Yet another person with a "long file names" dilemma.

.. --------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------
(Reduced to living off the trash?)
( "... my thanks to Tim ..." )


John Corliss wrote:
mark24951 wrote:

New Burnatonce does not require ASPI to burn. look at it again

Thanks, but that's only in Win2K/XP. I'm running ME.

--------------------------------------
Mike Richter is a LIAR (aspi/winme)(ii)
--------------------------------------

================================================== ======
From: smh
Subject: Feurio Aspi problem
Date: 7/4/02

Mike Richter (Lying Scum) wrote:

I'm running:
Windows ME and Feurios 1.65

and when ever I star Feurio I get this error message:
Error at program start: Could not load ASPI-driver!

A component of 4.60 will not install over one of 4.71. Deletion will be
necessary to downgrade or 4.71 may be installed over the remnants of
4.60.

Note that some devices will have older ASPI components (often modified)
with dates later than those of the version you want to install. In that
case, all old versions will need to be removed for a clean install even
of 4.60.

The above applies to the Adaptec ASPI layer; I've not used any of the
alternatives which may install "older" files over newer ones.

ASPI on Win ME, Mikey ???!!!

==========================================
ASPI Kills Win ME - Adrian Miller (cRoxio)
==========================================

======================
From: Adrian Miller (cRoxio)
Subject: The Adaptec ASPI layer on Windows 2000 and Me
Date: 7/4/01

I have plenty of evidence to prove that
installing the Adaptec ASPI into Me can wind up killing the OS ...

=====================
From: Mike Richter (Lying Scum)
Subject: ASPI, W2K, and the truth
Date: 8/2/01

.... but he [Adrian Miller] does provide reliable information
when he has it in my experience.

( I have seen some of the reports Adrian has of disaster in WinMe
and would not trust it in that OS - if I trusted the OS at all. )
=====================

Whatever happened to the reports of disaster in Win ME, Mikey? Did El
Nino wash them all away, Mikey?

----------------------------
Mikey, you are a Lying Scum!
----------------------------

There never was an "LFN extension" to ISO 9660.
Joliet, Rock Ridge, etc. all do their thing by either using ISO 9660 in a
non-standard manner or by using the implementation dependent fields in a way
that others often, but are not required to, process the same way..

ISO 9660 has not changed.
Buy a copy to see this for yourself.

--
http://www.standards.com/; Howard Kaikow's web site.
------------------------------------------------
"smh" wrote in message
...
Howard Kaikow wrote:

ISO 9660 has not been revised since 1988.

I am not disputing that. But Mikey does:

" the LFN extension to ISO 9660 "

There is nothing within ISO 9660 that prevents certain longer file
names,
however, the resulting media is non-standard.
However, compliance with ISO 9660 does not preclude a standard
conforming
reading implementation to read non-standard ISO 9660 media and there are
implementation fields within ISO 9660 that can be used for "whatever".

But ISO 9660 itself has not been changed.

ISO messed up the initial publication in April 1988 so badly, that I was
able to get ISO to republish with some corrections in September 1988.

There have not been any changes to ISO 9660.
That's why ISO/IEC 13346, the basis of UDF, and ISO/IEC 13490, the basis
for
packet writing and multisession, were developed.
See http://www.standards.com/index.html#Standards.


"smh" wrote...
Howard Kaikow wrote:

I'd be wary of any program that had a mode called "iso9660:1999".
ISO 9660 has not been modified since its publication in September
1988
(ignore the April 1988 edition).

There must have been one:

=====================
From: Mike Richter (King Troll)
Subject: Long filenames without Joliet?
Date: 6/14/03

Paul M wrote:

If you examine a Microsoft Windows XP or 2000 CD using
Nero InfoTool (or even IsoBuster), you will notice that
it lists only ISO9660 under File System. Since the XP
or 2000 CD contains some files with long filenames, how
was Microsoft able to create a CD with long filenames
using only the ISO9660 file system?

