This is a Firefox question, I think, with serious Win10 overtones.
Though there are other ways to do this, a big technical mystery is what
interests me here:

I can't find a directory, but Everything says it's there.

I wanted to copy just some of the add-ons from a Firefox profile to a
new profile.

A) Firefox tells me that the profile I'm using is in

C:\Users\mmm\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\v51v33yo.default-release
and Everything says that its add-ons are in

C:\Users\mmm\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\v51v33yo.default-release\extensions

B) For simplified backup I put the new profile in
C:\Data\FFProfiles
and the 2 addons I later added using the usual add-on manager are in
C:\Data\FFProfiles\extensions.

"Everything" shows that A\extensions has 9 .xpi files and indeed,
counting the ones I disabled, I have exactly 9, but when I went to the
file manager to copy them to the B,
the A directory existed, C:\Data\FFProfiles\extensions ,
but the B Directory

C:\Users\mmm\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\v51v33yo.default-release\extensions
is not shown, even though that very directory is shown 9 times in
Everything!!
The file manager does show the higher level directory:

C:\Users\mmm\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\v51v33yo.default-release

So I thought, maybe I'm using a 32-bit file manager. I know from
experience they will not show every file. (Specifically the HOSTS file
does not show.) so I went to the file manager included in 64-bit
Windows10 and I also dl'd Explorer++'s 64 bit version. Neither showed
the extensions subdirectory. In fact each shows 7 subdirectories and
one file, but in the brand new profile B (C:\Data\FFProfiles), there are
shown 22 subdirectories (and one file), meaning 15 that aren't shown for
the long established profile, including bookmarkbackups, crashes**,
extension-store, and minidumps***. **Crashes and maybe all the others
show up in Everything, but not in any of 3 file managers!!! How can
this be?

I long ago set windows to show Hidden Files and in the win10 file
manager, there were checkboxes and Hidden and Extensions (like .txt)
were both already checked. Unchecking and then rechecking didn't change
things.

***I hope I've been clear. I can give you a whole list of the other 11
missing subdirectories, if you want, and other details.

On 11/25/2023 11:05 PM, micky wrote:
> This is a Firefox question, I think, with serious Win10 overtones.
> Though there are other ways to do this, a big technical mystery is what
> interests me here:
>
> I can't find a directory, but Everything says it's there.
>
> I wanted to copy just some of the add-ons from a Firefox profile to a
> new profile.
>
> A) Firefox tells me that the profile I'm using is in
>
> C:\Users\mmm\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\v51v33yo.default-release
> and Everything says that its add-ons are in
>
> C:\Users\mmm\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\v51v33yo.default-release\extensions
>
> B) For simplified backup I put the new profile in
> C:\Data\FFProfiles
> and the 2 addons I later added using the usual add-on manager are in
> C:\Data\FFProfiles\extensions.
>
> "Everything" shows that A\extensions has 9 .xpi files and indeed,
> counting the ones I disabled, I have exactly 9, but when I went to the
> file manager to copy them to the B,
> the A directory existed, C:\Data\FFProfiles\extensions ,
> but the B Directory
>
> C:\Users\mmm\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\v51v33yo.default-release\extensions
> is not shown, even though that very directory is shown 9 times in
> Everything!!
> The file manager does show the higher level directory:
>
> C:\Users\mmm\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\v51v33yo.default-release
>
> So I thought, maybe I'm using a 32-bit file manager. I know from
> experience they will not show every file. (Specifically the HOSTS file
> does not show.) so I went to the file manager included in 64-bit
> Windows10 and I also dl'd Explorer++'s 64 bit version. Neither showed
> the extensions subdirectory. In fact each shows 7 subdirectories and
> one file, but in the brand new profile B (C:\Data\FFProfiles), there are
> shown 22 subdirectories (and one file), meaning 15 that aren't shown for
> the long established profile, including bookmarkbackups, crashes**,
> extension-store, and minidumps***. **Crashes and maybe all the others
> show up in Everything, but not in any of 3 file managers!!! How can
> this be?
>
> I long ago set windows to show Hidden Files and in the win10 file
> manager, there were checkboxes and Hidden and Extensions (like .txt)
> were both already checked. Unchecking and then rechecking didn't change
> things.
>
> ***I hope I've been clear. I can give you a whole list of the other 11
> missing subdirectories, if you want, and other details.
>

explorer.exe 32-bit versus 64-bit, is a NON-ISSUE.

32-bit matters if some 32-bit DLLs were missing,
or a visual studio runtime 32 bit version was missing,
or a .NET 32-bit thing was missing. But for 64-bit file pointers,
32-bit runtimes have had 64-bit pointers for eons.

The 32-bit and 64-bit programs would be functionally equivalent.

*******

I'm not seeing an attempt to use attributes.

