How come these files are not in EBCDIC order?

These are mailboxes from Forte Agent. They showed up in the wrong order
in Power Desk and when I looked in the win10 native file manager, the
order was the same.

I think this has 3 images where the file names start over, but there are
at least 3 more places further down that I didn't include. I hope the
line where it starts over is highlighted. It shows that it's sorted on
name
https://imgur.com/a/8HaksJZ

The first example was really 2nd.
It goes from 0001BC71.IDX to 00000002.DAT

The 2nd example should be first.
It goes from 0000A7B7.IDX to 00000001.DAT

This is probably a dup. I don't understand imgur.
https://imgur.com/E1lLi7g

On 10/15/2023 7:55 AM, micky wrote:
> How come these files are not in EBCDIC order?
>
> These are mailboxes from Forte Agent. They showed up in the wrong order
> in Power Desk and when I looked in the win10 native file manager, the
> order was the same.
>
> I think this has 3 images where the file names start over, but there are
> at least 3 more places further down that I didn't include. I hope the
> line where it starts over is highlighted. It shows that it's sorted on
> name
> https://imgur.com/a/8HaksJZ
>
> The first example was really 2nd.
> It goes from 0001BC71.IDX to 00000002.DAT
>
> The 2nd example should be first.
> It goes from 0000A7B7.IDX to 00000001.DAT
>
>
> This is probably a dup. I don't understand imgur.
> https://imgur.com/E1lLi7g

At the top row you see "Name", "Date modified". "Type", "Size" above
every column of data.

"Name" is above the first column. Have you tried clicking on the word
that says "Name" with your mouse pointer?

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 08:22:04 -0400, ? Mighty
Wannabe ? <@.> wrote:

>On 10/15/2023 7:55 AM, micky wrote:
>> How come these files are not in EBCDIC order?
>>
>> These are mailboxes from Forte Agent. They showed up in the wrong order
>> in Power Desk and when I looked in the win10 native file manager, the
>> order was the same.
>>
>> I think this has 3 images where the file names start over, but there are
>> at least 3 more places further down that I didn't include. I hope the
>> line where it starts over is highlighted. It shows that it's sorted on
>> name
>> https://imgur.com/a/8HaksJZ
>>
>> The first example was really 2nd.
>> It goes from 0001BC71.IDX to 00000002.DAT
>>
>> The 2nd example should be first.
>> It goes from 0000A7B7.IDX to 00000001.DAT
>>
>>
>> This is probably a dup. I don't understand imgur.
>> https://imgur.com/E1lLi7g
>
>At the top row you see "Name", "Date modified". "Type", "Size" above
>every column of data.
>
>"Name" is above the first column. Have you tried clicking on the word
>that says "Name" with your mouse pointer?

It's probably hard to see the little arrow in the middle of the name
field at the top, but it is there and it is supposed to be sorted on
name. If I sort on another field and then do it by name again, it shows
the same strange order.

There could I suppose be some invisible character or undetectable
difference that affects the sorting, but these are all mailbox files and
their indexes, all created by Forte-Agent newsreader, which was
originally written when 8.3 was the standard format for file names. I've
had Agent for 30 years and its file names have always been simple 8.3,
like 00001234.DAT or .idx. So I don't think there is any invisible
character, or that there is an upper case 0 and a lower case 0, or some
other strange difference I'm not noticing.
>
>