By using the LFN extension to ISO 9660. Strict ISO 9660 is the most
widely compatible format, but the extension relaxes both character set
and length.
=====================

.. --------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------

Howard Kaikow wrote:

There never was an "LFN extension" to ISO 9660.

You (and I) know that. But:

" Mike, thanks a lot for the reply. "


Joliet, Rock Ridge, etc. all do their thing by either using ISO 9660 in a
non-standard manner or by using the implementation dependent fields in a way
that others often, but are not required to, process the same way..

ISO 9660 has not changed.
Buy a copy to see this for yourself.

------------------------------------------------
"smh" wrote...
Howard Kaikow wrote:

ISO 9660 has not been revised since 1988.

I am not disputing that. But Mikey does:

" the LFN extension to ISO 9660 "


------------------------------------------------
"smh" wrote...
Howard Kaikow wrote:

I'd be wary of any program that had a mode called "iso9660:1999".
ISO 9660 has not been modified since its publication in September
1988 (ignore the April 1988 edition).

There must have been one:

=====================
From: Mike Richter (King Troll)
Subject: Long filenames without Joliet?
Date: 6/14/03

Paul M wrote:

If you examine a Microsoft Windows XP or 2000 CD using
Nero InfoTool (or even IsoBuster), you will notice that
it lists only ISO9660 under File System. Since the XP
or 2000 CD contains some files with long filenames, how
was Microsoft able to create a CD with long filenames
using only the ISO9660 file system?

By using the LFN extension to ISO 9660. Strict ISO 9660 is the most
widely compatible format, but the extension relaxes both character set
and length.
=====================

There has ALWAYS been much misinformation about the ISO file structure
standards, in particular ISO 9660.
Numerous articles have been published where it is clear that the author had
never even seen ISO 9660 standard or the High Sierra paper.

For example, a number of years ago, I saw an oft quoted article about ISO
9660 in a well known magazine, written by a well known, and well
intentioned, personage.

The article was full of misinformation,ion yet it was included in lots of
bibliographies and CD-ROM FAQs.

I, and separately another person, wrote to the author and the magazine. I
also called, and had useful (and friendly) discussions with the author. He
admitted that he had never read ISO 9660 or the High Sierra paper.

I was told that the author was doing a follow up, which I naively ASSuMEd
would have accompanying corrections to the earlier article.
All they did was include a sidebar thanking me and the other person for
submitting comments, but in no way informed readers of the drastic errors in
the first article.

Oh yes, the magazine did request that I review the 2nd article prior to
publication.
They offered $50, so, without laughing out loud, I said ferget it!

--
http://www.standards.com/; Howard Kaikow's web site.
------------------------------------------------
"smh" wrote in message
...
. --------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------

Howard Kaikow wrote:

There never was an "LFN extension" to ISO 9660.

You (and I) know that. But:

" Mike, thanks a lot for the reply. "


Joliet, Rock Ridge, etc. all do their thing by either using ISO 9660 in
a
non-standard manner or by using the implementation dependent fields in a
way
that others often, but are not required to, process the same way..

ISO 9660 has not changed.
Buy a copy to see this for yourself.

------------------------------------------------
"smh" wrote...
Howard Kaikow wrote:

ISO 9660 has not been revised since 1988.

I am not disputing that. But Mikey does:

" the LFN extension to ISO 9660 "


------------------------------------------------
"smh" wrote...
Howard Kaikow wrote:

I'd be wary of any program that had a mode called
"iso9660:1999".
ISO 9660 has not been modified since its publication in
September
1988 (ignore the April 1988 edition).

There must have been one:

=====================
From: Mike Richter (King Troll)
Subject: Long filenames without Joliet?
Date: 6/14/03

Paul M wrote:

If you examine a Microsoft Windows XP or 2000 CD using
Nero InfoTool (or even IsoBuster), you will notice that
it lists only ISO9660 under File System. Since the XP
or 2000 CD contains some files with long filenames, how
was Microsoft able to create a CD with long filenames
using only the ISO9660 file system?