[Picture]

https://i.postimg.cc/fb8ZdN2B/extension-storage-115-ESR.gif

That's 115ESR (a test for a Win7 user), where I've switched the
Profile selection to the regular release, as a demo of Profile Manager.

The folder and file, for my test extension "Emoji", are visible.

I used about:profiles to easily access the folder the browser is using.
There is an Open button (for the Root directory in this case).

You're claiming a file like this, is not visible. I can see it.
It's not Hidden. dir /ah folder_part would have shown a Hidden item.
I don't need to use dir /ah to see this.

C:\Users\bullwinkle\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\vfoi5r0q.default-release\extensions\emoji@saveriomorelli.com.xpi

This is the Attribute table, when using bitfield info about a file.
Files have more than the three basic MSDOS attributes now, so the
table is larger.

File attributes can be read with [administrator] fsutil usn readdata FileNameAbsolutePath

Constants - the following attribute values are returned by the GetFileAttributes function:

FILE_ATTRIBUTE_READONLY = 1 (0x1) \
FILE_ATTRIBUTE_HIDDEN = 2 (0x2) \___ Original DOS set
FILE_ATTRIBUTE_SYSTEM = 4 (0x4) /
FILE_ATTRIBUTE_DIRECTORY = 16 (0x10)
FILE_ATTRIBUTE_ARCHIVE = 32 (0x20)
FILE_ATTRIBUTE_NORMAL = 128 (0x80)
FILE_ATTRIBUTE_TEMPORARY = 256 (0x100)
FILE_ATTRIBUTE_SPARSE_FILE = 512 (0x200)
FILE_ATTRIBUTE_REPARSE_POINT = 1024 (0x400) <--- new compression uses a ReparsePoint + custom
FILE_ATTRIBUTE_COMPRESSED = 2048 (0x800) <--- old compression
FILE_ATTRIBUTE_OFFLINE = 4096 (0x1000)
FILE_ATTRIBUTE_NOT_CONTENT_INDEXED = 8192 (0x2000)
FILE_ATTRIBUTE_ENCRYPTED = 16384 (0x4000)

Now, I'm going to feed that whacking-great absolute path, to the
fsutil command. Note that a person COULD turn off their USN,
in which case the command would not work. Most people have a
functional USN on NTFS C: drive.

emoji@saveriomorelli.com.xpi

File Attributes : 0x20 # Archive bit, part of "backup management"
# This may track whether a file has been backed up.

The other aspect, would be permissions or ACLs. Which is
actually a complex subject. It takes fifty web pages (screens
of text) to explain it all. And the guy writing the thesis in
one case, stopped, and wrote "this particular variant is so
obscure, it is not worth writing up". Just to give some idea
that even the OCD of the world, have limits :-)

Now, everybody, even Bullwinkle, has Full Control of that file.
The permissions do not prevent access.

But if you're looking in the wrong profile folder, then naturally
there is no Extensions folder :-)

*******

Now, let's use nfi.exe and check the entry.

[Admin Command Prompt -- program reads the $MFT to bypass permissions]

nfi.exe C: > nfi_c_out.txt # Instead of doing all of C: , I can just feed it the file.
# But for your first run, do it as shown. You can learn a lot
# about how badly your C: needs cleaning, from that file.

Perfectly normal looking for a Win10 file. The file is 45MB, so you expect it to take some space.
"Size on disk" in Properties is 46,374,912 or 90576 sectors. Which agrees exactly with B - A + 1 sectors below.

\Users\bullwinkle\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\vfoi5r0q.default-release\extensions\emoji@saveriomorelli.com.xpi
$STANDARD_INFORMATION (resident)
$FILE_NAME (resident)
$FILE_NAME (resident)
$DATA (nonresident)
logical sectors 52962272-53052847 (0x32823e0-0x32985af)

A check from Linux shows that there is only one Filenum 57362,
so the file does not have two filenames and no hardlink is present.
ls -Ri * shows the filenum field. If the same filenum appears
multiple times in Linux, then the file has "hardlinks".

*******

If you need a copy of nfi.exe, you can get it here. It is inside that ZIP file.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150223112102/http://download.microsoft.com/download/win2000srv/utility/3.0/nt45/en-us/oem3sr2.zip