On 10/15/2023 9:17 AM, micky wrote:
> In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 08:22:04 -0400, ? Mighty
> Wannabe ? <@.> wrote:
>
>> On 10/15/2023 7:55 AM, micky wrote:
>>> How come these files are not in EBCDIC order?
>>>
>>> These are mailboxes from Forte Agent. They showed up in the wrong order
>>> in Power Desk and when I looked in the win10 native file manager, the
>>> order was the same.
>>>
>>> I think this has 3 images where the file names start over, but there are
>>> at least 3 more places further down that I didn't include. I hope the
>>> line where it starts over is highlighted. It shows that it's sorted on
>>> name
>>> https://imgur.com/a/8HaksJZ
>>>
>>> The first example was really 2nd.
>>> It goes from 0001BC71.IDX to 00000002.DAT
>>>
>>> The 2nd example should be first.
>>> It goes from 0000A7B7.IDX to 00000001.DAT
>>>
>>>
>>> This is probably a dup. I don't understand imgur.
>>> https://imgur.com/E1lLi7g
>> At the top row you see "Name", "Date modified". "Type", "Size" above
>> every column of data.
>>
>> "Name" is above the first column. Have you tried clicking on the word
>> that says "Name" with your mouse pointer?
> It's probably hard to see the little arrow in the middle of the name
> field at the top, but it is there and it is supposed to be sorted on
> name. If I sort on another field and then do it by name again, it shows
> the same strange order.
>
> There could I suppose be some invisible character or undetectable
> difference that affects the sorting, but these are all mailbox files and
> their indexes, all created by Forte-Agent newsreader, which was
> originally written when 8.3 was the standard format for file names. I've
> had Agent for 30 years and its file names have always been simple 8.3,
> like 00001234.DAT or .idx. So I don't think there is any invisible
> character, or that there is an upper case 0 and a lower case 0, or some
> other strange difference I'm not noticing.

Your Drive E probably is corrupted. You can see that your Drive E is
repeated in the left folder pane.

If you are using Windows, then right-click on the drive in "My Computer"
or "This PC" and choose "Properties", click on "Tools" tab, under "Error
checking" click "Check".

You should always instruct Windows to "eject" your external drive before
you pull the plug.

micky wrote:

> How come these files are not in EBCDIC order?

Howdy, granpaw!

EBCDIC is a real ole character encodin' used on ancient IBM mainframe
computers last millenium. Even th' IBM PC released in 1981 did not use
EBCDIC. Y' muss be a real oldtimer like me, born an' raised befawr th' war.

> These are mailboxes from Forte Agent. They showed up in the wrong order
> in Power Desk and when I looked in the win10 native file manager, the
> order was the same.

Thar ain't no version of Winders what uses EBCDIC. Winders uses ANSI,
Unicode, and OEM/DOS.

When y'ahr as ole as you and me is, it is easy fer us t'have a senior
moment about whether EBCDIC is used.

> I think this has 3 images where the file names start over, but there are
> at least 3 more places further down that I didn't include. I hope the
> line where it starts over is highlighted. It shows that it's sorted on
> name
> https://imgur.com/a/8HaksJZ
>
> The first example was really 2nd.
> It goes from 0001BC71.IDX to 00000002.DAT
>
> The 2nd example should be first.
> It goes from 0000A7B7.IDX to 00000001.DAT

Seems yawr real problem is sortin' file names in numerical vs.
alphabetical order. See this haire link:

<https://www.tenforums.com/tutorials/91417-enable-disable-numerical-sorting-file-explorer-windows-10-a.html>

> This is probably a dup. I don't understand imgur.
> https://imgur.com/E1lLi7g

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 21:52:01 -0400, Second
Hundred Years <noreply@private.invalid> wrote:

>micky wrote:
>
>> How come these files are not in EBCDIC order?
>
>
>Howdy, granpaw!
>
>EBCDIC is a real ole character encodin' used on ancient IBM mainframe
>computers last millenium. Even th' IBM PC released in 1981 did not use
>EBCDIC. Y' muss be a real oldtimer like me, born an' raised befawr th' war.

Well, born in early 1947. I was very pleased that I remembered EBCDIC,
without even trying. So many words I can't remember even when I try
hard.
>
>
>> These are mailboxes from Forte Agent. They showed up in the wrong order
>> in Power Desk and when I looked in the win10 native file manager, the
>> order was the same.
>
>
>Thar ain't no version of Winders what uses EBCDIC. Winders uses ANSI,
>Unicode, and OEM/DOS.

