Talk:Windows thumbnail cache

Computing Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Microsoft Windows: Computing Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Article completeness

I expanded this article a bit and took off the stub since pretty much all the information needed is there.

68.237.128.69 / Jard Dooku / Jard Yan Dooku 01:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the format that it uses? Or what it scales the picture to? What is the process of encoding this file? In general, it could be helpful to be more technical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.55.57 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 8 July 2007

Having just checked on a screengrab, it's 96x96 (or 94x94 for what you see, as the images are given a 1-pixel border on display, however it would be strange to save them to a size not a multiple of 8), or for folder thumbnails, the first four images in the folder at 40x40 (with a 1-pixel divider, so 81x81 overall)... or of course, for non-square images, 96 on the longest edge and the shorter one sized proportionally. I'll put in a simpler version of this on the article. 77.102.101.220 (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why doe's thi's article have so many incorrect apo'strophe's? --89.243.185.148 (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Th'ey were just add'ed a few ' hours'befo're you 're'ad the article.'''''''' Warren -talk- 02:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File format

I thought these were CFBF files saved by OLE IStorage, but looking at the header for Vista ones with a hex editor it doesn't seem to match the magic number. -- bitplane 18:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vista Thumbacaches are in an entirely new format. It's a simple indexing system in which the index points to the 4 secondary files which contain the actual thumbnail images. They use a mixture of hashes of the thumbnail, image and a ThumbnailID mixing the MFT Record Number, Date and Drive GUID. I know the entire format and can work with it from personal knowledge so this is all unsourcable. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 01:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"preventing system wide use of the data"

What does that mean??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.148 (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it means (but is incorrect) that thumbnail data cannot be used in other parts of the system, aside from those related to the actual image. What it is should, and is trying, to say is that the thumbnail image data cannot be accessed arbitarily by any program, because the files are fragmented around the file system. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EXIF thumbnails

Hi.

There seems to have been a dispute between User:Capmo and I in the article; a kind that is usually resolved very quickly but unfortunately more reverts than I hoped has occurred. It is one of those situations that one thinks "with this revert and explanation, everything will be okay" and suddenly it is not. Today, Campo made a very suspicious claim that EXIF thumbnails in Windows take precedence over thumbs.db ones. It was unreferenced and left many questions unanswered, so naturally I removed it per WP:V. But Campo did something that I didn't expect of a 9-years veteran: He counter-reverted with a pointy edit summary, "Ever heard of {{Citation needed}}?" (Sure. And I explained when I use it.)

The sources that are later given are questionable: [1] and [2] First, they are self-published sources, i.e. posts in an open forum by a person called "Kresho123". Second, they do not talk about thumb.db's precedence; one of them is about Windows 7, which does not use thumbs.db files.

Of course, I didn't expect a counter-revert, but it came anyway. It reads "Sources are from the official Microsoft Support website, maintained by Microsoft personnel". It is false in two points: Microsoft Support Website is at support.microsoft.com, these are answers.microsoft.com, an open forum in which anyone can post. Second, there is no evidence Kresho123 is even associated with Microsoft. Third, Microsoft forum moderators are well-known for being incompetent and possess insufficient knowledge.

I invite a third person (or more; the more the merrier) to check my claims above. Hopefully, this issue is resolved quickly.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]