nfi.exe c: > nfi_c_out.txt

notepad nfi_c_out.txt # Open in Notepad

Paul

On 11/25/2023 11:05 PM, micky wrote:
> This is a Firefox question, I think, with serious Win10 overtones.
> Though there are other ways to do this, a big technical mystery is what
> interests me here:
>
> I can't find a directory, but Everything says it's there.
>
> I wanted to copy just some of the add-ons from a Firefox profile to a
> new profile.
>
> A) Firefox tells me that the profile I'm using is in
>
> C:\Users\mmm\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\v51v33yo.default-release
> and Everything says that its add-ons are in
>
> C:\Users\mmm\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\v51v33yo.default-release\extensions
>
> B) For simplified backup I put the new profile in
> C:\Data\FFProfiles
> and the 2 addons I later added using the usual add-on manager are in
> C:\Data\FFProfiles\extensions.
>
> "Everything" shows that A\extensions has 9 .xpi files and indeed,
> counting the ones I disabled, I have exactly 9, but when I went to the
> file manager to copy them to the B,
> the A directory existed, C:\Data\FFProfiles\extensions ,
> but the B Directory
>
> C:\Users\mmm\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\v51v33yo.default-release\extensions
> is not shown, even though that very directory is shown 9 times in
> Everything!!
> The file manager does show the higher level directory:
>
> C:\Users\mmm\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\v51v33yo.default-release
>
> So I thought, maybe I'm using a 32-bit file manager. I know from
> experience they will not show every file. (Specifically the HOSTS file
> does not show.) so I went to the file manager included in 64-bit
> Windows10 and I also dl'd Explorer++'s 64 bit version. Neither showed
> the extensions subdirectory. In fact each shows 7 subdirectories and
> one file, but in the brand new profile B (C:\Data\FFProfiles), there are
> shown 22 subdirectories (and one file), meaning 15 that aren't shown for
> the long established profile, including bookmarkbackups, crashes**,
> extension-store, and minidumps***. **Crashes and maybe all the others
> show up in Everything, but not in any of 3 file managers!!! How can
> this be?
>
> I long ago set windows to show Hidden Files and in the win10 file
> manager, there were checkboxes and Hidden and Extensions (like .txt)
> were both already checked. Unchecking and then rechecking didn't change
> things.
>
> ***I hope I've been clear. I can give you a whole list of the other 11
> missing subdirectories, if you want, and other details.
While there may be other ways, the easiest and fastest is to copy the
contents of Profile A to Profile B. Once you have the profile in B,
open Firefox Profile B and go to TOOLS, ADD-ONS MANAGER. Review and
delete all of the items that you don't want in Profile B. Clear the
cache, and any thing you don't want. Install any Addons that are still
needed in B.

This way is the simplest, and does not run the risk of of messing
something up in the Config file.

When I accepted a volunteer position with the Church his is the way I
got Firefox running on the chruch computer that came with the position.

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sun, 26 Nov 2023 08:02:56 +0000 (GMT),
Dave <news@triffid.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <rvg5mi5ktd4o3n3u1stj5hu6tgaodflp39@4ax.com>,
> micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>{snippy]
>
>> ***I hope I've been clear. I can give you a whole list of the other 11
>> missing subdirectories, if you want, and other details.
>
>I don't understand... :-/
>
>Why are you attempting to use/copy anything out of the
>...\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profile?
>
>This is a lost cause... as the Local profile stored there only contains a
>small part of the real/full Profile.

Apparently I had used roaming. Aha, I was using about:profiles and it
gives two profiles with the same name in the right-most part,
default-release and default, and each has a root directory and a local
directory, and the first is in roaming and the other in local. That
accounts for the difference of 7 vs 22 subdirs.

And I guess that accounts for main part of my question also. I didn't
realize there would be two files ending in v51v33yo.default-release and
didn't notice there were two different directories 3 levels higher.

Strangely complicated but I'm sure they had a reason. But when I
created that third profile and put it in data/FFProfiles, it only had
one directory.

>Your full, day to day in use Profile is usually in
>...\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\nnnxxx123.default
>
>Example:
>--------
>My ...\AppData \Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\nnnxxx123.default, contains
>2,645 files and 17 folders.
>
>My day to day in use Profile at,
>...\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\nnnxxx123.default, contains
>11,363 files and 4,049 folders.
>
>That's a lot of difference... :-)
>
>D.

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sun, 26 Nov 2023 19:32:51 +1300, Ralph
Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 25 Nov 2023 23:05:29 -0500, micky wrote:
>
>> This is a Firefox question, I think, with serious Win10 overtones.
>> Though there are other ways to do this, a big technical mystery is what
>> interests me here:
>>
>> I can't find a directory, but Everything says it's there.
>>
>> I wanted to copy just some of the add-ons from a Firefox profile to a
>> new profile.
>>
>> A) Firefox tells me that the profile I'm using is in
>>
>> C:\Users\mmm\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\v51v33yo.default-release
>
>Odd. I have _two_ folders - one with the \Local\ as above and one with \Roaming\ instead.
>The one which Firefox's about:support tells me is the one with \Roaming\.

Oh, you're right. I had a reason for saying Local but I don't know what
it was.
>
>
>> and Everything says that its add-ons are in
>>
>> C:\Users\mmm\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\v51v33yo.default-release\extensions
>
>My extensions sub-folder is in the one with \Roaming\, not in the one with \Local\.

