nospam@unokix.invalid> wrote:
On 11/27/2023 2:28 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
micky wrote:
This one did not find it for me either, not the file or the etc
directory.  This was not one I'd used before. That was called
somethingelse-commander.
Midnight commander? Linux, but supposedly windows too. Long ago
there was a similar but better DOS thing (BEFORE Norton), but I can't >>>> remember its name.
Xtree?
Could be, but it looked like MC rather than a 'tree' display. XTree
sounded familiar, though. I hunted for a while but couldn't find
anything that stood out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XTree
On 11/27/2023 5:57 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 17:47:57 -0500, micky
<NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 22:55:37 +0100, "Carlos
E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-11-27 22:16, AllanH wrote:
On 11/27/2023 2:28 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
micky wrote:
Will no one take the HOSTS challenge? Use a 32-bit file manager
which one?
IIRC, FreeCommander did not show the HOSTS file.
Here's the page to download FreeCommander's 32-bit file manager.
https://freecommander.com/en/downloads/
Here's the page to download the portable version.
https://freecommander.com/en/downloads-portable/
If this is something that happened with a particular file browser, then >>>> chances are it is not due to be 32 bit, but to some bug in that
particular file browser.
That's exactly why I tried 2 or 3 more.
Otherwise, it would happen with all 32 bit file
browsers.
And it did.
More posts by 3 people and no one has accepted the HOSTS challenge!
Sorry, one of the 3 did accept,
Plus I'm waiting for Paul's image to load. Aha, he seems to have found
it too with FreeCommander (and win7 Premium), even though Allen used it
and didn't find it (with unknown OS). Could the OS make a difference,
could Home vs. Pro?
Win7 test was Home Premium x86.
Paul
Interestingly, my phone has never crashed afaik but one day years ago 2
or 3 contact list entries got fouled up. My brother's entry name
changed from David to David X Qdwzcdcwszw, and my friend Arthur became Arthurx3cu0z, where z is not an English letter!.
micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 28 Nov 2023 14:49:17 +0100, "Carlos[...]
E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-11-27 23:47, micky wrote:
More posts by 3 people and no one has accepted the HOSTS challenge!
I don't have a Windows machine at this location.
You are forgiven.
Anyway, Andy did post the explanation of the mystery, and now it makes
sense, sort of.
But almost everyone will be like me. They don't know anything about
redirection. If he's using a 32-big file manager because it has
features others don't (including the built-in File Explorer) or he's not
willing to pay for a newer one, or just hasn't gotten around to doing
that, he'll think the file is not there when it is. He'll run around in
circles like I did for a while. Most people don't use newsgroups for
help, or even webpages, and their friends know little more than they do,
especially this obscure stuff.
Well, if one is using third-party software and that gives unexpected
results, one should always try the native software for comparison and
see what that shows. And if the native software shows the expected
result, but the third-party software doesn't, one contacts the support >channel of the third-party (or abandons their software or whatever).
Elementary, dear Watson!
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 20:40:05 -0500, Paul ><nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On 11/27/2023 5:57 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 17:47:57 -0500, micky
<NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 22:55:37 +0100, "Carlos >>>> E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-11-27 22:16, AllanH wrote:
On 11/27/2023 2:28 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
micky wrote:
Will no one take the HOSTS challenge? Use a 32-bit file manager >>>>>>>which one?
IIRC, FreeCommander did not show the HOSTS file.
Here's the page to download FreeCommander's 32-bit file manager.
https://freecommander.com/en/downloads/
Here's the page to download the portable version.
https://freecommander.com/en/downloads-portable/
If this is something that happened with a particular file browser, then >>>>> chances are it is not due to be 32 bit, but to some bug in that
particular file browser.
That's exactly why I tried 2 or 3 more.
Otherwise, it would happen with all 32 bit file
browsers.
And it did.
More posts by 3 people and no one has accepted the HOSTS challenge!
Sorry, one of the 3 did accept,
Plus I'm waiting for Paul's image to load. Aha, he seems to have found
it too with FreeCommander (and win7 Premium), even though Allen used it
and didn't find it (with unknown OS). Could the OS make a difference,
could Home vs. Pro?
Win7 test was Home Premium x86.
So that's 32-bit and it doesn't count as a test of my question!
The HOSTS Challenge has still not been fulfilled.
I'm doubling the prize.
So that's 32-bit and it doesn't count as a test of my question!
The HOSTS Challenge has still not been fulfilled.
I'm doubling the prize.
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 19:44:21 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 20:40:05 -0500, Paul
<nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On 11/27/2023 5:57 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 17:47:57 -0500, micky
<NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 22:55:37 +0100, "Carlos >>>>> E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-11-27 22:16, AllanH wrote:
On 11/27/2023 2:28 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
micky wrote:
Will no one take the HOSTS challenge? Use a 32-bit file manager >>>>>>>>which one?
IIRC, FreeCommander did not show the HOSTS file.
Here's the page to download FreeCommander's 32-bit file manager. >>>>>>> https://freecommander.com/en/downloads/
Here's the page to download the portable version.
https://freecommander.com/en/downloads-portable/
If this is something that happened with a particular file browser, then >>>>>> chances are it is not due to be 32 bit, but to some bug in that
particular file browser.
That's exactly why I tried 2 or 3 more.
Otherwise, it would happen with all 32 bit file
browsers.
And it did.
More posts by 3 people and no one has accepted the HOSTS challenge!
Sorry, one of the 3 did accept,
Plus I'm waiting for Paul's image to load. Aha, he seems to have found >>>> it too with FreeCommander (and win7 Premium), even though Allen used it >>>> and didn't find it (with unknown OS). Could the OS make a difference, >>>> could Home vs. Pro?
