There is no dos in NT/2000/XP/Vista. See what I mean? You haven't had a "real" picture in a very long time. Give a person a fish, they eat for a day. Suggest they internet search and they learn a skill for a lifetime.

0

wanderer Well OK, I take your general point and certainly stick to Windows Explorer most of the time (even on W98SE where DOS is available). It's no joke fiddling with those truncated names when you don't need to. Just the same there maybe things you can do at times from File Manager that you can't do from WE. I'm not sure about NT etc but in W98SE you see the correct files in places like "Temporary Internet Files" & "Downloaded Program Files" rather than the user friendly (incorrect) stuff that WE displays. DerekW

0

98 had/has no security. What you see in ntldr based OS's is a different file structure due to security. If you learned about the new ways they would not appear "incorrect" to you. Everything is there and more. Best of luck. Knowing the correct answer and giving a correct answer, are two different things

0

wanderer Very happy to accept all you say re ntdlr but with W9x what you see in WE is most definitely incorrect in specific places. DerekW

0

What do you guys mean about WE displaying incorrectly? [I haven't used winfile for a long time.] ===================================== If at first you don't succeed, you're about average. M2

0

Possibly a red herring, I'm not even sure if that's what the vanished poster meant and for all I know it may not even exist in NT4. It was still there in all the 9x versions and very useful for finding where hidden files were in DOS, especially those that WE tucked away from sight. DerekW

0

"WE tucked away from sight." Only if you leave " hide protected system files" at default [no view] or "don't show hidden files and folders at default. This is under Tools and Folder options Enable both and you will see EVERYTHING Again it comes back to having to learn the new interfaces vs staying with the old because they are comfortable. Give a person a fish, they eat for a day. Suggest they internet search and they learn a skill for a lifetime.

0

wanderer Geez, does anybody still let MS hide those files then LOL? As I said, this was assuming that the poster meant that old File Manager (winfile) - assuming it even appears on NT. I'm very happy to accept that the poster meant something else more particular to NT. I did make that clear in #3. If you can get your hands on a W9x machine then go to: c:\windows\temporary internet files or c:\windows\downloaded program files Look at what it shows in Windows Explorer. Compare this to what it shows if you type winfile in the Run box. If you want to find any of those hidden files in DOS (again I'm talking 9x) then File Manger is useful because unless you know the name of a hidden/system file you can't find it in DOS. What WE shows in these instances is not the true situation (nice though it all is) because 9x runs on DOS. DerekW

0

I'll gladly step in to defend anyone's choice of using File Manager for certain tasks, especially the version of WinFile from NT 4.0, which has full support for long file names and security permissions.... Just to expand upon Derek's comment, this behavior regarding "superhidden" files exists in all versions of Microsoft Windows from 95 upwards and in all versions of Windows NT since 4.0 (including 2000 and XP.) It is the desktop.ini file that dictates the behavior of these "weird" folders, which "fools" Windows Explorer into not displaying specific files or folders. The Recycle Bin (often physically located in C:\Recycled or C:\Recycler) is yet another example of a directory that displays this peculiar behavior, even due to the existence of desktop.ini files in its subdirectories in some cases! File Manager and the Command Prompt (with the /a switch) are not "fooled" by such ini files, which is one of the very reasons I never like to mess with a Windows 2000 or XP box without having File Manager from Windows NT handy. It's too bad they removed it in 2000. I suspect the original poster uses winfile for similar reasons.... Or perhaps the OP uses it to display file sizes in bytes instead of kB in the All File Details view. Or perhaps it's because winfile can remember all your settings the way you want it every time. Or perhaps it's the way that some tasks are far simpler to perform in winfile. Ever try removing a file association in Windows Explorer without removing the registered file type altogether? It's a piece of cake in winfile :) It's not just about interfaces; it's about functionality, and WinFile is still superior to Windows Explorer for certain tasks.