The second mistake was caused by the first. Just copied the mistaken url
and changed it. :-( Ah, I went to answer Dave's short reply and
figured it out while there. Please see my answer to him.
>.....
>
>Maybe try looking in
>C:\Users\mmm\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\v51v33yo.default-release\extensions
>with \Roaming\ instead of \Local\

Indeed!

I was able to copy the add-on, from the Everything window that had found
it. Some of the add-on files have names that echo the add-on name. Some
don't. What I was looking for did.
>

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sun, 26 Nov 2023 08:16:44 -0500,
knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>While there may be other ways, the easiest and fastest is to copy the
>contents of Profile A to Profile B. Once you have the profile in B,
>open Firefox Profile B and go to TOOLS, ADD-ONS MANAGER. Review and
>delete all of the items that you don't want in Profile B. Clear the

I will save that for next time. In this case I didn't want the open tabs
or history or bookmarks, and I think I could have copied and deleted
them but this was more direct. After restarting FF, I did have to go
to the add-on manager, like you say, and the new add-ons were there but
disabled, and I had to approve enabling them.

>cache, and any thing you don't want. Install any Addons that are still
>needed in B.
>
>This way is the simplest, and does not run the risk of of messing
>something up in the Config file.
>
>When I accepted a volunteer position with the Church his is the way I
>got Firefox running on the chruch computer that came with the position.

"his", not "this". A freudian slip perhaps?

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sun, 26 Nov 2023 04:06:44 -0500, Paul
<nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

>
>explorer.exe 32-bit versus 64-bit, is a NON-ISSUE.
>
>32-bit matters if some 32-bit DLLs were missing,
>or a visual studio runtime 32 bit version was missing,
>or a .NET 32-bit thing was missing. But for 64-bit file pointers,
>32-bit runtimes have had 64-bit pointers for eons.
>
>The 32-bit and 64-bit programs would be functionally equivalent.

I'm not sure if we're disagreeing or not, but I promise you that a
32-bit file manager will not see certain files. It's been 10 years and
I don't remember if I found more than one, but I know I tried 4 32-big
file managers that I had started using befofre I realized there could be
a problem, and none would see the HOSTS file.

The 32-bit version of one or two was free and there was a charge for the
64-bit, and I didnt' want to pay since there was a 64 built in to the
windows, but otoh I wanted more features. PowerDesk I liked and it
eventually came out with a 64-bit, they said, but the 64-bit had other
big problems, I forget what. I think I'd paid for it and they gave me my
money back. (That company's software often had problems. Once a backup
program of theirs deleted 2 gigs of my files, but I digress.)
>
>*******
>
>I'm not seeing an attempt to use attributes.
>
> [Picture]
>
> https://i.postimg.cc/fb8ZdN2B/extension-storage-115-ESR.gif
>
>That's 115ESR (a test for a Win7 user), where I've switched the
>Profile selection to the regular release, as a demo of Profile Manager.
>
>The folder and file, for my test extension "Emoji", are visible.
>
>I used about:profiles to easily access the folder the browser is using.
>There is an Open button (for the Root directory in this case).

Thank you for the long answer. I'm embarrassed that the reason was my
own mistake, as I describe in my answer to Dave.

(Dave, I added win10 back to my reply to you so that anyone who was
reading in the win10 ng would see my fairly stupid mistake.)