How about that! What won't they think of next.
>
>When y'ahr as ole as you and me is, it is easy fer us t'have a senior
>moment about whether EBCDIC is used.
>
>
>> I think this has 3 images where the file names start over, but there are
>> at least 3 more places further down that I didn't include. I hope the
>> line where it starts over is highlighted. It shows that it's sorted on
>> name
>> https://imgur.com/a/8HaksJZ
>>
>> The first example was really 2nd.
>> It goes from 0001BC71.IDX to 00000002.DAT
>>
>> The 2nd example should be first.
>> It goes from 0000A7B7.IDX to 00000001.DAT
>
>
>Seems yawr real problem is sortin' file names in numerical vs.
>alphabetical order. See this haire link:
>
><https://www.tenforums.com/tutorials/91417-enable-disable-numerical-sorting-file-explorer-windows-10-a.html>

I'm not sure this accounts for it,

>> The first example was really 2nd.
>> It goes from 0001BC71.IDX to 00000002.DAT

This would make sense if it is looking at the right most character of
the first part, 1 to 2.
>> The 2nd example should be first.
>> It goes from 0000A7B7.IDX to 00000001.DAT

But in the same list the right-most character goes from 7 to 1, so that
can't be it.

And in the image I posted, DAT and IDX alternate, as in 1.dat, 1.idx,
2.dat, 2.idx, 3.dat, 3.idx, so dat and idx can't be the reason for the
order. But the numbers increase for a couple pages, then they get
smaller again, at least 6 times.

I'll look at my lists in more
detail tomorrow.

micky wrote:
> How come these files are not in EBCDIC order?
>
> These are mailboxes from Forte Agent. They showed up in the wrong order
> in Power Desk and when I looked in the win10 native file manager, the
> order was the same.
>
> I think this has 3 images where the file names start over, but there are
> at least 3 more places further down that I didn't include. I hope the
> line where it starts over is highlighted. It shows that it's sorted on
> name
> https://imgur.com/a/8HaksJZ
>
> The first example was really 2nd.
> It goes from 0001BC71.IDX to 00000002.DAT
>
> The 2nd example should be first.
> It goes from 0000A7B7.IDX to 00000001.DAT
>
>
> This is probably a dup. I don't understand imgur.
> https://imgur.com/E1lLi7g

They are in correct HEX order.
0-F = 16 digits. (0-9 and then A-F).
(Zero is the first number in HEX.)

On 10/15/2023 9:47 AM, 😎 Mighty Wannabe ✅ wrote:
> On 10/15/2023 9:17 AM, micky wrote:
>> In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 08:22:04 -0400, ? Mighty
>> Wannabe ? <@.> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/15/2023 7:55 AM, micky wrote:
>>>> How come these files are not in EBCDIC order?
>>>>
>>>> These are mailboxes from Forte Agent.  They showed up in the wrong order
>>>> in Power Desk and when I looked in the win10 native file manager, the
>>>> order was the same.
>>>>
>>>> I think this has 3 images where the file names start over, but there are
>>>> at least 3 more places further down that I didn't include.  I hope the
>>>> line where it starts over is highlighted.  It shows that it's sorted on
>>>> name
>>>> https://imgur.com/a/8HaksJZ
>>>>
>>>> The first example was really 2nd.
>>>> It goes from 0001BC71.IDX to 00000002.DAT
>>>>
>>>> The 2nd example should be first.
>>>> It goes from 0000A7B7.IDX to 00000001.DAT
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is probably a dup. I don't understand imgur.
>>>> https://imgur.com/E1lLi7g
>>> At the top row you see "Name", "Date modified". "Type", "Size" above
>>> every column of data.
>>>
>>> "Name" is above the first column. Have you tried clicking on the word
>>> that says "Name" with your mouse pointer?
>> It's probably hard to see the little arrow in the middle of the name
>> field at the top, but it is there and it is supposed to be sorted on
>> name.  If I sort on another field and then do it by name again, it shows
>> the same strange order.
>>
>> There could I suppose be some invisible character or undetectable
>> difference that affects the sorting, but these are all mailbox files and
>> their indexes, all created by Forte-Agent newsreader, which was
>> originally written when 8.3 was the standard format for file names. I've
>> had Agent for 30 years and its file names have always been simple 8.3,
>> like 00001234.DAT or .idx.  So I don't think there is any invisible
>> character, or that there is an upper case 0 and a lower case 0, or some
>> other strange difference I'm not noticing.
>
>
> Your Drive E probably is corrupted. You can see that your Drive E is repeated in the left folder pane.
>
> If you are using Windows, then right-click on the drive in "My Computer" or "This PC" and choose "Properties", click on "Tools" tab, under "Error checking" click "Check".
>
> You should always instruct Windows to "eject" your external drive before you pull the plug.
>
>
>
>