Win7 test was Home Premium x86.
So that's 32-bit and it doesn't count as a test of my question!
The HOSTS Challenge has still not been fulfilled.
I'm doubling the prize.
I'm not sure what the challenge actually is, but here's what I just did.
I fired up a 64-bit Windows 7 VM and used the native Explorer to go to C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc and verified that the hosts file is there, as expected.
Next, I downloaded and installed FreeCommander XE 2023 Build 880 32-bit. Using
FreeCommander, I navigated to the same folder and verified that the hosts file
is there, as expected.
Was that the challenge?
On 11/29/2023 12:18 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 19:44:21 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 20:40:05 -0500, Paul
<nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On 11/27/2023 5:57 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 17:47:57 -0500, micky >>>>> <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 22:55:37 +0100, "Carlos >>>>>> E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:Sorry, one of the 3 did accept,
On 2023-11-27 22:16, AllanH wrote:
On 11/27/2023 2:28 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
micky wrote:
Will no one take the HOSTS challenge? Use a 32-bit file manager >>>>>>>>>which one?
IIRC, FreeCommander did not show the HOSTS file.
Here's the page to download FreeCommander's 32-bit file manager. >>>>>>>> https://freecommander.com/en/downloads/
Here's the page to download the portable version.
https://freecommander.com/en/downloads-portable/
If this is something that happened with a particular file browser, then >>>>>>> chances are it is not due to be 32 bit, but to some bug in that
particular file browser.
That's exactly why I tried 2 or 3 more.
Otherwise, it would happen with all 32 bit file
browsers.
And it did.
More posts by 3 people and no one has accepted the HOSTS challenge! >>>>>
Plus I'm waiting for Paul's image to load. Aha, he seems to have found >>>>> it too with FreeCommander (and win7 Premium), even though Allen used it >>>>> and didn't find it (with unknown OS). Could the OS make a difference, >>>>> could Home vs. Pro?
Win7 test was Home Premium x86.
So that's 32-bit and it doesn't count as a test of my question!
The HOSTS Challenge has still not been fulfilled.
I'm doubling the prize.
I'm not sure what the challenge actually is, but here's what I just did.
I fired up a 64-bit Windows 7 VM and used the native Explorer to go to
C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc and verified that the hosts file is there, as
expected.
Next, I downloaded and installed FreeCommander XE 2023 Build 880 32-bit. Using
FreeCommander, I navigated to the same folder and verified that the hosts file
is there, as expected.
Was that the challenge?
This is the picture I made.
https://i.postimg.cc/wT4Lycqs/bar-bet-2243.gif
And this is a test a few minutes ago, with FreeCommander XE 32-bit on Win7 64-bit.
I'm shown the contents of SysWOW64, rather than System32, when I navigate System32 with FreeCommander.
https://i.postimg.cc/bNmcngzT/bar-bet-2243a.gif
And the results line up with the shenanigans Andy found.
For fun, I wrote a small program, and compiled in MINGW32 and this
should be similar to developing for 32-bit FreeCommander.
And when I run the program and use "getopenfilename()", the same
thing happens. I access system32\drivers and I'm instead given
the contents of sysWOW64\drivers which has no etc and etc\HOSTS.
[Picture]
https://i.postimg.cc/dVhzkSqK/getopenfilename.gif
Paul
On 11/29/2023 12:18 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 19:44:21 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 20:40:05 -0500, Paul
<nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On 11/27/2023 5:57 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 17:47:57 -0500, micky >>>>> <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 22:55:37 +0100, "Carlos >>>>>> E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:Sorry, one of the 3 did accept,
On 2023-11-27 22:16, AllanH wrote:
On 11/27/2023 2:28 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
micky wrote:
Will no one take the HOSTS challenge? Use a 32-bit file manager >>>>>>>>>which one?
IIRC, FreeCommander did not show the HOSTS file.
Here's the page to download FreeCommander's 32-bit file manager. >>>>>>>> https://freecommander.com/en/downloads/
Here's the page to download the portable version.
https://freecommander.com/en/downloads-portable/
If this is something that happened with a particular file browser, then >>>>>>> chances are it is not due to be 32 bit, but to some bug in that
particular file browser.
That's exactly why I tried 2 or 3 more.
Otherwise, it would happen with all 32 bit file
browsers.
And it did.
More posts by 3 people and no one has accepted the HOSTS challenge! >>>>>
Plus I'm waiting for Paul's image to load. Aha, he seems to have found >>>>> it too with FreeCommander (and win7 Premium), even though Allen used it >>>>> and didn't find it (with unknown OS). Could the OS make a difference, >>>>> could Home vs. Pro?
Win7 test was Home Premium x86.
So that's 32-bit and it doesn't count as a test of my question!
The HOSTS Challenge has still not been fulfilled.
I'm doubling the prize.
I'm not sure what the challenge actually is, but here's what I just did.
I fired up a 64-bit Windows 7 VM and used the native Explorer to go to
C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc and verified that the hosts file is there, as
expected.
Next, I downloaded and installed FreeCommander XE 2023 Build 880 32-bit. Using
FreeCommander, I navigated to the same folder and verified that the hosts file
is there, as expected.
Was that the challenge?
This is the picture I made.
https://i.postimg.cc/wT4Lycqs/bar-bet-2243.gif
And this is a test a few minutes ago, with FreeCommander XE 32-bit on Win7 64-bit.
I'm shown the contents of SysWOW64, rather than System32, when I navigate System32 with FreeCommander.
https://i.postimg.cc/bNmcngzT/bar-bet-2243a.gif
And the results line up with the shenanigans Andy found.
For fun, I wrote a small program, and compiled in MINGW32 and this
should be similar to developing for 32-bit FreeCommander.
