Xcopy sometimes fails

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:45:59 -0500, "Twayne"
wrote:

In ,
micky typed:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:08:26 -0500, "Twayne"
wrote:

In ,
micky typed:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:07:21 +0100, "G.F."
wrote:


...


Are the two DOS newsgroups inactive these days? (Great
answer, huh?)

Nope, they are still there and still active.



...


I'll second the XXCopy nomination. I use it to quickly
copy my web sites to my external drive with the date and
time appended to the filename and a log of the activity
is also created. XXCopy is what XCopy should have
been. I bought the lifetime license for XXCopy Pro and
have used it for many, many years without a glitch. If
you already know XCopy, you'll get along fine with
XXCopy as it's very familiar but with many, many more
features and capabilities. Far as I know it can't call
the VSS copy though, so any files "in use", especially
system files, won't get backed up; you still need a
dedicated program for that, like the Norton Ghost that I
use.

I second everything you say.

I havent' used xxcopy for a while, but now t hat you
mention it, if copying a whole system drive, it does have
to be run more than once to get everything, probably for
the same reason xcopy does. I can't remember which
files don't get copied. But it sets a return code. If n
files don't get copied, the return code is 100 plus n.
So it would be a simple matter to just write a .bat file
that runs it 5 times or until the return code is 100,
whichever comes first. Running it when only a few
files are copied can take only 3 or 4 minutes for a whole
drive,

The reason that "seems" to work on boot drives, is that different system
files are "in use" at various and different times. Unless they've added the
capability to use Volume Shadow Copy (VSS) somehow, it will never completely
back up an actve boot drive.

What files won't it back up?

Are you implying that it will?

Yes, it will back up every file on a boot drive and will do so while
the drive is in use. It probably won't back up a file that is being
written to until that file is no longer being written to, but during
the intervening time, it will copy the other files. It may be
necessary to run XXCopy more than once at a time..

XXCOPY won't make a bootable copy of an XP partition, but it will back
up all the files in the partition. What the difference between
those two things is, I don't think I ever knew. Kan was a bit
surprised to see this, also afaicr, and it took him a while to realize
he had to write a new program, XXCLone, to get a bootable output
file.) Maybe it has to do with markiing the partition Active, or
something like that. Anyhow, to make a bootable copy of an XP
partition, one needs XXClone or someone else's product.

WRT XXCLone: However, unlike all the other partition clone
products,, XXCLone copies files one file at a time, not one track at a
time or by regarding the whole partition as one big file (or whatever
other products do. )

Kan is working all the time and he may have added VSS to XXCopy for
all I know. I haven't read the mailling list for over a year.
..

I just checked online and I don't see any mention of handling files "in
use"; on any drive

It's understood. When it says that it copies every file. And when a
system partition (not just a data partition) is copied and a return
code of 100 is returned.

I'm not sure what you mean by "in use". It copies every changed file
from Eudora and Agent, including in.mbx, in.toc, and the various
0000nnnn.dat and .idx files that are used during the current windows
session. Most system files don't get modified, so they only get
copied the first time XXCopy is used to copy a whole partition or the
directory[s] where the system files reside. s.

. Also:
I've never had anything but a successful copy using XXCopy but I don't
need it for backups of the boot drive. For backup its major use is to
quickly back up a day's work, which is much faster than a backup program.
And, it knows what's backed up (not by the A bit)

That's right. It uses dates and times. That's why I was thinking
about datestamps in my first answer.

and doesn't repeat copying
a program that already exists.
Also unless you have a licensed version, there are some functions that
don't work.

Yes, I know, some functions of XXCopy don't work in the free version,
but i don't think those affect this discussion. I haven't gotten a
warning for a long time.

WRT XXCLone, if I get in the habit of using it more often, I'll buy a
license. .

Another thing to note is that the option /clone , which
implies a half dozen other options, to make the
destination file just like the current source file, does
all of that except one thing. it doesn[t' copy the
creation date and time and other date/times from the
source directory. Oh, I said this already.

I would really suggest you check out the site groups; lots of good info
there. Ask them about these things or look thru the past posts for relevant
information.

There is no doubt about this. I noticed it myself, verified it for
myself, and I did discuss itt with the list and with Kan (mostly
because I wanted to either a) let them know that it didn't work
right, or b) find out why he made it work the way he did. It turned
out to be b). ) . Kan's the one who gave me the reason why XXCOPY
uses the current date and time when creating a duplicate directory.
Instead of using the date and time of the directory it's duplicating.
But there is an option to make it copy the date and time from the
original directory. I think the option is /TC .


HTH,

Twayne`

In ,
micky typed:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:45:59 -0500, "Twayne"
wrote:

In ,
micky typed:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:08:26 -0500, "Twayne"
wrote:

In ,
micky typed:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:07:21 +0100, "G.F."
wrote:

....


Yes, it will back up every file on a boot drive and will
do so while the drive is in use. It probably won't back
up a file that is being written to until that file is no
longer being written to, but during the intervening time,
it will copy the other files. It may be necessary to
run XXCopy more than once at a time..

