I don't remember if it is like this in OS 9, or windows, and I have no idea if it is like this in windows, but it is annoying. Why ideas why it does this?
If I didn't explain myself well enough it would copy VTS_03_5, then VTS_03_4!
If it doesn't in X, it might just be because the copy algorithm is using a stack type nature so that the last in is the first out. But I'm just speculating and have no real clue
because f-i-v-e comes before f-o-u-r in alphabetical listings?
Why is one first then?
O, E, FI, FO, N, SE, SI, TH, TW
one
eight
five
four
nine
seven
six
three
two
Here are some random tests; tell me if there is a logical pattern:
Original List:
TS_03_01
TS_03_02
TS_03_03
TS_03_04
TS_03_05
TS_03_06
TS_03_07
TS_03_08
TS_03_09
List as copy/pasted from Finder:
TS_03_01
TS_03_08
TS_03_05
TS_03_04
TS_03_09
TS_03_07
TS_03_06
TS_03_03
TS_03_02
List with leading zeros removed from last number:
TS_03_9
TS_03_3
TS_03_1
TS_03_5
TS_03_2
TS_03_7
TS_03_6
TS_03_8
TS_03_4
Above list with 'TS' arbitrarily changed to 'A'
A_03_1
A_03_9
A_03_5
A_03_3
A_03_8
A_03_7
A_03_6
A_03_4
A_03_2
This list only has TS changed to A; I reinserted leading zeroes into the last numbers, yet it is the same as the previous one. Why then is it consistent for this test yet not for when I kept TS and merely removed the zeros?
I move large video files back and forth across our network and with external HD's all the time. When I am copying the VOB files it is annoying when I grab a bunch to copy and it starts the last one first when I want to work with or watch the first one first. I know I could do them manually and start a separate copying session for each one but that is just as annoying. It isn't really a big problem, but I think it's curious as to why it does that.
PS - Thanks to whoever (brad?) for fixing my thread title.
For the record, I'm talking about copy a bunch of items, then going into a text editor and pasting. Mac OS has always pasted a text list of item from a Finder Copy operation.
I'm assuming the underlying rotine that handles this also uses the same order in which to actually move the files, and that that is what ast3r3x is experiencing.
In the case of "moving" the files via copy paste or drag and drop, you'll only notice the order if the files are large and/or the network or drive connection is slow.
Prolly because macos os being intellegent about it.
You have asked it to copy a bunch of files from one place to another, I recon there is about a 90% chance that the copy operation is reading them in the order that their names appear in the allocation table, (not sure what its called on HFS, but its the same thing as MFT or FAT) or in the order they are on the disk.
Does having journeling turned on make a difference to the copy operation ?
Try this.
Copy the files 1 by 1 in order to a new folder / volume. Then copy them all together to some other place and see if your 1 by 1 order is preserved.
Comments
If it doesn't in X, it might just be because the copy algorithm is using a stack type nature so that the last in is the first out. But I'm just speculating and have no real clue
Dare I ask why it really matters?
Originally posted by Brad
Annoying?
Dare I ask why it really matters?
Well, I could imagine it'd be annoying if you are making a flat text list of some directory you have on your drive.
Originally posted by ThunderPoit
because f-i-v-e comes before f-o-u-r in alphabetical listings?
Why is one first then?
O, E, FI, FO, N, SE, SI, TH, TW
one
eight
five
four
nine
seven
six
three
two
Here are some random tests; tell me if there is a logical pattern:
Original List:
TS_03_01
TS_03_02
TS_03_03
TS_03_04
TS_03_05
TS_03_06
TS_03_07
TS_03_08
TS_03_09
List as copy/pasted from Finder:
TS_03_01
TS_03_08
TS_03_05
TS_03_04
TS_03_09
TS_03_07
TS_03_06
TS_03_03
TS_03_02
List with leading zeros removed from last number:
TS_03_9
TS_03_3
TS_03_1
TS_03_5
TS_03_2
TS_03_7
TS_03_6
TS_03_8
TS_03_4
Above list with 'TS' arbitrarily changed to 'A'
A_03_1
A_03_9
A_03_5
A_03_3
A_03_8
A_03_7
A_03_6
A_03_4
A_03_2
This list only has TS changed to A; I reinserted leading zeroes into the last numbers, yet it is the same as the previous one. Why then is it consistent for this test yet not for when I kept TS and merely removed the zeros?
A_03_01
A_03_09
A_03_05
A_03_03
A_03_08
A_03_07
A_03_06
A_03_04
A_03_02
Originally posted by Brad
Annoying?
Dare I ask why it really matters?
I move large video files back and forth across our network and with external HD's all the time. When I am copying the VOB files it is annoying when I grab a bunch to copy and it starts the last one first when I want to work with or watch the first one first. I know I could do them manually and start a separate copying session for each one but that is just as annoying. It isn't really a big problem, but I think it's curious as to why it does that.
PS - Thanks to whoever (brad?) for fixing my thread title.
I'm assuming the underlying rotine that handles this also uses the same order in which to actually move the files, and that that is what ast3r3x is experiencing.
In the case of "moving" the files via copy paste or drag and drop, you'll only notice the order if the files are large and/or the network or drive connection is slow.
You have asked it to copy a bunch of files from one place to another, I recon there is about a 90% chance that the copy operation is reading them in the order that their names appear in the allocation table, (not sure what its called on HFS, but its the same thing as MFT or FAT) or in the order they are on the disk.
Does having journeling turned on make a difference to the copy operation ?
Try this.
Copy the files 1 by 1 in order to a new folder / volume. Then copy them all together to some other place and see if your 1 by 1 order is preserved.