>You're claiming a file like this, is not visible. I can see it.
>It's not Hidden. dir /ah folder_part would have shown a Hidden item.
>I don't need to use dir /ah to see this.
>
>C:\Users\bullwinkle\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\vfoi5r0q.default-release\extensions\emoji@saveriomorelli.com.xpi
>
>This is the Attribute table, when using bitfield info about a file.
>Files have more than the three basic MSDOS attributes now, so the
>table is larger.
>
> File attributes can be read with [administrator] fsutil usn readdata FileNameAbsolutePath
>
> Constants - the following attribute values are returned by the GetFileAttributes function:
>
> FILE_ATTRIBUTE_READONLY = 1 (0x1) \
> FILE_ATTRIBUTE_HIDDEN = 2 (0x2) \___ Original DOS set
> FILE_ATTRIBUTE_SYSTEM = 4 (0x4) /
> FILE_ATTRIBUTE_DIRECTORY = 16 (0x10)
> FILE_ATTRIBUTE_ARCHIVE = 32 (0x20)
> FILE_ATTRIBUTE_NORMAL = 128 (0x80)
> FILE_ATTRIBUTE_TEMPORARY = 256 (0x100)
> FILE_ATTRIBUTE_SPARSE_FILE = 512 (0x200)
> FILE_ATTRIBUTE_REPARSE_POINT = 1024 (0x400) <--- new compression uses a ReparsePoint + custom
> FILE_ATTRIBUTE_COMPRESSED = 2048 (0x800) <--- old compression
> FILE_ATTRIBUTE_OFFLINE = 4096 (0x1000)
> FILE_ATTRIBUTE_NOT_CONTENT_INDEXED = 8192 (0x2000)
> FILE_ATTRIBUTE_ENCRYPTED = 16384 (0x4000)
>
>Now, I'm going to feed that whacking-great absolute path, to the
>fsutil command. Note that a person COULD turn off their USN,
>in which case the command would not work. Most people have a
>functional USN on NTFS C: drive.
>
> emoji@saveriomorelli.com.xpi
>
> File Attributes : 0x20 # Archive bit, part of "backup management"
> # This may track whether a file has been backed up.
>
>The other aspect, would be permissions or ACLs. Which is
>actually a complex subject. It takes fifty web pages (screens
>of text) to explain it all. And the guy writing the thesis in
>one case, stopped, and wrote "this particular variant is so
>obscure, it is not worth writing up". Just to give some idea
>that even the OCD of the world, have limits :-)
>
>Now, everybody, even Bullwinkle, has Full Control of that file.
>The permissions do not prevent access.
>
>But if you're looking in the wrong profile folder, then naturally
>there is no Extensions folder :-)
>
>*******
>
>Now, let's use nfi.exe and check the entry.
>
> [Admin Command Prompt -- program reads the $MFT to bypass permissions]
>
> nfi.exe C: > nfi_c_out.txt # Instead of doing all of C: , I can just feed it the file.
> # But for your first run, do it as shown. You can learn a lot
> # about how badly your C: needs cleaning, from that file.
>
>Perfectly normal looking for a Win10 file. The file is 45MB, so you expect it to take some space.
>"Size on disk" in Properties is 46,374,912 or 90576 sectors. Which agrees exactly with B - A + 1 sectors below.
>
>\Users\bullwinkle\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\vfoi5r0q.default-release\extensions\emoji@saveriomorelli.com.xpi
> $STANDARD_INFORMATION (resident)
> $FILE_NAME (resident)
> $FILE_NAME (resident)
> $DATA (nonresident)
> logical sectors 52962272-53052847 (0x32823e0-0x32985af)
>
>A check from Linux shows that there is only one Filenum 57362,
>so the file does not have two filenames and no hardlink is present.
>ls -Ri * shows the filenum field. If the same filenum appears
>multiple times in Linux, then the file has "hardlinks".
>
>*******
>
>If you need a copy of nfi.exe, you can get it here. It is inside that ZIP file.
>
>https://web.archive.org/web/20150223112102/http://download.microsoft.com/download/win2000srv/utility/3.0/nt45/en-us/oem3sr2.zip
>
> nfi.exe c: > nfi_c_out.txt
>
> notepad nfi_c_out.txt # Open in Notepad
>
> Paul

On 2023-11-26 20:20, micky wrote:
> In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sun, 26 Nov 2023 04:06:44 -0500, Paul
> <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> explorer.exe 32-bit versus 64-bit, is a NON-ISSUE.
>>
>> 32-bit matters if some 32-bit DLLs were missing,
>> or a visual studio runtime 32 bit version was missing,
>> or a .NET 32-bit thing was missing. But for 64-bit file pointers,
>> 32-bit runtimes have had 64-bit pointers for eons.
>>
>> The 32-bit and 64-bit programs would be functionally equivalent.
>
> I'm not sure if we're disagreeing or not, but I promise you that a
> 32-bit file manager will not see certain files. It's been 10 years and
> I don't remember if I found more than one, but I know I tried 4 32-big
> file managers that I had started using befofre I realized there could be
> a problem, and none would see the HOSTS file.

There is no technical reason for this that I can think of.

At the OS filesystem driver level, a 32 bit OS has a problem reading
huge sizes. But if the OS is running, I can not imagine why it would not
see some files.

A commercial reason by Windows to make you buy a new "better" file
manager? :-?

Some flags stored in 64 bit, saying the file is hidden?

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

micky wrote:

> I promise you that a 32-bit file manager will not see certain files.
> It's been 10 years and I don't remember if I found more than one, but
> I know I tried 4 32-big file managers that I had started using
> befofre I realized there could be a problem, and none would see the
> HOSTS file.

even using "run as administrator"?

Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
> At the OS filesystem driver level, a 32 bit OS has a problem reading
> huge sizes.

Even then, not really ... Win32 API uses two LONG integers for the high
and low "halves" of a 64bit pointer for file seeking.