And when I run the program and use "getopenfilename()", the same
thing happens. I access system32\drivers and I'm instead given
the contents of sysWOW64\drivers which has no etc and etc\HOSTS.
[Picture]
https://i.postimg.cc/dVhzkSqK/getopenfilename.gif
Paul
I fired up a 64-bit Windows 7 VM and used the native Explorer to go to C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc and verified that the hosts file is there, as expected.
Next, I downloaded and installed FreeCommander XE 2023 Build 880 32-bit. Using
FreeCommander, I navigated to the same folder and verified that the hosts file
is there, as expected.
micky wrote:
[..snip..]
Interestingly, my phone has never crashed afaik but one day years ago 2
or 3 contact list entries got fouled up. My brother's entry name
changed from David to David X Qdwzcdcwszw, and my friend Arthur became
Arthurx3cu0z, where z is not an English letter!.
Errrm, what? "z" is not an English letter? Tell more.
Char Jackson wrote:
I fired up a 64-bit Windows 7 VM and used the native Explorer to go to
C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc and verified that the hosts file is there, as
expected.
Next, I downloaded and installed FreeCommander XE 2023 Build 880 32-bit. Using
FreeCommander, I navigated to the same folder and verified that the hosts file
is there, as expected.
I used Win11 (obviously has to be 64bit) and the hosts file was not there.
So the question is, why *was* it there for you, when the smoke and
mirrors ought not to work, and do not work for myself and Paul?
Have you symlinked any of the system32/syswow64/sysnative folders?
micky wrote:
[..snip..]
Interestingly, my phone has never crashed afaik but one day years ago 2
or 3 contact list entries got fouled up. My brother's entry name
changed from David to David X Qdwzcdcwszw, and my friend Arthur became
Arthurx3cu0z, where z is not an English letter!.
Errrm, what? "z" is not an English letter? Tell more.
On 11/28/2023 2:48 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
Paul wrote:
https://i.postimg.cc/wT4Lycqs/bar-bet-2243.gif
Win7 32bit or 64bit?
Only "Program Files" shows in the display of C: in the picture.
There is no "Program Files (x86)" which warns of a 64-bit OS.
The title bar of the virtualbox window is labeled W732,
because at the current time, the RAM Drive has a
W764 project and a W732 on it. And I've loaded the correct one.
Unfortunately, Microsofts ability to label goods properly, is
limited. This is why the picture is littered with "hints".
I am forced to resort to "hints", when the application that
should spell it out in English (winver.exe) fails to do so.
Paul
Andy Burns wrote:
I used Win11 (obviously has to be 64bit) and the hosts file was not there.
Was that the only file missing from etc? Was the whole etc folder missing?
Dumb question, but were you looking at the right path? C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc
So the question is, why *was* it there for you, when the smoke and
mirrors ought not to work, and do not work for myself and Paul?
Have you symlinked any of the system32/syswow64/sysnative folders?
No, nothing like that. Is that part of the challenge?
micky wrote:
So that's 32-bit and it doesn't count as a test of my question!
The HOSTS Challenge has still not been fulfilled.
I'm doubling the prize.
Don't you believe that I saw the same "lack of hosts file in the
expected place" as you did?
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 19:44:21 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 20:40:05 -0500, Paul >><nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On 11/27/2023 5:57 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 17:47:57 -0500, micky
<NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 22:55:37 +0100, "Carlos >>>>> E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-11-27 22:16, AllanH wrote:
On 11/27/2023 2:28 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
micky wrote:
Will no one take the HOSTS challenge? Use a 32-bit file manager >>>>>>>>which one?
IIRC, FreeCommander did not show the HOSTS file.
Here's the page to download FreeCommander's 32-bit file manager. >>>>>>> https://freecommander.com/en/downloads/
Here's the page to download the portable version.
https://freecommander.com/en/downloads-portable/
If this is something that happened with a particular file browser, then >>>>>> chances are it is not due to be 32 bit, but to some bug in that
particular file browser.
That's exactly why I tried 2 or 3 more.
Otherwise, it would happen with all 32 bit file
browsers.
And it did.
More posts by 3 people and no one has accepted the HOSTS challenge!
Sorry, one of the 3 did accept,
Plus I'm waiting for Paul's image to load. Aha, he seems to have found >>>> it too with FreeCommander (and win7 Premium), even though Allen used it >>>> and didn't find it (with unknown OS). Could the OS make a difference, >>>> could Home vs. Pro?
Win7 test was Home Premium x86.
So that's 32-bit and it doesn't count as a test of my question!
The HOSTS Challenge has still not been fulfilled.
I'm doubling the prize.
I'm not sure what the challenge actually is, but here's what I just did.
I fired up a 64-bit Windows 7 VM and used the native Explorer to go to >C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc and verified that the hosts file is there, as >expected.
Next, I downloaded and installed FreeCommander XE 2023 Build 880 32-bit. Using >FreeCommander, I navigated to the same folder and verified that the hosts file >is there, as expected.
Was that the challenge?
I guess I asked two questions along the way. What happens when you do
what I do? and later, maybe only implied.. Can anyone do parallel to
what I did and see the file?
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 28 Nov 2023 23:18:20 -0600, Char
Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 19:44:21 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 20:40:05 -0500, Paul >>><nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On 11/27/2023 5:57 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 17:47:57 -0500, micky >>>>> <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 22:55:37 +0100, "Carlos >>>>>> E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:Sorry, one of the 3 did accept,
On 2023-11-27 22:16, AllanH wrote:
On 11/27/2023 2:28 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
micky wrote:
Will no one take the HOSTS challenge? Use a 32-bit file manager >>>>>>>>>which one?