By using the LFN extension to ISO 9660. Strict ISO 9660 is the
most
widely compatible format, but the extension relaxes both character
set
and length.
=====================

"John Corliss" wrote in message
...
Howard Kaikow wrote:
UDF can be created so that it is readable on ISO 9660 compliant systems,
but
the point was of wanting longer file names.

Right. I don't think that anybody in the family is going to object to
installing the Roxio UDF Reader. Not sure if it will still try to
install if Nero is on a system, but my instructions in the letter I
composed to go along with the CDs say not to bother installing the
Roxio UDF Reader if Nero is installed.
As a side note, when I installed Nero a to give it a try a short
time back, installation of their UDF reader kept causing my computer
to not want to boot (this was with absolutely NO Roxio software on the
system, since I'd done a reformat and reinstallation from scratch
without installing Roxio.) In the end, I uninstalled that module in
Safe Mode, installed the Roxio UDF reader and it worked with Nero
perfectly.


There is much confusion on this, but there shouldn't be.

You can install as many UDF READERS on a machine as needed. There is no
conflict. I have systems with as many as three "different" readers.
Actually, the readers aren't really different. Sometimes, however, a UDF
disk writtten by one UDF application will insist that its own reader be
present.

Also, straight UDF WRITERS can peacefully coexist. For example, Roxio Easy
CD UDF writer - which should not be confused with the Direct CD packet
writing application - can be (and is) sharing machines with other CD
burinig programs.

Problems arise when you try to install more than one PACKET WRITING
application on a single machine. That is almost always a no-no. Because
packet writing has to make changes to the OS.

There's a lot of misinformation around about this topic. UDF is a file
system. It is independent of packet writing. It so happens that packet
writing USES UDF as its file systems. But a lot of other things also use
UDF as their file system and they have nothing to do with packet writing.

"John Corliss" wrote in message
...
John Corliss wrote:
Poly wrote:
(clipped)
If you use Roxio EasyCD, you can burn CD-Rs with UDF - no problem - do
it
all the time.

Poly,
You're correct. Found it in:

File/CD Project Properties/File System:/UDF.

Never would have found it without your pointing out the possibility.
I hope it allows long enough file names when done in that module though.
I'll sacrifice a CDR to find out. Thanks for the tip.

Poly,
I just succeeded in creating a copy of the first disc on a blank
CDRW using EasyCD Creator in UDF. However, when I try to read the disc
in Explorer, I get the following error message:

"(folder name) is not accessible.
An attempt was made to load a program with an incorrect format.
[OK]"

Where "folder name" is the name of the folder I'm trying to open. Back
to the drawing board.

John, I thought we were talking about burning CD-Rs. I know that the
method I gave you works to create a standard UDF CD-R because we do it all
the time.

If you want to burn a CD-RW that way, I can't help you. As a matter of
routine, except for special circumstances, we format all of our CD-RWs for
packet writing. I don't know how or even if that method will work for
CD-RWs.

We have also from time-to-time formatted CD-Rs for variable-length packet
writing with UDF. It seems to work OK but it isn't something we do
routinely. I will have to look into it more.

Poly

Poly wrote:
(clipped)
John, I thought we were talking about burning CD-Rs. I know that the
method I gave you works to create a standard UDF CD-R because we do it all
the time.
If you want to burn a CD-RW that way, I can't help you. As a matter of
routine, except for special circumstances, we format all of our CD-RWs for
packet writing. I don't know how or even if that method will work for
CD-RWs.
We have also from time-to-time formatted CD-Rs for variable-length packet
writing with UDF. It seems to work OK but it isn't something we do
routinely. I will have to look into it more.