On 11/26/2023 2:09 PM, micky wrote:
> In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sun, 26 Nov 2023 08:16:44 -0500,
> knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> While there may be other ways, the easiest and fastest is to copy the
>> contents of Profile A to Profile B. Once you have the profile in B,
>> open Firefox Profile B and go to TOOLS, ADD-ONS MANAGER. Review and
>> delete all of the items that you don't want in Profile B. Clear the
>
> I will save that for next time. In this case I didn't want the open tabs
> or history or bookmarks, and I think I could have copied and deleted
> them but this was more direct. After restarting FF, I did have to go
> to the add-on manager, like you say, and the new add-ons were there but
> disabled, and I had to approve enabling them.
>
>> cache, and any thing you don't want. Install any Addons that are still
>> needed in B.
>>
>> This way is the simplest, and does not run the risk of of messing
>> something up in the Config file.
>>
>> When I accepted a volunteer position with the Church his is the way I
>> got Firefox running on the chruch computer that came with the position.
>
> "his", not "this". A freudian slip perhaps?
Fat 8 year old fingers ;-}

On 11/26/2023 3:47 PM, knuttle wrote:
> On 11/26/2023 2:09 PM, micky wrote:
>> In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sun, 26 Nov 2023 08:16:44 -0500,
>> knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> While there may be other ways, the easiest and fastest is to copy the
>>> contents of Profile A to Profile B.  Once you have the profile in B,
>>> open Firefox Profile B and go to  TOOLS, ADD-ONS MANAGER.   Review and
>>> delete all of the items that you don't want in Profile B.  Clear the
>>
>> I will save that for next time. In this case I didn't want the open tabs
>> or history or bookmarks, and I think I could have copied and deleted
>> them but this was more direct.   After restarting FF, I did have to go
>> to the add-on manager, like you say, and the new add-ons were there but
>> disabled, and I had to approve enabling them.
>>
>>> cache, and any thing you don't want.  Install any Addons that are still
>>> needed in B.
>>>
>>> This way is the simplest, and does not run the risk of of messing
>>> something up in the Config file.
>>>
>>> When I accepted a volunteer position with the Church his is the way I
>>> got Firefox running on the chruch computer that came with the position.
>>
>> "his", not "this".  A freudian slip perhaps?
> Fat 8 year old fingers ;-}
Try 80 years old

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sun, 26 Nov 2023 19:46:43 +0000, Andy
Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

>
>micky wrote:
>
>> I promise you that a 32-bit file manager will not see certain files.
>> It's been 10 years and I don't remember if I found more than one, but
>> I know I tried 4 32-big file managers that I had started using
>> befofre I realized there could be a problem, and none would see the
>> HOSTS file.
>
>even using "run as administrator"?

It's been 10 years but very very probably not. Well, except that -- and
this is generally beyond me -- I'm always logged in with an
admistrator's id -- so that would be a Yes -- but iirc that's not the
same as adminstrative priveleges -- so that would be a No.

So, have any of you tried it? After all, I'm happy with what I said but
you all doubt that it's so.

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sun, 26 Nov 2023 15:56:20 -0500,
knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 11/26/2023 3:47 PM, knuttle wrote:
>> On 11/26/2023 2:09 PM, micky wrote:
>>> In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sun, 26 Nov 2023 08:16:44 -0500,
>>> knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> While there may be other ways, the easiest and fastest is to copy the
>>>> contents of Profile A to Profile B.  Once you have the profile in B,
>>>> open Firefox Profile B and go to  TOOLS, ADD-ONS MANAGER.   Review and
>>>> delete all of the items that you don't want in Profile B.  Clear the
>>>
>>> I will save that for next time. In this case I didn't want the open tabs
>>> or history or bookmarks, and I think I could have copied and deleted
>>> them but this was more direct.   After restarting FF, I did have to go
>>> to the add-on manager, like you say, and the new add-ons were there but
>>> disabled, and I had to approve enabling them.
>>>
>>>> cache, and any thing you don't want.  Install any Addons that are still
>>>> needed in B.
>>>>
>>>> This way is the simplest, and does not run the risk of of messing
>>>> something up in the Config file.
>>>>
>>>> When I accepted a volunteer position with the Church his is the way I
>>>> got Firefox running on the chruch computer that came with the position.
>>>
>>> "his", not "this".  A freudian slip perhaps?
>> Fat 8 year old fingers ;-}

I was about to say that you're very smart for an 8-year old.

>Try 80 years old

My fingers are one of the few parts that haven't gotten fat. But then I
have, gw, 4 more years until I'm 80.

micky wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> even using "run as administrator"?
>
> I'm always logged in with an
> admistrator's id -- so that would be a Yes -- but iirc that's not the
> same as adminstrative priveleges -- so that would be a No.

that's right, just being an admin user doesn't automatically use your
admin rights

> So, have any of you tried it?
Which file manager?

On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 14:20:34 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

>...I promise you that a 32-bit file manager will not see certain files.

I've never encountered that and don't remember anyone bringing it up before. I
hope the mystery gets solved.