IIRC, FreeCommander did not show the HOSTS file.
Here's the page to download FreeCommander's 32-bit file manager. >>>>>>>> https://freecommander.com/en/downloads/
Here's the page to download the portable version.
https://freecommander.com/en/downloads-portable/
If this is something that happened with a particular file browser, then >>>>>>> chances are it is not due to be 32 bit, but to some bug in that
particular file browser.
That's exactly why I tried 2 or 3 more.
Otherwise, it would happen with all 32 bit file
browsers.
And it did.
More posts by 3 people and no one has accepted the HOSTS challenge! >>>>>
Plus I'm waiting for Paul's image to load. Aha, he seems to have found >>>>> it too with FreeCommander (and win7 Premium), even though Allen used it >>>>> and didn't find it (with unknown OS). Could the OS make a difference, >>>>> could Home vs. Pro?
Win7 test was Home Premium x86.
So that's 32-bit and it doesn't count as a test of my question!
The HOSTS Challenge has still not been fulfilled.
I'm doubling the prize.
I'm not sure what the challenge actually is, but here's what I just did.
I fired up a 64-bit Windows 7 VM and used the native Explorer to go to >>C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc and verified that the hosts file is there, as >>expected.
Next, I downloaded and installed FreeCommander XE 2023 Build 880 32-bit. Using
FreeCommander, I navigated to the same folder and verified that the hosts file
is there, as expected.
Was that the challenge?
Yes. You have met the challenge and you are eligible for the prize, but
your results have been challenged by the judges. They have not yet made
a decision and according to the rules of the Association, the prize
cannot be awarded until the results are final.
I feel bad about this and that you have to wait so, without using
Association money, I'm redoubling the prize.
In answer to your question elsewhere, when HOSTS is missing, the entire
etc folder is missing, not just the contents but the folder too.
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 13:27:18 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 28 Nov 2023 23:18:20 -0600, Char
Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 19:44:21 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote: >>>
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 20:40:05 -0500, Paul
<nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On 11/27/2023 5:57 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 17:47:57 -0500, micky >>>>>> <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 27 Nov 2023 22:55:37 +0100, "Carlos >>>>>>> E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:Sorry, one of the 3 did accept,
On 2023-11-27 22:16, AllanH wrote:
On 11/27/2023 2:28 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
micky wrote:
Will no one take the HOSTS challenge? Use a 32-bit file manager >>>>>>>>>>which one?
IIRC, FreeCommander did not show the HOSTS file.
Here's the page to download FreeCommander's 32-bit file manager. >>>>>>>>> https://freecommander.com/en/downloads/
Here's the page to download the portable version.
https://freecommander.com/en/downloads-portable/
If this is something that happened with a particular file browser, then
chances are it is not due to be 32 bit, but to some bug in that >>>>>>>> particular file browser.
That's exactly why I tried 2 or 3 more.
Otherwise, it would happen with all 32 bit file
browsers.
And it did.
More posts by 3 people and no one has accepted the HOSTS challenge! >>>>>>
Plus I'm waiting for Paul's image to load. Aha, he seems to have found >>>>>> it too with FreeCommander (and win7 Premium), even though Allen used it >>>>>> and didn't find it (with unknown OS). Could the OS make a difference, >>>>>> could Home vs. Pro?
Win7 test was Home Premium x86.
So that's 32-bit and it doesn't count as a test of my question!
The HOSTS Challenge has still not been fulfilled.
I'm doubling the prize.
I'm not sure what the challenge actually is, but here's what I just did. >>>
I fired up a 64-bit Windows 7 VM and used the native Explorer to go to
C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc and verified that the hosts file is there, as
expected.
Next, I downloaded and installed FreeCommander XE 2023 Build 880 32-bit. Using
FreeCommander, I navigated to the same folder and verified that the hosts file
is there, as expected.
Was that the challenge?
Yes. You have met the challenge and you are eligible for the prize, but
your results have been challenged by the judges. They have not yet made
a decision and according to the rules of the Association, the prize
cannot be awarded until the results are final.
I feel bad about this and that you have to wait so, without using
Association money, I'm redoubling the prize.
In answer to your question elsewhere, when HOSTS is missing, the entire
etc folder is missing, not just the contents but the folder too.
When you say the entire etc folder is missing, should I take that literally or
do you mean that it's just not displayed in that particular UI at that moment? I
mean, it can't actually be missing, so I assume you mean it's a display issue,
in which case you can probably display it by adding it to the current path.
I.e., if you were in Windows Explorer (aka File Explorer in later Windows) and
you navigated to C:\Windows\system32\Drivers and you saw no etc folder, you'd just go to the top of the Explorer window and add "\etc" (no quotes) to the current path in order to see the contents of the etc folder.
Likewise, if using FreeCommander, you'd go to the lower right of the FC window
and add "\etc" (no quotes) to the current path to see the contents of the etc folder.
I know that the folder can't actually be missing, so I'm assuming it's simply a
display issue, but I don't know how that relates to what Paul and Andy are saying about redirection to sysWOW. I don't see that here, AFAIK.
Do I need to try your challenge with an older version of FreeCommander? I used
the latest one, Build 880, I believe. Older versions are available.
Char Jackson wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
I used Win11 (obviously has to be 64bit) and the hosts file was not there. >>Was that the only file missing from etc? Was the whole etc folder missing?
Lots of stuff was missing from within drivers, the whole of etc for a
start, it's easier to list what *wasn't* missing, folders in brackets
[..]
[en-GB]
[en-US]
[UMDF]
17AA_LENOVO_Yoga_Slim_7_Pro_I4IHU5_82NC.MRK
afunix.sys
gm.dls
gmreadme.txt
Dumb question, but were you looking at the right path?