DelegateFolders

https://www.majorgeeks.com/content/page/how_to_stop_file_explorer_from_showing_external_drives_twice.html

The two GUID values in the picture are suspicious, but
the value does not appear to be special.

https://www.kapilarya.com/faq-why-does-windows-10-show-duplicate-drives

"The responsible registry entry for this is located as
{F5FB2C77-0E2F-4A16-A381-3E560C68BC83} under DelegateFolders
registry key. If you remove this registry entry, this problem
of duplicate drive entry will be solved on the go.
"

See, looking these things up, is worthwhile...

https://superuser.com/questions/238825/sort-files-by-date-modified-but-folders-always-before-files-in-windows-explorer

"First, put the directory into "Details" view mode so you have column headings.

If you click on the "Date Modified" heading, which will sort by Date Modified (descending),
and then Shift+click on "Name", it should remain sorted by Date Modified (descending),
but with the folders at the top.
"

So what we learn there, is File Explorer does seem to have
secondary selector capability. So that two columns can play
a part (somehow).

OK, so is there a way to "Sort on None", versus the more-common
scenario in Google of "Group on None" ? I'm having trouble
finding a reference to that. It could be the file list is in
"Sort on None" mode.

One thing a person could try, is find a folder where the view isn't
screwed up, then "Apply to All" in the Folder Options panel. And
that may help knock some sense into E: .

*******

The drive E: isn't corrupted.

But between Registry ShellBags and friends,
lots of things are possible to alter the display mode.

The trick is feeding Google sufficient keywords to find it.

For one thing, Windows now works in the background, to remove
latent faults in the file system. This is why that dialog appears
saying "it doesn't appear there is a problem with your file system
but you can scan anyway". In the era of Windows XP, no such thing
existed, and only a CHKDSK did maintenance. (And, CHKDSK could
be triggered by the Dirty Bit, and Linux would set the Dirty Bit
to ensure that CHKDSK would clean house. We now know where the Dirty Bit
is, whereas at the time, nobody knew where that was. Checking the disk
could get into a loop, because the Dirty Bit was not being cleared.)
It's hardly the same system now, in terms of those details. When was
the last time you even had visual evidence the OS was checking a partition ?
It only happens on boot recovery (switch off the power three times).

Paul

On 10/15/2023 11:28 PM, Paul wrote:
> For one thing, Windows now works in the background, to remove
> latent faults in the file system. This is why that dialog appears
> saying "it doesn't appear there is a problem with your file system
> but you can scan anyway". In the era of Windows XP, no such thing

I have actually come across external drives that were corrupted but
Windows did not report problem until I checked the drive for error.