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Sun, 26 Nov 2023 21:27:09 +0000, Andy
Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

>micky wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> even using "run as administrator"?
>>
>> I'm always logged in with an
>> admistrator's id -- so that would be a Yes -- but iirc that's not the
>> same as adminstrative priveleges -- so that would be a No.
>
>that's right, just being an admin user doesn't automatically use your
>admin rights

I would have thought this was an inevitable problem with language, were
it not for MS's other more ridiculous double uses of words, like
explorer and another I forget. Given that, I'd say they should have had
two clearly differentiated terms for the two above.
>
>> So, have any of you tried it?
>
>hich file manager?

One was the built-in win10 fiile manager-- no, that did find it
because it was 64-bit
Another was xplorer2 lite.
Another was PowerDesk, a great program that I can send you if you
want. It is hard or impossible to find online these days. I find it
easy to use esp. for unzipping, for folder-size, and it shows 2 panes
with the same double-pane info (total 4). (Xplorer lite shows a 3rd pane
in the bottom right, but I never understood what I could do with the 3rd
pane.)
There was at least one more but it's icon is no longer on the desktop
or it was left behind on an earlier computer.
After 3 I concluded all the 32-bit were the same.

Go look for HOSTS in C:\windows\system32\drivers\etc probably, or
wherever it is.
PowerDesk doesn't even show the etc directory!!
Nor does xplorer2 lite.

So if the etc directory isn't shown, hosts.ics is also not shown and 4
other files, such as networks, protocol, services, none of which are
hidden from the win10 file manager (whose name is hidden from me.)

On 11/26/2023 2:54 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
> Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>
>> At the OS filesystem driver level, a 32 bit OS has a problem reading huge sizes.
>
> Even then, not really ... Win32 API uses two LONG integers for the high and low "halves" of a 64bit pointer for file seeking.
>

There are some comments in here, regarding behaviors of older
and much older OSes.

C:\MinGW\include\stdio.h

FILE * fopen64 (const char *, const char *); /* filename, filemode */

# This stanza suggests Micky may be correct, for really old OSes.
# And less correct for modern OSes. Maybe WinXP had proper 64 bit offsets
# while it was a 32-bit OS. it suggests that MSVCRT (C runtime), did not
# always exist. And whatever came before, had a different stdio.h .

#ifdef __MSVCRT__
/* ...an explicitly 64-bit file offset type, for MSVCRT.DLL users...
*/
# define __need___off64_t
#else
/* ...or a 32-bit equivalent, for pre-MSVCRT.DLL users.
*/
# define __need___off32_t
#endif

/* This would be a private function. Offset would be a 64 bit operand */

int __mingw_fseek (FILE *, __off64_t, int); /* stream, offset, whence = SEEK_SET, SEEK_CUR, or SEEK_END */

The reason fwrite() and fread() don't need length parameters of 64 bits
for their buffer operation, is a 32 bit OS, has a 2GB/2GB user/kernel split
or a 3GB/1GB user/kernel split. A 3GB length parameter for a 3GB buffer,
is easily carried in a 32-bit size_t.

Using PAE, you can define multiple processes, each
with a kernel/user split, to use all the RAM, but that does not change
the dynamics per-process. They still have limited address space,
limited buffer definitions. Physical devices themselves have a max_length,
which can be rather small (1MB maybe). Depending on how your call is
being chopped up behind your back, you can actually get a code back
from a device that the size is too large.

When you read or write, the F_POS is recorded and something other than
your program does the 64-bit math. Perhaps ftell() can tell you where
the pointer is right now. Seek commands push the pointer around. This
is why the private seek above, has an __off64_t, because when seeking,
you could be seeking 64-bit distances, and going back to writing
"chunks" handled by 32-bit size descriptions.

I had to figure some of this out, when writing my file compressor,
and that's when I needed 64-bit size capability, to get past
handling only trivial sized files.

It would be on a 64-bit OS, where you'd need an fwrite64().
As now you can have buffers the size of a dual socket Epyc.

Paul

On 11/26/2023 5:07 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 14:20:34 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>
>> ...I promise you that a 32-bit file manager will not see certain files.
>
> I've never encountered that and don't remember anyone bringing it up before. I
> hope the mystery gets solved.
>

This could be a W95/W98 issue, but unlikely to be a Win2K/WinXP issue.
As far as I can remember, both of the latter two had msvcrt.dll.

There could be some sort of temporal dividing line, between what
Micky was seeing, and today.

I was putting LARGEFILE support in my MinGW32 programs, so that
involves 64-bit offsets. And there are still some minor tricks,
even in a 64-bit environment. There are some #DEFINEs you have to do.

I've always been able to access the HOSTS file. (And especially when
it was on FAT32 :-) )

Paul

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Sun, 26 Nov 2023 19:48:16 -0500, Paul
<nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

>
># This stanza suggests Micky may be correct, for really old OSes.

I am always correct. In high school I was voted the Most Refined Boy in
the sophomore class.

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Sun, 26 Nov 2023 16:07:01 -0600, Char
Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 14:20:34 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>
>>...I promise you that a 32-bit file manager will not see certain files.
>
>I've never encountered that and don't remember anyone bringing it up before. I
>hope the mystery gets solved.