C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc
Come on, give me *some* credit, I've been using that folder for 30 years >since WinNT 3.1 :-)
So the question is, why *was* it there for you, when the smoke and
mirrors ought not to work, and do not work for myself and Paul?
Have you symlinked any of the system32/syswow64/sysnative folders?
No, nothing like that. Is that part of the challenge?
No, but symlinking is mentioned (unwisely I would say) in the
freecommander help page as a way of "fixing" the folder redirection.
On 11/29/2023 1:47 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
I know that the folder can't actually be missing, so I'm assuming it's simply a
display issue, but I don't know how that relates to what Paul and Andy are >> saying about redirection to sysWOW. I don't see that here, AFAIK.
Do I need to try your challenge with an older version of FreeCommander? I used
the latest one, Build 880, I believe. Older versions are available.
The OS has made it not-accessible.
Since the contents of SysWOW64 are being displayed,
instead of the contents of System32/drivers , then
you cannot see "etc" or "HOSTS" below it.
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Wed, 29 Nov 2023 08:03:12 +0000, Andy
Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
micky wrote:
So that's 32-bit and it doesn't count as a test of my question!
The HOSTS Challenge has still not been fulfilled.
I'm doubling the prize.
Don't you believe that I saw the same "lack of hosts file in the
expected place" as you did?
I certainly do.
I guess I asked two questions along the way. What happens when you do
what I do? and later, maybe only implied.. Can anyone do parallel to
what I did and see the file?
Because I had concluded and you found that page that said that no 32-bit
file manager would see it. So that created the second question above. I >don't expect to test every combination of OS and FM, but Char thinks
he's hit on one that works.
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 16:42:19 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On 11/29/2023 1:47 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
I know that the folder can't actually be missing, so I'm assuming it's simply a
display issue, but I don't know how that relates to what Paul and Andy are >>> saying about redirection to sysWOW. I don't see that here, AFAIK.
Do I need to try your challenge with an older version of FreeCommander? I used
the latest one, Build 880, I believe. Older versions are available.
The OS has made it not-accessible.
What's your OS? I used a VM running Win 7 Pro and had no issues. By chance, is
this a Home v Pro issue? Is this a 7 v 8 v 10/11 issue? Am I using the wrong version of FC?
<snip>
Since the contents of SysWOW64 are being displayed,
instead of the contents of System32/drivers , then
you cannot see "etc" or "HOSTS" below it.
I haven't been able to duplicate that.
In this example, I'm booted on C: and I try to
traverse exactly the same path on C: and H: .
I cannot get to the HOSTS on C: , but I can get
to the HOSTS on H: . The SysWOW64 folder has
Roland Midi files in it, instead of etc.
https://i.postimg.cc/vmfBCxYg/access-HOSTS-foreign-partition.gif
What's interesting, is Notepad does not fall for this.
Just a naive application of GetOpenFileName() falls for it.
There must be some other path that Microsoft applications use.
Actually, I know you well enough and that's why I said 'dumb question'. 🙂
I'm just trying to understand why you and Paul and possibly micky are all getting redirected. Everyone has a legitimate need to get to their hosts file,
so I'd like to know why it's hidden for some of you.
There is a call to disable SysWoW64 redirection
Paul wrote:
In this example, I'm booted on C: and I try to
traverse exactly the same path on C: and H: .
I cannot get to the HOSTS on C: , but I can get
to the HOSTS on H: . The SysWOW64 folder has
Roland Midi files in it, instead of etc.
https://i.postimg.cc/vmfBCxYg/access-HOSTS-foreign-partition.gif
What's interesting, is Notepad does not fall for this.
Just a naive application of GetOpenFileName() falls for it.
There must be some other path that Microsoft applications use.
There is a call to disable SysWoW64 redirection, maybe you could try it
with your test program, to check it allows you to see
system32\drivers\etc once you say the magic word?
Char, do you go browse down from c:\windows through system32 then
drivers to etc
or do you jump straight in to c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc ?
is your machine using "normal" NTFS (not ReFS or something funky?)
On 11/29/2023 9:44 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 16:42:19 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On 11/29/2023 1:47 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
I know that the folder can't actually be missing, so I'm assuming it's simply a
display issue, but I don't know how that relates to what Paul and Andy are >>>> saying about redirection to sysWOW. I don't see that here, AFAIK.
Do I need to try your challenge with an older version of FreeCommander? I used
the latest one, Build 880, I believe. Older versions are available.
The OS has made it not-accessible.
What's your OS? I used a VM running Win 7 Pro and had no issues. By chance, is
this a Home v Pro issue? Is this a 7 v 8 v 10/11 issue? Am I using the wrong >> version of FC?
<snip>
Since the contents of SysWOW64 are being displayed,
instead of the contents of System32/drivers , then
you cannot see "etc" or "HOSTS" below it.
I haven't been able to duplicate that.
It's a 32-bit versus 64-bit issue.
When you run 32-bit software on a 64-bit system,
that's when it seems to happen.
Happens in Free Commander.
Happens in my GetOpenFileName() test program. Doesn't
happen in Notepad, as near as I can determine.
FreeCommander is 32-bit. Everything is fine if you run FreeCommander
on a 32-bit OS. Doesn't work right if FreeCommander 32-bit runs
on a 64-bit OS.
And my test shows, the effect is not a file system feature. Some
software is pulling a fast one. If I use FreeCommander to look
at C: then I can't see HOSTS. If I use FreeCommander to look
at the Windows 10 on H: , then I can see HOSTS as normal. And
that involves a booted C: which is 64-bit and the usage of a
32-bit FreeCommander.
I'm not running a full matrix for this bar bet. I just used
what I had sitting in my "fresh VM" pile.