0

Yep, I think Windows Explorer is the best option for the everyday home user but if you want to go further than that at times, winfile can be darned useful. I've often got shot of file associations with it too. Its mains snag is that diddy Associate box which can leave long paths only partially readable. I've never found a way to increase its size (although I've never Googled for that either, so someone might have sorted it). DerekW

0

Hi Glitchman: “File Manager and the Command Prompt (with the /a switch) are not "fooled" by such ini files, which is one of the very reasons I never like to mess with a Windows 2000 or XP box without having File Manager from Windows NT handy. It's too bad they removed it in 2000.” If you would do a search of “WINNT” on Windows NT4.0, you would file four files for the File Manager program (winfile.exe, winfile.ini, etc). Copy these four files to same location on Windows 2000 and you now have the File Manager working in Windows 2000. Have not tried it with Windows XP. With view, “All File Details,” it will let you turn on or off “MS-DOS filename.” The 8, 3 deal. Very useful if you are using a program that cannot read long file names. Also, if everyone is in the sharing mood, you can log on or off on another hard drive (connect network drives), folders, files on another computer. The thing you have to be careful about is deleting files. Delete and they are gone. What you delete will not go to the recycle bin. CoffeeBreak

0

I almost forgot about the displaying of 8.3 aliases. It is yet another reason why File Manager is so useful. BTW, I do typically copy the winfile.* files from NT to 2000 and XP, but don't forget glossary.hlp too!

0

Hi Glitchman et al, Will the WINFILE from NT3.51 work OK? [in w2k] WINFILE sounds useful. Haven't messed with it since WFW3.11. My usual tool is Buerg's LIST. ===================================== If at first you don't succeed, you're about average. M2

0

Now you made me curious too, and I have been meaning to try this anyway. :) I will attempt to add File Manager from NT 3.51 onto Windows 2000 and XP (and onto NT 4.0 for the heck of it) when I get a chance (probably later today.) I suspect it should work about as well as NT 4's version does in the same environments. I'll post back when I find out. This should be interesting....

0

Just when you thought it couldn't get any weirder... I copied the files from NT351 workstation and the ini failed to expand. So I got a fresh copy and it also failed. So I got the *.??_ files from NT351 server. Are you ready? The ini failed to expand. SHEESH! ===================================== If at first you don't succeed, you're about average. M2

0

Well... I figured maybe I should use EXPAND from 351 server. Now I get: Expanding winfile.in_ to winfile.ini. winfile.in_: 88 bytes expanded to 3 bytes, -97% increase. Not every day you see a -97% increase. LOL ===================================== If at first you don't succeed, you're about average. M2

0

Hi M2: The winfile.ini that came from Windows NT 4.0 is 3 bytes and is dated 8-3-96. This file is located in the WINNT folder. The program must just check to see if you have the file, not what is in it. The other three (File Manager) files that I have are in the WINNT/SYSTEM32 folder. I don’t have any information on NT 3.5l. CoffeeBreak

0

Hi CoffeeBreak, I think you're roght that the ini just needs to be there. It contains 0d0a1a. ===================================== If at first you don't succeed, you're about average. M2

0

Probably of no interest but the winfile.exe that comes with Win 98SE is in c:\windows and is 152KB. It looks to be much the same as the one that was in Win 31. The .ini file for this just keeps your settings. Not sure what would happen if this were introduced into Win 2k or XP but can send it if you want to play. DerekW

0

Hi Derek, Well, it sorta - kinda almost worked. http://www.Golden-Triangle.com/WINF... I have w98se; maybe I should try that WINFILE in 2k. ===================================== If at first you don't succeed, you're about average. M2

0

Now that just doesn't look a bit like it does on W98SE - nice though. DerekW

0

Did a Find Files/Folders in W98SE and the only other files with winfile in the name were in the Help section so I can't help on this. DerekW

0

Hi Derek, The ones from 98se gave me this: http://www.golden-triangle.com/98WF... Not exactly better; but different. Oh well. I think I'll flag this 'not worth the hassle'. Thanks for your help. ===================================== If at first you don't succeed, you're about average. M2

0

Yeah, just a chance that if you pile W98SE files in left right and center it might happen to work but most likely not. Not worth the hassle about sums it up I reckon. DerekW