Poly,
Guess I was being a cheapskate. I didn't want to waste a blank CDR
at the time. I tried a CDR eventually but it didn't work.
In another post, I mentioned how I successfully compressed the
archive into four large self-extracting executables and was able to
put each of the SEs onto a disc. That way works perfectly and
preserves both the long file names as well as the folder structure.
Thanks anyway.

--
Regards from John Corliss
alt.comp.freeware F.A.Q.:
http://www.ccountry.net/~jcorliss/F.A.Q./FrameSet1.html

.. --------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------
( Reduced to living off the trash? )
( ... my thanks to Tim ... )

Howard Kaikow wrote:

There has ALWAYS been much misinformation about the ISO file structure
standards, in particular ISO 9660.

That may be the case in general, but Mikey Richter's "LFN extension to
ISO 9660" is more than a mere misinformation. Mikey spewed the
cockamamie to strut ITSELF as the authority in all CD matters. The lie
happened to be on ISO 9660.

At least you were not called a liar or troll when you pointed out the
misinformation. Mikey said these when ITS unadulterated, unmitigated,
white LIES and FRAUDS are exposed:

=====================
From: Mike Richter (Lying Scum)
Date: 11/20/02

Since I don't read it, I only know that it believes that
by telling a lie often enough, somebody will be taken in.

[ Mikey knows a lie without reading! ]

=====================
From: Mike Richter
Subject: Mike Richter is a LIAR (directcd/eject)(8a)
Date: 6/17/03

GMAN wrote:
Use my name without my permission one more time SMH,
and I will go after you in court.

It's easier to go after it with its ISP. That also appears to be
effective, if not in stopping its lying ...
=====================

==========================
From: The Butcher
Subject: Enhanced CD
Date: 6/28/01

Mike Richter (King Troll) wrote:

Despite his efforts, The Butcher will never make it to full trolldom -
he is in thrall to the troll, but a mere trollop. His failing is that
he feels compelled to tell at least part of the truth. In this case, he
admits that it is a "historical post".

What a pompous jerk that Sphincter. First he announces that he knows
"the definition" of mixed mode, and when his stupidity is exposed, he
starts accusing others of being trolls ...
==========================


Numerous articles have been published where it is clear that the author had
never even seen ISO 9660 standard or the High Sierra paper.

For example, a number of years ago, I saw an oft quoted article about ISO
9660 in a well known magazine, written by a well known, and well
intentioned, personage.

The article was full of misinformation,ion yet it was included in lots of
bibliographies and CD-ROM FAQs.

Could you give a hint like the author's and the mag's initials (so that
I would be alert when I run into the article)?


I, and separately another person, wrote to the author and the magazine. I
also called, and had useful (and friendly) discussions with the author. He
admitted that he had never read ISO 9660 or the High Sierra paper.

I was told that the author was doing a follow up, which I naively ASSuMEd
would have accompanying corrections to the earlier article.
All they did was include a sidebar thanking me and the other person for
submitting comments, but in no way informed readers of the drastic errors in
the first article.

Oh yes, the magazine did request that I review the 2nd article prior to
publication.
They offered $50, so, without laughing out loud, I said ferget it!

--
http://www.standards.com/; Howard Kaikow's web site.


------------------------------------------------
"smh" wrote...
Howard Kaikow wrote:

There never was an "LFN extension" to ISO 9660.

You (and I) know that. But:

" Mike, thanks a lot for the reply. "


------------------------------------------------
"smh" wrote...
Howard Kaikow wrote:

ISO 9660 has not been revised since 1988.

I am not disputing that. But Mikey does:

" the LFN extension to ISO 9660 "

------------------------------------------------
"smh" wrote...
Howard Kaikow wrote:

ISO 9660 has not been modified since its publication in
September 1988 (ignore the April 1988 edition).

There must have been one:

=====================
From: Mike Richter (King Troll)
Subject: Long filenames without Joliet?
Date: 6/14/03

By using the LFN extension to ISO 9660.
=====================

Ignore the Roxio troll Sir... All he deals in is misinformation.