micky wrote:
> In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 21:52:01 -0400, Second
> Hundred Years <noreply@private.invalid> wrote:
>> micky wrote:
>>
>>> How come these files are not in EBCDIC order?
>>
>>
>> Howdy, granpaw!
>>
>> EBCDIC is a real ole character encodin' used on ancient IBM mainframe
>> computers last millenium. Even th' IBM PC released in 1981 did not use
>> EBCDIC. Y' muss be a real oldtimer like me, born an' raised befawr th' war.
>
> Well, born in early 1947. I was very pleased that I remembered EBCDIC,
> without even trying. So many words I can't remember even when I try
> hard.
>>
>>
>>> These are mailboxes from Forte Agent. They showed up in the wrong order
>>> in Power Desk and when I looked in the win10 native file manager, the
>>> order was the same.
>>
>>
>> Thar ain't no version of Winders what uses EBCDIC. Winders uses ANSI,
>> Unicode, and OEM/DOS.
>
> How about that! What won't they think of next.
>>
>> When y'ahr as ole as you and me is, it is easy fer us t'have a senior
>> moment about whether EBCDIC is used.
>>
>>
>>> I think this has 3 images where the file names start over, but there are
>>> at least 3 more places further down that I didn't include. I hope the
>>> line where it starts over is highlighted. It shows that it's sorted on
>>> name
>>> https://imgur.com/a/8HaksJZ
>>>
>>> The first example was really 2nd.
>>> It goes from 0001BC71.IDX to 00000002.DAT
>>>
>>> The 2nd example should be first.
>>> It goes from 0000A7B7.IDX to 00000001.DAT
>>
>>
>> Seems yawr real problem is sortin' file names in numerical vs.
>> alphabetical order. See this haire link:
>>
>> <https://www.tenforums.com/tutorials/91417-enable-disable-numerical-sorting-file-explorer-windows-10-a.html>
>
> I'm not sure this accounts for it,
>
>>> The first example was really 2nd.
>>> It goes from 0001BC71.IDX to 00000002.DAT
>
> This would make sense if it is looking at the right most character of
> the first part, 1 to 2.

When comparin' numerically...

Thuh fuhrst file begins with a number 0001.
Thuh sec'nd file begins with a number 00000002.

Because 0001 has a smaller numerical value than 00000002, thuh file
beginnin' 0001 sorts befawr thuh file beginnin' 00000002. Numerical
sortin' compares thuh entire numbers, not jus' single digit characters.

Ah graduated from thuh county school with all 3 R's (Readin', 'Ritin'
*and* 'Rithmetic) so ahm confident this is according-ta hoyle.

>>> The 2nd example should be first.
>>> It goes from 0000A7B7.IDX to 00000001.DAT

When comparin' numerically...

Thuh fuhrst file begins with a number 0000.
Thuh sec'nd file begins with a number 00000001.

Because 0000 has a smaller numerical value than 00000001, thuh file
beginnin' 0000 sorts befawr thuh file beginnin' 00000001.

> But in the same list the right-most character goes from 7 to 1, so that
> can't be it.
>
> And in the image I posted, DAT and IDX alternate, as in 1.dat, 1.idx,
> 2.dat, 2.idx, 3.dat, 3.idx, so dat and idx can't be the reason for the
> order. But the numbers increase for a couple pages, then they get
> smaller again, at least 6 times.
>
> I'll look at my lists in more
> detail tomorrow.

micky,

> These are mailboxes from Forte Agent. They showed up in the wrong
> order in Power Desk and when I looked in the win10 native file manager,
> the order was the same.

I cannot take a lok at the imgur images, as that website demands JS to be
enabled, which my browser doesn't (including just a few lines of what you
have a problem with into a post would probably do as well ...).

But looking at the responses you got you seem to be looking at a sorting
where numbers inside a filename are regarded as a value, and not a series of
numeric characters.

Putting it differently : numbers inside a filename are compared as if they
occupy a single character.

I'm not on a Win 10 machine, but perhaps this will give you a lead to how to
disable that behaviour :

http://www.ghacks.net/2007/11/09/change-the-windows-xp-file-sort-order

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 10/16/2023 4:11 PM, R.Wieser wrote:
> micky,
>
>> These are mailboxes from Forte Agent. They showed up in the wrong
>> order in Power Desk and when I looked in the win10 native file manager,
>> the order was the same.
>
> I cannot take a lok at the imgur images, as that website demands JS to be
> enabled, which my browser doesn't (including just a few lines of what you
> have a problem with into a post would probably do as well ...).
>
> But looking at the responses you got you seem to be looking at a sorting
> where numbers inside a filename are regarded as a value, and not a series of
> numeric characters.
>
> Putting it differently : numbers inside a filename are compared as if they
> occupy a single character.
>
> I'm not on a Win 10 machine, but perhaps this will give you a lead to how to
> disable that behaviour :
>
> http://www.ghacks.net/2007/11/09/change-the-windows-xp-file-sort-order
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser

I think it would be fun to see how the "dir" command
in Command Prompt displays them.