I brought it up on the windows 10 group years ago, but there was more
traffic then and I think no one read all of the posts, I think no one
does now either, ftm.

I probably named that other file manager whose name I can't recall. I'm
98% sure it was win10. Certainly not XP and I don't think there was
much time to post about win7.

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Sun, 26 Nov 2023 20:34:28 -0500, Paul
<nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

>On 11/26/2023 5:07 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 14:20:34 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ...I promise you that a 32-bit file manager will not see certain files.
>>
>> I've never encountered that and don't remember anyone bringing it up before. I
>> hope the mystery gets solved.
>>
>
>This could be a W95/W98 issue, but unlikely to be a Win2K/WinXP issue.
>As far as I can remember, both of the latter two had msvcrt.dll.
>
>There could be some sort of temporal dividing line, between what
>Micky was seeing, and today.
>
>I was putting LARGEFILE support in my MinGW32 programs, so that
>involves 64-bit offsets. And there are still some minor tricks,
>even in a 64-bit environment. There are some #DEFINEs you have to do.
>
>I've always been able to access the HOSTS file.

Access it yes, but see it in a 32-bit file manager? Why would you even
be using one with a 64-bit system? You seem very serious about
computers... Do you not use the built-in FM or pay for a recent 64-bit
one?

Have you taken the HOSTS challenge tonight? IOW, I'm armed and I'm
ready to fight. Put your holster on and let's see who's the faster draw.
> (And especially when
>it was on FAT32 :-) )
>
> Paul

On 11/26/2023 2:01 PM, micky wrote:
> In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sun, 26 Nov 2023 08:02:56 +0000 (GMT),
> Dave <news@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <rvg5mi5ktd4o3n3u1stj5hu6tgaodflp39@4ax.com>,
>> micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>> {snippy]
>>
>>> ***I hope I've been clear. I can give you a whole list of the other 11
>>> missing subdirectories, if you want, and other details.
>>
>> I don't understand... :-/
>>
>> Why are you attempting to use/copy anything out of the
>> ...\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profile?
>>
>> This is a lost cause... as the Local profile stored there only contains a
>> small part of the real/full Profile.
>
> Apparently I had used roaming. Aha, I was using about:profiles and it
> gives two profiles with the same name in the right-most part,
> default-release and default, and each has a root directory and a local
> directory, and the first is in roaming and the other in local. That
> accounts for the difference of 7 vs 22 subdirs.
>
> And I guess that accounts for main part of my question also. I didn't
> realize there would be two files ending in v51v33yo.default-release and
> didn't notice there were two different directories 3 levels higher.
>
> Strangely complicated but I'm sure they had a reason. But when I
> created that third profile and put it in data/FFProfiles, it only had
> one directory.
>
>> Your full, day to day in use Profile is usually in
>> ...\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\nnnxxx123.default
>>
>> Example:
>> --------
>> My ...\AppData \Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\nnnxxx123.default, contains
>> 2,645 files and 17 folders.
>>
>> My day to day in use Profile at,
>> ...\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\nnnxxx123.default, contains
>> 11,363 files and 4,049 folders.
>>
>> That's a lot of difference... :-)
>>
>> D.

You should do a search on "cache2" and clean out the caches in
C: first, before getting these gigantic file counts.

I dropped a C: drive from 600,000 files, to maybe half that,
just by cleaning up things like LCU after Patch Tuesday.
Life is a lot simpler, if you do "general hygiene" on a partition,
before you start "bobbing for apples".

And you might feel my hints are casual. Some of them, it takes
me a couple hours to do this stuff, and it's not all easy-peasy.

But if you don't do the basic hygiene, that's when you're lifting
up a blob of 300,000 files and dropping it somewhere by accident.
I hope to *never* be lifting a chunk of files that large, *ever*,
with a mouse. Keep the machine clean. Work in smaller sections.

Directories that are moribund, I sometimes tar or zip (store mode),
the collection, just to reduce the file count on the partition.
The same space is taken. But during brute force searches,
you can set things up so the searches don't go inside
files like that. Once the tar or zip is prepared, carefully
delete the original chunk.

When I wanted Windows Defender to leave my copy of Produkey alone,
I zipped and encrypted the damn thing :-)

Paul

On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 20:56:25 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

>In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Sun, 26 Nov 2023 19:48:16 -0500, Paul
><nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>># This stanza suggests Micky may be correct, for really old OSes.
>
>I am always correct. In high school I was voted the Most Refined Boy in
>the sophomore class.

You remind me of me. I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.

micky wrote:

> I would have thought this was an inevitable problem with language, were
> it not for MS's other more ridiculous double uses of words

And now, Windows is not just the name of an operating system, it's also
the name of an app ... *that* won't be confusing.

<https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-app/overview>