Tim K

"Howard Kaikow" wrote in message
...
There has ALWAYS been much misinformation about the ISO file structure

Usenet Abuse - Continuing Stalking, Harassment and Libel





Additional references to portals that have recently banned this
psychotic for Stalking and Harassment should you require additional
information.









"smh" wrote in message
...
. --------------------------------------
Mike Richter, were you born with
"Scam Artist" emblazoned on your face?
--------------------------------------
( Reduced to living off the trash? )
( ... my thanks to Tim ... )

Howard Kaikow wrote:

There has ALWAYS been much misinformation about the ISO file
structure
standards, in particular ISO 9660.

That may be the case in general, but Mikey Richter's "LFN extension to
ISO 9660" is more than a mere misinformation. Mikey spewed the
cockamamie to strut ITSELF as the authority in all CD matters. The
lie
happened to be on ISO 9660.

At least you were not called a liar or troll when you pointed out the
misinformation. Mikey said these when ITS unadulterated, unmitigated,
white LIES and FRAUDS are exposed:

=====================
From: Mike Richter (Lying Scum)
Date: 11/20/02

Since I don't read it, I only know that it believes that
by telling a lie often enough, somebody will be taken in.

[ Mikey knows a lie without reading! ]

=====================
From: Mike Richter
Subject: Mike Richter is a LIAR (directcd/eject)(8a)
Date: 6/17/03

GMAN wrote:
Use my name without my permission one more time SMH,
and I will go after you in court.

It's easier to go after it with its ISP. That also appears to be
effective, if not in stopping its lying ...
=====================

==========================
From: The Butcher
Subject: Enhanced CD
Date: 6/28/01

Mike Richter (King Troll) wrote:

Despite his efforts, The Butcher will never make it to full
trolldom -
he is in thrall to the troll, but a mere trollop. His failing is
that
he feels compelled to tell at least part of the truth. In this case,
he
admits that it is a "historical post".

What a pompous jerk that Sphincter. First he announces that he knows
"the definition" of mixed mode, and when his stupidity is exposed, he
starts accusing others of being trolls ...
==========================


Numerous articles have been published where it is clear that the
author had
never even seen ISO 9660 standard or the High Sierra paper.

For example, a number of years ago, I saw an oft quoted article
about ISO
9660 in a well known magazine, written by a well known, and well
intentioned, personage.

The article was full of misinformation,ion yet it was included in
lots of
bibliographies and CD-ROM FAQs.

Could you give a hint like the author's and the mag's initials (so
that
I would be alert when I run into the article)?


I, and separately another person, wrote to the author and the
magazine. I
also called, and had useful (and friendly) discussions with the
author. He
admitted that he had never read ISO 9660 or the High Sierra paper.

I was told that the author was doing a follow up, which I naively
ASSuMEd
would have accompanying corrections to the earlier article.
All they did was include a sidebar thanking me and the other person
for
submitting comments, but in no way informed readers of the drastic
errors in
the first article.

Oh yes, the magazine did request that I review the 2nd article prior
to
publication.
They offered $50, so, without laughing out loud, I said ferget it!

--
http://www.standards.com/; Howard Kaikow's web site.


------------------------------------------------
"smh" wrote...
Howard Kaikow wrote:

There never was an "LFN extension" to ISO 9660.

You (and I) know that. But:

" Mike, thanks a lot for the reply. "


------------------------------------------------
"smh" wrote...
Howard Kaikow wrote:

ISO 9660 has not been revised since 1988.

I am not disputing that. But Mikey does:

" the LFN extension to ISO 9660 "

------------------------------------------------
"smh" wrote...
Howard Kaikow wrote:

ISO 9660 has not been modified since its publication in
September 1988 (ignore the April 1988 edition).

There must have been one:

=====================
From: Mike Richter (King Troll)
Subject: Long filenames without Joliet?
Date: 6/14/03

By using the LFN extension to ISO 9660.
=====================