Paul

Paul,

> I think it would be fun to see how the "dir" command
> in Command Prompt displays them.

It looks like only "file explorer" is affected. Both cmd.exe and
command.com show, when using "dir /one", the basic string-based sorting
order, no matter what "NoStrCmpLogical" has been set to.

(I enabled "NoStrCmpLogical" myself too long ago to remember, so I did some
testing to make sure just now)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 17 Oct 2023 09:27:59 +0200,
"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:

>Paul,
>
>> I think it would be fun to see how the "dir" command
>> in Command Prompt displays them.

I was about to do this until Rudy posted again.
>
>It looks like only "file explorer" is affected. Both cmd.exe and
>command.com show, when using "dir /one", the basic string-based sorting
>order, no matter what "NoStrCmpLogical" has been set to.
>
>(I enabled "NoStrCmpLogical" myself too long ago to remember, so I did some
>testing to make sure just now)

I think you may have explained it, and the link in your previous post
was clear. Thanks. But it's the start of the computer day for me and I
have to review my email and do several other non-computer chores before
I can compare the link to what I have. I'll try to do that and get back
to you all later today.

>Regards,
>Rudy Wieser
>

Micky,

> I think you may have explained it, and the link in your previous
> post was clear. Thanks.

You're welcome.

Just a reminder though : the link I posted is for Windows XP. I've got no
idea if a similar setting still exists in Win10, or what its supposed to be
or where it needs to put ...

> But it's the start of the computer day for me and I have to review my
> email and do several other non-computer chores before I can compare
> the link to what I have. I'll try to do that and get back to you all
> later today.

No worries, all in your own time.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 17 Oct 2023 19:15:48 +0200,
"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:

>Micky,
>
>> I think you may have explained it, and the link in your previous
>> post was clear. Thanks.
>
>You're welcome.
>
>Just a reminder though : the link I posted is for Windows XP. I've got no
>idea if a similar setting still exists in Win10, or what its supposed to be
>or where it needs to put ...

I'm not nearly as concerned about it displaying the way I thought it
should as I am about why it's displaying the way it is. If I get that
straight, I won't care about which way it actually is.

Most directories I have won't really show this anyhow because the names
are mostly letters. Only agent has so many files with enough number to
notice this. It has been almost 40 years with home computers and I
didn't notice it until a week ago!

>> But it's the start of the computer day for me and I have to review my
>> email and do several other non-computer chores before I can compare
>> the link to what I have. I'll try to do that and get back to you all
>> later today.
>
>No worries, all in your own time.
>
>Regards,
>Rudy Wieser
>

micky,

> I'm not nearly as concerned about it displaying the way I thought
> it should as I am about why it's displaying the way it is. If I
> get that straight, I won't care about which way it actually is.

Same here.

Though it got a problem for me when there was a difference between File
explorer and the command line, tripping me up (I still remember getting
confused by not finding a file I was sure was there). Which is likely why I
enabled the NoStrCmpLogical setting. Just to have them behave the same.

.... even if its not using old-style ASCII sorting. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Wed, 18 Oct 2023 08:31:10 +0200,
"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:

>micky,
>
>> I'm not nearly as concerned about it displaying the way I thought
>> it should as I am about why it's displaying the way it is. If I
>> get that straight, I won't care about which way it actually is.
>
>Same here.
>
>Though it got a problem for me when there was a difference between File
>explorer and the command line, tripping me up (I still remember getting
>confused by not finding a file I was sure was there). Which is likely why I
>enabled the NoStrCmpLogical setting. Just to have them behave the same.
>
>... even if its not using old-style ASCII sorting. :-)

I'm still looking for a setting that will make it in EBCDIC order.

>Regards,
>Rudy Wieser
>

I'm worn out. I'll just have to continue without understanding for a
while longer.

