CabWiz Info

CabWiz Info

• Gravy

  I'm sorry if I offended you in any way; please keep posing as you pleased. I’m also not ashamed to admit I’ve done some things in the past without real need and had to deal with consequences. Apologies if I projected my own experiences on to you.

  Getting back to the issue: I do not believe it’s widespread, your case is the second one reported. Here’s the first case:

  http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.compactframework/browse_frm/thread/5c5d1197ac5025ba/cae98abd16696138 &hl=en#cae98abd16696138

  
  
  

• Tdar

  I'm not entirely sure why it matters how widespread it is; if it can save one developer the two days of grief that I went through, then the post was worth the effort.
  
  And during my research, I ran across a substantial number of posts and blog entries of people having the same problem. Here are a few that I saved information on:
  
  http://windowsmobilepro.blogspot.com/2005/11/error-cab-file-could-not-be-created-no.html
  http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx PostID=167517&SiteID=1
  http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx PostID=82522&SiteID=1
  http://franson.com/forum/topic.asp TOPIC_ID=1835
  http://www.aximsite.com/boards/showthread.php t=83760
  http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2004-10/msg00129.html
  
  The other issue that is lost in all of this is that cabwiz is broken and needs to be fixed. It is required for Logo validation and in my opinion, it has two extremely critical flaws for a product that is this crucial:
  
  1) It doesn't support running in non-8.3 format. I've been running with this setting turned on for 3 years with no adverse effects until now (and yes, at the time I switched it on, there was a performance improvement).
  
  2) For it to simply report that the CAB couldn't be created with no indication of why it failed is a substantial failing. Any indication at all as to the reason for the failure would be worlds better than just saying it failed. Even if it only affects a handful of people now, what about future OSes
  
  

• rako77

  Short names can easily be construed as meeting the 8.3 naming convention, which as I stated I tested with. Disabling support for 8.3 naming convention in the OS is a completely different subject.
  
  I'm not even going to bother responding to your "wondering" statement because it is either intentionally or unintentionally an attempt to
  
  a) cast doubts on the worthiness of the rest of my post
  b) make yourself seem far superior to anyone else that has the temerity to post on "your" forum.
  
  I was just trying to provide some helpful information in a single location since I could not locate such a source of information throughout 2 days of intensive searching.
  
  This is turning out to be a completely unsatisfactory experience. I would threaten to stop posting, but perhaps that's what you are looking for.
  
  
  

• srinivasintouch

  It's a known issue:

  http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx PostID=164397&SiteID=1

  It’s rather by design, don't disable 8.3 names generation and you won’t hit it.

  Another possible issue is the path which is too long.

  
  
  

• IB00

  I don't believe it's the same problem even though symptoms are the same. In most cases it's path been too long issue, not 8.3 issue.

  You do have a valid points though and I wish CABWIZ would be redone to fix them and add better diagnostics. I run into several issues with it myself, 8.3 was the least problematic of all and, unlike others, easily fixable. Too bad, all bugs filed were postponed and CABWIZ would remain an application from ~1997 for quite a while. I works on Vista, by the way.

  
  
  

• seco

  Short names = 8.3 names. To quote the very same article: Disable creation of short names

  As to tuning, it is a complicated procedure and might break stuff if you’re not careful. It should be done only of needed and with caution.

  I wonder if you actually followed the article and identified 8.3 names generation as major bottleneck of it was done “just in case”

  
  
  

• Santosh Ransubhe

  I did actually run across this post in my search for a solution, but the post wasn't entirely clear on what the problem is (there are 3 or 4 solutions in there that worked for various people). Short file names was mentioned, but that could mean < 255 and not necessarily 8.3.
  
  Before stumbling across the 8.3 registrry solution, I tried moving everything to the root of one of my drives and shortened all file names to fit in an 8.3 format, which also did not work.
  
  Since I tried virtually all of the possible solutions in that post, I thought that another post which explains the problem and solution more clearly was warranted.
  
  Also, disabling 8.3 creation is a Microsoft-recommended tuning practice that I, and I am sure others, have followed. There are several MS articles that mention this, but a prominent one on .Net tuning is at:
  
  http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp url=/library/en-us/dnpag/html/scalenetchapt17.asp
  
  To quote this article:
  
  "Disable creation of short names. If you are not supporting MS-DOS for Windows 3.x clients, disable short names to improve performance. To disable short names, change the default value of the \NtfsDisable8dot3NameCreation registry entry (in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE \SYSTEM \CurrentControlSet \Control \Filesystem) to 1."
  
  I am sure that there are others like me that were trying to squeeze a little more performance out of VS.Net and turned this flag on, so I think it is important that they be aware of these issues.
  
  
• CabWiz Info