Andy Burns wrote:
There is a call to disable SysWoW64 redirection
I'm sure you could find it, but here
<https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/wow64apiset/nf-wow64apiset-wow64disablewow64fsredirection>
According to what follows that Allan has found, it's not the OS. Still
have to resolve what Paul posted. Does that win7 was Premium mean it
was 64-bit?
My original OS was Win8.1 (64-bit). I upgraded to Win10 over a year ago. >>> FreeCommander's 32-bit version is limited with 64-bit versions of
Windows, according to this.
https://freecommander.com/en/faq-freecommander/#using-32-on-64
Aha. Just what I've been saying.
There are solutions to those problems on this page.
https://freecommander.com/en/version-summary/
For people who have not gone to the link:
FreeCommander XE on Windows X64
The actual version of FreeCommander XE is a 32 bit program. For this
reason FreeCommander is (like all 32 bit programs on Windows X64)
subject to the following restrictions:
----ALL, it says! My emphasis. ----
32 bit programs (e.g. FreeCommander) have not full access to the
control panel.
In the context menu, entries of 64 bit programs will not be visible.
The folder “%windir%\system32” and its sub folders show different
contents under 32 bit programs (e.g. FreeCommander).
Notes: %windir% is a system variable that points to the Windows
installation folder – often: c:\Windows
32 bit programs are redirected from “%windir%\system32” to
“%windir%\SysWOW64” automatically.
For more detailed information see: Microsoft: File system Redirector
----At the webpage, these last 4 words are a link, maybe the same one
Paul posted. Or at least the same information.
I don't remember seeing those solutions when I was using the 32-bit version.
It's sort of impressive that they post solutions at all, since they'd
really prefer you buy the 64-bit version. OTOH, even if you won't rely
on believing they are generous, I'm sure their own programmers looked
into it and when they found these solutions, they wanted to share them.
I didn't fully understand the solutions. I understood the context menu
part and it's complicaed,
but it seemed solving the file missing from
the list part was also complicated and had to be done one file at a
time. Maybe if you only ever need one file, someone would do that, but
it seems like buying Free Commander for 64 bits, or using another FM is
what everyone would do.
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 22:40:09 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On 11/29/2023 9:44 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 16:42:19 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On 11/29/2023 1:47 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
I know that the folder can't actually be missing, so I'm assuming it's simply a
display issue, but I don't know how that relates to what Paul and Andy are
saying about redirection to sysWOW. I don't see that here, AFAIK.
Do I need to try your challenge with an older version of FreeCommander? I used
the latest one, Build 880, I believe. Older versions are available.
The OS has made it not-accessible.
What's your OS? I used a VM running Win 7 Pro and had no issues. By chance, is
this a Home v Pro issue? Is this a 7 v 8 v 10/11 issue? Am I using the wrong
version of FC?
<snip>
Since the contents of SysWOW64 are being displayed,
instead of the contents of System32/drivers , then
you cannot see "etc" or "HOSTS" below it.
I haven't been able to duplicate that.
It's a 32-bit versus 64-bit issue.
When you run 32-bit software on a 64-bit system,
that's when it seems to happen.
For some people.
Happens in Free Commander.
Again, for some people. I haven't been able to duplicate that.
Happens in my GetOpenFileName() test program. Doesn't
happen in Notepad, as near as I can determine.
FreeCommander is 32-bit. Everything is fine if you run FreeCommander
on a 32-bit OS. Doesn't work right if FreeCommander 32-bit runs
on a 64-bit OS.
Odd that the behavior isn't consistent. It works fine here.
And my test shows, the effect is not a file system feature. Some
software is pulling a fast one. If I use FreeCommander to look
at C: then I can't see HOSTS. If I use FreeCommander to look
at the Windows 10 on H: , then I can see HOSTS as normal. And
that involves a booted C: which is 64-bit and the usage of a
32-bit FreeCommander.
I'm not running a full matrix for this bar bet. I just used
what I had sitting in my "fresh VM" pile.
Same here, I suppose. I booted a Win 7 Pro VM because it was at the top of the >list. I haven't tried any others.
Are we leaving this without a final resolution?
I was hoping someone would provide a 32-bit file manager that falls into the redirection trap and is unable to navigate to the usual location for the hosts
file.
The one that I tried, FreeCommander XE 2023 Build 880 32-bit has no issues with that task. Does anyone have a 32-bit file manager that doesn't work?
On 11/28/23 8:53 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-11-28 16:58, The Real Bev wrote:
On 11/28/23 3:07 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Xtree?
Could be, but it looked like MC rather than a 'tree' display. XTree
sounded familiar, though. I hunted for a while but couldn't find
anything that stood out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XTree
I'm pretty sure that's not it, especially since it cost $40. I just
used free stuff then -- except for Ventura Publisher. I really coveted that, but there was no way the company was going to buy it for me so I
could make pretty proposals. Marketing, fortunately, had an unlimited budget so I traded some juicy corporate gossip for a copy. Something
like 10 floppy disks, and to save your work to a floppy you had to
export it using the VP facility.
Looking back, it was needlessly complex and painful to use. I switched
to Word Perfect when it became capable of producing proportional-font
text on a dot-matrix printer. Not fast, of course...
There was a big fat book with a disk of MSDOS utilities. I still have a copy, even though I haven't looked at it for decades and am not sure
where it is. It was a better DOS manual than the DOS manual itself.
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 23:03:51 -0600, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 22:40:09 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On 11/29/2023 9:44 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 16:42:19 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote: >>>>
On 11/29/2023 1:47 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
I know that the folder can't actually be missing, so I'm assuming it's simply a
display issue, but I don't know how that relates to what Paul and Andy are
saying about redirection to sysWOW. I don't see that here, AFAIK.