Thanks and thanks all.

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 16 Oct 2023 15:07:53 -0400, Second
Hundred Years <noreply@private.invalid> wrote:

>micky wrote:
>> In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Sun, 15 Oct 2023 21:52:01 -0400, Second
>> Hundred Years <noreply@private.invalid> wrote:
>>> micky wrote:
>>>
>>>> How come these files are not in EBCDIC order?
>>>
>>>
>>> Howdy, granpaw!
>>>
>>> EBCDIC is a real ole character encodin' used on ancient IBM mainframe
>>> computers last millenium. Even th' IBM PC released in 1981 did not use
>>> EBCDIC. Y' muss be a real oldtimer like me, born an' raised befawr th' war.
>>
>> Well, born in early 1947. I was very pleased that I remembered EBCDIC,
>> without even trying. So many words I can't remember even when I try
>> hard.
>>>
>>>
>>>> These are mailboxes from Forte Agent. They showed up in the wrong order
>>>> in Power Desk and when I looked in the win10 native file manager, the
>>>> order was the same.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thar ain't no version of Winders what uses EBCDIC. Winders uses ANSI,
>>> Unicode, and OEM/DOS.
>>
>> How about that! What won't they think of next.
>>>
>>> When y'ahr as ole as you and me is, it is easy fer us t'have a senior
>>> moment about whether EBCDIC is used.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think this has 3 images where the file names start over, but there are
>>>> at least 3 more places further down that I didn't include. I hope the
>>>> line where it starts over is highlighted. It shows that it's sorted on
>>>> name
>>>> https://imgur.com/a/8HaksJZ
>>>>
>>>> The first example was really 2nd.
>>>> It goes from 0001BC71.IDX to 00000002.DAT
>>>>
>>>> The 2nd example should be first.
>>>> It goes from 0000A7B7.IDX to 00000001.DAT
>>>
>>>
>>> Seems yawr real problem is sortin' file names in numerical vs.
>>> alphabetical order. See this haire link:
>>>
>>> <https://www.tenforums.com/tutorials/91417-enable-disable-numerical-sorting-file-explorer-windows-10-a.html>
>>
>> I'm not sure this accounts for it,
>>
>>>> The first example was really 2nd.
>>>> It goes from 0001BC71.IDX to 00000002.DAT
>>
>> This would make sense if it is looking at the right most character of
>> the first part, 1 to 2.
>
>
>When comparin' numerically...
>
>Thuh fuhrst file begins with a number 0001.
>Thuh sec'nd file begins with a number 00000002.
>
>Because 0001 has a smaller numerical value than 00000002, thuh file
>beginnin' 0001 sorts befawr thuh file beginnin' 00000002. Numerical
>sortin' compares thuh entire numbers, not jus' single digit characters.
>
>Ah graduated from thuh county school with all 3 R's (Readin', 'Ritin'
>*and* 'Rithmetic) so ahm confident this is according-ta hoyle.
>
>
>>>> The 2nd example should be first.
>>>> It goes from 0000A7B7.IDX to 00000001.DAT
>
>
>When comparin' numerically...
>
>Thuh fuhrst file begins with a number 0000.
>Thuh sec'nd file begins with a number 00000001.
>
>Because 0000 has a smaller numerical value than 00000001, thuh file
>beginnin' 0000 sorts befawr thuh file beginnin' 00000001.
>
>
>> But in the same list the right-most character goes from 7 to 1, so that
>> can't be it.
>>
>> And in the image I posted, DAT and IDX alternate, as in 1.dat, 1.idx,
>> 2.dat, 2.idx, 3.dat, 3.idx, so dat and idx can't be the reason for the
>> order. But the numbers increase for a couple pages, then they get
>> smaller again, at least 6 times.
>>
>> I'll look at my lists in more
>> detail tomorrow.
>
>
>
>
>

On 18/10/2023 18:21, micky wrote:
> I'm still looking for a setting that will make it in EBCDIC order.

Why on earth?

--
Brian Gregory (in England).