0

I copied the File Manager from Windows NT 3.51 SP 5 over to 2000 and XP. The file is dated 9/19/1996 with a size of 256,176 bytes. It's actually bigger than the one in NT 4.0! No idea why. The expected: Naturally, no File Manager from any version of NT will work on non-NT Windows (3.x, 9x) but the 3.x/9x versions run on NT (although it's not recommended.) The unexpected: Unfortunately, 2000 and XP pop up the exact same error as in response # 26 when attempting to run NT 3.51's File Manager. However, it does at least launch initially, and I can tell that it grabs the settings from the registry stored by the (previously copied) NT 4 version of winfile. It's also worth noting that the NT 3.51 SP 5 version of winfile works perfectly fine on NT 4.0. The dialog boxes and some widgets look a little bit 3.1-ish, but it's otherwise fully functional. In some ways it looks better, since the child windows maintain their icons in the upper left corner (as opposed to the generic icon in the child windows of NT 4.0's winfile.) Furthermore, the File Manager from NT 3.1 works in NT 4.0, but the toolbar icons are stretched very wide. It also lacks the Security menu, even on NTFS volumes, and the file associations cannot be manipulated, making NT 3.1's version useless. Summary NT 3.1's winfile works on NT 3.1 - 4.0, but with several limitations. NT 3.51's winfile works on NT 3.51 and 4.0 with no problems. NT 4.0's winfile works on NT 4.0 - 5.1 (XP), but I haven't yet tested NT 5.2 (2003) or newer. In a nutshell, stick with NT 4.0's version whenever possible on Windows NT, 2000 or XP, and don't even bother with other versions of winfile.

0

Addendum for the curious: NT 4.0's winfile also works on NT 5.2 (Windows Server 2003) with full functionality.

0

Has anyone tried to use File Manager NT in Windows Vista yet? If so, spill :) Does it work without incident? Are there any extra steps that need to be taken? Have there been any changes in the way Vista organises files that makes the "true" picture provided by winfile seem incongruous? Thanks

0

As the originator of this thread, some time ago now, a belated thank you to Derek for the answer to the original question (displaying hidden files). The follow up has also been both interesting and informative and I can confirm:- 1. Win NT4.0 version of Winfile works very well in either Win 2000 or XP I can also recommend 'FMSTEPUP', a freeware programme with additional functions, such as indication of directory size. See www.winability.com/ . 2. For Win 98 and later 95 version, another freeware programme, 'FMLFNS'reveals and allows management of long file names. See www.wincorner.com . See also 'FMSTEPUP' in 1. These do not seem to have had a mention yet but may be of interest. Regards, Jon Glenny.

0

Hi Winfile (file manager) came with Windows NT 3.x and 4.x. I never got the 3.x to work on 2k, because it depends on some services. Winfile from 4.x works on 5.0, 5.1, 5.2 but not 6.0 (vista). It does not work on 3.x either. Some utilities from 3.x worth copying across are: cardfile.exe (a 32-bit app!), pifedit (the pif files actually work, and can be edited if there is no embedded icon), write and pbrush (the latter is 32bit). Still, i run all of these versions of windows. The dream you dream alone is only a dream, The dream we dream together is reality.

0

(I found this by "Googling" "win ME file manager vs explorer") Having just read the whole thread up to here, I noticed that it's not just me who would rather have the "Winfile" and not the exploder, try this in exploder; 1) press the "\" key; in winfile it takes you to the root of the drive. 2) press the "F8" key; in winfile it gives a dialog from which you can name *.* if you wish to copy the whole [DIR] of files 3) press the "F7" key; in winfile it gives a dialog from which you can name *.* if you wish to move the whole [DIR] of files and with both "F7 & F8" you get to specify the destination (including .. for "up one level" or \ for "root"). 4) open more than one drive per window and "ctrl+shift+tab" or "ctrl+tab" between them; in winfile you can open up as many "Drive windows" as your RAM will allow you to, this is handy while dealing with a huge amount of "Networked Drives" currently my w3.1 machine when hooked to the file server opens 19 drives + A: & B: are also available, but not open unless I put a disk in and open the it. 5) drag and drop to a drive Icon @ the top; in winfile it's much easier than exploder, in exploder you have to drag over to the left and wait for the destination to "scroll into view", oh and make sure "Folders" is open or you can't do it at all and no "F7" or "F8" 6) open exploder and what do you get "My Documents" which could be located anywhere depending on what the Network IT guy set it to; (I never use "My Documents" and you have to "Force" exploder to open in another place, ie. C:\) The only reason I use exploder is because I'm forced to by the OS, all of the work machines have xp or w2k installed. Cheers RfD A computer Geek from of old; and I still use the old stuff it's better.

0

Wow guys. NT4 is only one that works on 2000/XP, because it's the only 32-Bit one. All operating systems prior to NT4 had a 16-Bit file manager, so NT4/2000/XP doesn't know what the heck to do with it.

0

Oh yes, and if you want it to work in Vista. . Have fun: http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~davidsch/...

0

Try File Manager (FM) from NT4 SP6a with "prettier" BitMaPs, ICOns + automated installer [used iexpress.exe from M$]: http://www.mdgx.com/xptoy.htm#FMNT Works with 2000, XP + 2003. Have fun.

0