Sorting

[karenr]

I have for example a folder with 178 photo files, numbered as such. On Explorer it shows them in the correct order. When I compile them to burn them, Nero scrambles them. How can I maintain the order I want? Can't find anything on the windows or in FAQ's.
:confused:

[Paul Komski]

Have you tried view - arrange icons?

[karenr]

I have them arranged in proper order, but Nero scrambles them when it burns them.

[CuratoR]

but Nero scrambles them when it burns them.

nero scramble the order in the compilation window only or even after burning it??

doesn't matter the order in neros compilation window, after burning you probably will use windows explorer to view it so it will reorder it again.

[karenr]

when someone's viewing them on their dvd player, they're not in order, chronologically. For instance,it shows 1, then 10, then 100, instead of 1, then 2, then 3, etc.

[Fruss Tray Ted]

What bugs me to no end is how Windows handles a numbered system in a file list.

Example: 1-9 is fine but if you have 10 or more in the list it becomes 1, 10, 11, 2, 3, 4, 5 ,6, 7, 8 and 9 instead of 9, then 10, then 11. It somehow separates the two digits and treats the first one as where to put it in order, then adds the second digit onto it in order.

I just pass it off as another one of those idiosyncrasies of Windows in general but I've noticed it in other programs such as you have in NERO.

If you really need to have them in a specific order, you may need to come up with some way of naming them differently to get the desired effect. Usually I've found alphabetically listed is better. With 178 files, two digits is all that's needed.

aa, ab, ac, for a total of 26 times then,
ba, bb, bc, 26 more times,
ca, cb, cc, follow that through as needed and your order would be sustained. Renaming is tedious I know, but it should work.

Maybe there's a better way and hopefully someone will chime in another response with an easier fix. But how numbers are treated in binary seems to be where this stems from IMO.

[Paul Komski]

Just use enough leading zeros: 001, 002, etc (enough for the largest number you will use). Even though they are numerical they are being sorted as if they are text.

[pop pop]

That sorting (1,10,100, 2) is based on single character/field. Very easy to program ... and very lazy.

[karenr]

why didn't I think of that? My husband says he already told me that, but I didn't hear him :( Anyway, thanks a heap for the suggestion.

[karenr]

is directed at Paul, BTW

[Sylvander]

I remember someone asking me way back in 1974:
"Why do you number things 001, 002, 003?"
They thought it was wasting effort and should be numbering 1,2,3.
[I was using a computer system to calculate heat losses from rooms, and numbering the rooms.]