4 ms·
Eventually, one presumes they'll have a flag in the Compatibility tab for applications, "does not believe in long paths", rather than an opt-in/opt-out. It'll
by rincebrain 10y ago
Eventually, one presumes they'll have a flag in the Compatibility tab for applications, "does not believe in long paths", rather than an opt-in/opt-out.
It'll be great - like the 8.3 transition all over again!
- Arnavion 10y ago>Application manifests, which are mostly resources included in every executable file for compatibility reasons, will require apps to add a mention of this new policy, thus making sure that they support a path longer than 260 characters. So if it doesn't have the manifest entry, the program will be assumed to not handle longer paths.
- cm3 10y agoThis sounds reasonable. Case in point are other features which required a manifest with the right entries.
- monocasa 10y agoYeah, I'm not surprised; that's generally how they handle these sorts of things. See /LARGEADDRESSAWARE.
- rincebrain 10y agoThank you, I had not noticed that in the original article, only the registry key. That puzzles me, then - why have a registry key to toggle being able to manifest that at all?
- WorldMaker 10y agoSo that Group Policy can turn it off. For instance, an Enterprise doesn't want anyone using super long paths, even if software is manifested to handle it, because some of their NTFS drives are secretly NetWare shares of FAT volumes still and things will go wonky. The more interesting question is why doesn't this build default that registry key to On in this Build. My presumption here is that the Win32 subsystem changes are possibly significant and there are some backwards compatibility concerns and so this is "feature flagged" until it's been tested more in labs/real world exposure.