Do I need to try your challenge with an older version of FreeCommander? I used
the latest one, Build 880, I believe. Older versions are available. >>>>>>
The OS has made it not-accessible.
What's your OS? I used a VM running Win 7 Pro and had no issues. By chance, is
this a Home v Pro issue? Is this a 7 v 8 v 10/11 issue? Am I using the wrong
version of FC?
<snip>
Since the contents of SysWOW64 are being displayed,
instead of the contents of System32/drivers , then
you cannot see "etc" or "HOSTS" below it.
I haven't been able to duplicate that.
It's a 32-bit versus 64-bit issue.
When you run 32-bit software on a 64-bit system,
that's when it seems to happen.
For some people.
Happens in Free Commander.
Again, for some people. I haven't been able to duplicate that.
Happens in my GetOpenFileName() test program. Doesn't
happen in Notepad, as near as I can determine.
FreeCommander is 32-bit. Everything is fine if you run FreeCommander
on a 32-bit OS. Doesn't work right if FreeCommander 32-bit runs
on a 64-bit OS.
Odd that the behavior isn't consistent. It works fine here.
And my test shows, the effect is not a file system feature. Some
software is pulling a fast one. If I use FreeCommander to look
at C: then I can't see HOSTS. If I use FreeCommander to look
at the Windows 10 on H: , then I can see HOSTS as normal. And
that involves a booted C: which is 64-bit and the usage of a
32-bit FreeCommander.
I'm not running a full matrix for this bar bet. I just used
what I had sitting in my "fresh VM" pile.
Same here, I suppose. I booted a Win 7 Pro VM because it was at the top of the
list. I haven't tried any others.
Are we leaving this without a final resolution?
I was hoping someone would provide a 32-bit file manager that falls into the redirection trap and is unable to navigate to the usual location for the hosts
file.
The *one* that I tried, FreeCommander XE 2023 Build 880 32-bit has no issues with that task. Does anyone have a 32-bit file manager that doesn't work?
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 13:34:21 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Wed, 29 Nov 2023 08:03:12 +0000, Andy
Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
micky wrote:
So that's 32-bit and it doesn't count as a test of my question!
The HOSTS Challenge has still not been fulfilled.
I'm doubling the prize.
Don't you believe that I saw the same "lack of hosts file in the
expected place" as you did?
I certainly do.
I guess I asked two questions along the way. What happens when you do
what I do? and later, maybe only implied.. Can anyone do parallel to >>what I did and see the file?
Because I had concluded and you found that page that said that no 32-bit >>file manager would see it. So that created the second question above. I >>don't expect to test every combination of OS and FM, but Char thinks
he's hit on one that works.
Which combination doesn't work? I'd like to join the redirection party.
Char Jackson wrote:
Are we leaving this without a final resolution?
I think mickey may have to donate the betting pot to charity
I was hoping someone would provide a 32-bit file manager that falls into the >> redirection trap and is unable to navigate to the usual location for the hosts
file.
I think everyone else has sort of decided that there's something unusual >about your machine? The redirection does its thing for all our 64bit >machines running 32bit programs, it's just yours that is misbehaving ...
but not in a way that upsets you.
The one that I tried, FreeCommander XE 2023 Build 880 32-bit has no issues >> with that task. Does anyone have a 32-bit file manager that doesn't work?
That's the only one I tried and it has "the issue" i.e. the defined >behaviour.
On 2023-12-02 05:41, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 23:03:51 -0600, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote: >>
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 22:40:09 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On 11/29/2023 9:44 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 16:42:19 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote: >>>>>
On 11/29/2023 1:47 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
I know that the folder can't actually be missing, so I'm assuming it's simply a
display issue, but I don't know how that relates to what Paul and Andy are
saying about redirection to sysWOW. I don't see that here, AFAIK. >>>>>>>
Do I need to try your challenge with an older version of FreeCommander? I used
the latest one, Build 880, I believe. Older versions are available. >>>>>>>
The OS has made it not-accessible.
What's your OS? I used a VM running Win 7 Pro and had no issues. By chance, is
this a Home v Pro issue? Is this a 7 v 8 v 10/11 issue? Am I using the wrong
version of FC?
<snip>
Since the contents of SysWOW64 are being displayed,
instead of the contents of System32/drivers , then
you cannot see "etc" or "HOSTS" below it.
I haven't been able to duplicate that.
It's a 32-bit versus 64-bit issue.
When you run 32-bit software on a 64-bit system,
that's when it seems to happen.
For some people.
Happens in Free Commander.
Again, for some people. I haven't been able to duplicate that.
Happens in my GetOpenFileName() test program. Doesn't
happen in Notepad, as near as I can determine.
FreeCommander is 32-bit. Everything is fine if you run FreeCommander
on a 32-bit OS. Doesn't work right if FreeCommander 32-bit runs
on a 64-bit OS.
Odd that the behavior isn't consistent. It works fine here.
And my test shows, the effect is not a file system feature. Some
software is pulling a fast one. If I use FreeCommander to look
at C: then I can't see HOSTS. If I use FreeCommander to look
at the Windows 10 on H: , then I can see HOSTS as normal. And
that involves a booted C: which is 64-bit and the usage of a
32-bit FreeCommander.
I'm not running a full matrix for this bar bet. I just used
what I had sitting in my "fresh VM" pile.
Same here, I suppose. I booted a Win 7 Pro VM because it was at the top of the
list. I haven't tried any others.
Are we leaving this without a final resolution?
I was hoping someone would provide a 32-bit file manager that falls into the >> redirection trap and is unable to navigate to the usual location for the hosts
file.
The *one* that I tried, FreeCommander XE 2023 Build 880 32-bit has no issues >> with that task. Does anyone have a 32-bit file manager that doesn't work?
Being modern, they might have patched it so that it works.
Anyone still offerring a 32-bit FM on their webpage ought to have either found a patch that would make it work, or include a warning that it
wouldn't find all directories or files. Surely most of the people in
the business of writing FMs know about this issue.
But there is something you can try for us.
If FreeCommander has a box to enter the path as a string,
try entering a string and see if you can "get past ETC" that way.
C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Wed, 29 Nov 2023 20:52:32 -0600, Char
Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 13:34:21 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Wed, 29 Nov 2023 08:03:12 +0000, Andy
Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
micky wrote:
So that's 32-bit and it doesn't count as a test of my question!
The HOSTS Challenge has still not been fulfilled.
I'm doubling the prize.
Don't you believe that I saw the same "lack of hosts file in the
expected place" as you did?
I certainly do.
I guess I asked two questions along the way. What happens when you do
what I do? and later, maybe only implied.. Can anyone do parallel to
what I did and see the file?
Because I had concluded and you found that page that said that no 32-bit >>> file manager would see it. So that created the second question above. I >>> don't expect to test every combination of OS and FM, but Char thinks
he's hit on one that works.
Which combination doesn't work? I'd like to join the redirection party.
I'm sorry. Other responsibilties kept me away from this thread for a
couple days, and even now, and i've lost track of it.
AFAIK no 32-bit FM works with any 64-bit OS except for the combination
you found.
At least I pointed out the issue/
This stuff is entirely too flaky for words.
I ran my 32-bit test program on my W11x64 Home, and
"navigating" to the path fails, but typing the path
into the path box, works. Grrr.
as administrator (which probably should not be
making a difference to this indirection trick).
[Picture]
https://i.postimg.cc/zDPRbnS4/a-strange-case-of-redirection.gif
On 12/2/2023 12:24 PM, micky wrote:
Anyone still offerring a 32-bit FM on their webpage ought to have either
found a patch that would make it work, or include a warning that it
wouldn't find all directories or files. Surely most of the people in
the business of writing FMs know about this issue.
This stuff is entirely too flaky for words.
I ran my 32-bit test program on my W11x64 Home, and
"navigating" to the path fails, but typing the path
into the path box, works. Grrr. I ran the program
as administrator (which probably should not be
making a difference to this indirection trick).
[Picture]
https://i.postimg.cc/zDPRbnS4/a-strange-case-of-redirection.gif
Paul
On 12/2/2023 12:13 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Wed, 29 Nov 2023 20:52:32 -0600, Char
Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 13:34:21 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote: >>>
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Wed, 29 Nov 2023 08:03:12 +0000, Andy
Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
micky wrote:
So that's 32-bit and it doesn't count as a test of my question!
The HOSTS Challenge has still not been fulfilled.
I'm doubling the prize.
Don't you believe that I saw the same "lack of hosts file in the
expected place" as you did?
I certainly do.
I guess I asked two questions along the way. What happens when you do >>>> what I do? and later, maybe only implied.. Can anyone do parallel to >>>> what I did and see the file?
Because I had concluded and you found that page that said that no 32-bit >>>> file manager would see it. So that created the second question above. I >>>> don't expect to test every combination of OS and FM, but Char thinks
he's hit on one that works.
Which combination doesn't work? I'd like to join the redirection party.
I'm sorry. Other responsibilties kept me away from this thread for a
couple days, and even now, and i've lost track of it.
AFAIK no 32-bit FM works with any 64-bit OS except for the combination
you found.
At least I pointed out the issue/
But there is something you can try for us.
If FreeCommander has a box to enter the path as a string,
try entering a string and see if you can "get past ETC" that way.
C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc
Paul
Char Jackson wrote:
Are we leaving this without a final resolution?
I think mickey may have to donate the betting pot to charity
I was hoping someone would provide a 32-bit file manager that falls into the >> redirection trap and is unable to navigate to the usual location for the hosts
file.
I think everyone else has sort of decided that there's something unusual >about your machine? The redirection does its thing for all our 64bit >machines running 32bit programs, it's just yours that is misbehaving ...
but not in a way that upsets you.
The one that I tried, FreeCommander XE 2023 Build 880 32-bit has no issues >> with that task. Does anyone have a 32-bit file manager that doesn't work?
That's the only one I tried and it has "the issue" i.e. the defined >behaviour.
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Sat, 2 Dec 2023 13:52:38 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
On 12/2/2023 12:24 PM, micky wrote:
Anyone still offerring a 32-bit FM on their webpage ought to have either >>> found a patch that would make it work, or include a warning that it
wouldn't find all directories or files. Surely most of the people in
the business of writing FMs know about this issue.
This stuff is entirely too flaky for words.
I ran my 32-bit test program on my W11x64 Home, and
"navigating" to the path fails, but typing the path
into the path box, works. Grrr. I ran the program
That box probably doesn't use anything in the test program, but goes
stright to a command line that is 64-bits.
Do you mean it then displays it just as if you had navigated? I guess
you do. My favorite FM PowerDesk doens't have a path box. It has a
launch bar with 7 popular program like IE, file finder, command,
notepad, wordpad
Xplorer2 does have that and by golly it works.
I guess Andy said this already but I didn't get where he meant until
now.
They should still give that warning, because using the path box is not
at all obvious. The advantage of these FM's is that they show you the subdirectories. I figured the path box was for pasting from somewhere
else.
as administrator (which probably should not be
making a difference to this indirection trick).
[Picture]
https://i.postimg.cc/zDPRbnS4/a-strange-case-of-redirection.gif
Paul
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 06:53:29 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Files: | 12,213 |
| Messages: | 5,336,105 |