No, it will not. There are always files "in use" even if the machne is idle.
Get yourself a copy of regmon and flemon , run it, and let the machine
sit. You'll see that files are being called and released and the Regstry is
in constant flux, never inactive. Moreso too if you have any app/s that run
in the background when the machne is "idle".
XCCopy can NOT back up any files that are "in use". That means they're
opened and locked from any other access, including backups of any kind
unless the Volume Shadow Copy is running. Then a "snapshot" of the file at
that instant of tme will be backed up successfully, exactly as it was at
that second in time. Thus it will match all the other system files etc. at
the chosen backup point in time.
You will not get ALL Of the fles by doing multiple backups; unless you
know somethinig I don't, which is somethng I doubt.
I've looked closely at the latest XXCopy downloads and descrips and not a
single one mentions that it can create a complete backup of the boot disk
and all of its files.


XXCOPY won't make a bootable copy of an XP partition, but
it will back up all the files in the partition.

No, it won't. You have admitted that by sayng it didn't create a bootable
disk; Bootability IS part of the files that are backed up! All the images of
my boot drive include making the drvie bootable by nature of what was backed
up. Even if you backed everything up on your boot drive, or thought you did,
if it doesn't make a bootable recovery then it's missing files. Something
tells me you still need to do a lot more research on this subject and that
you are creating unusable boot drive backups; Else they would be bootable.

What
the difference between those two things is, I don't think
I ever knew. Kan was a bit surprised to see this, also
afaicr, and it took him a while to realize he had to
write a new program, XXCLone, to get a bootable output
file.) Maybe it has to do with markiing the partition
Active, or something like that. Anyhow, to make a
bootable copy of an XP partition, one needs XXClone or
someone else's product.

Of course it does; the backp has to iinclude the MBR and everything in it
and everything it in turn needs, just to start with.

WRT XXCLone: However, unlike all the other partition
clone products,, XXCLone copies files one file at a time,
not one track at a time or by regarding the whole
partition as one big file (or whatever other products do.
)

To gt a complete backup of a boot drive, it needs to back up sector by
sector and byte by byte. Not all the information is located on the "tracks";
only actually files are located on the tracks, not the system kernal
innards, preparations and setups.


Kan is working all the time and he may have added VSS to
XXCopy for all I know. I haven't read the mailling list
for over a year. .

I've scoured the site as best I can and there is no mention of backing up
files that are in use on a boot drive has been added. If you only "thnk" he
may have added VSS to XXCopy, then you are again admitting that you know you
cannot get a complete, working backup of the OS with XXCopy.


I just checked online and I don't see any mention of
handling files "in use"; on any drive

It's understood. When it says that it copies every file.
And when a system partition (not just a data partition)
is copied and a return code of 100 is returned.

I'm not sure what you mean by "in use".

"In Use means a file is Opened and beiing Used by someone, or waiting to be
used. Post '98, that means the files are "locked" and won't even allow read
access by any other means. Win98 and before are entirely different animals
and there is no comparison to anything written after that OS at MS.

It copies every
changed file from Eudora and Agent, including in.mbx,
in.toc, and the various 0000nnnn.dat and .idx files that
are used during the current windows session. Most
system files don't get modified, so they only get copied
the first time XXCopy is used to copy a whole partition
or the directory[s] where the system files reside. s.

Please, do some more research and become cognizant of what you're trying to
claim. In one breath here you're saying it's a perfect OS backup and in the
next, admitting it can't succeed, albeit obtusely but that's what you're
doing.


. Also:
I've never had anything but a successful copy using
XXCopy but I don't need it for backups of the boot
drive. For backup its major use is to quickly back up a
day's work, which is much faster than a backup program.
And, it knows what's backed up (not by the A bit)

That's right. It uses dates and times. That's why I was
thinking about datestamps in my first answer.

and doesn't repeat copying
a program that already exists.
Also unless you have a licensed version, there are
some functions that don't work.

Yes, I know, some functions of XXCopy don't work in the
free version, but i don't think those affect this
discussion. I haven't gotten a warning for a long time.

See, that's your problem; you don't THNK. You have to KNOW when you get into
areas like this or you're going to reach a point down the road where you're
going to be very frustrated and disappointed.

Have you ever even tried a recovery of your boot drive using the XXCopy
sourced backup? If it's untested, then you have NO idea whether it will work
or not. Get yourself a freebie or Tral-version VSS-using backup program,
back up your boot drive/s, test that it works, and then once you know you're
safe go ahead and try a backup from XXCopy and see what happens. It's going
to fail, so ... that's where you get out the Trial and use it to Restore
your boot drive.
Actually, you would get a lot of mileage out of a good disc imaging app
like Norton Ghost. It's not that expensive. There are also decent freebies
out there but I don't use them and thus cannot recommend them.


....


I would really suggest you check out the site groups;
lots of good info there. Ask them about these things or
look thru the past posts for relevant information.

There is no doubt about this. I noticed it myself,
verified it for myself, and I did discuss itt with the
list and with Kan (mostly because I wanted to either a)
let them know that it didn't work right, or b) find out
why he made it work the way he did. It turned out to be
b). ) . Kan's the one who gave me the reason why
XXCOPY uses the current date and time when creating a
duplicate directory. Instead of using the date and time
of the directory it's duplicating. But there is an option
to make it copy the date and time from the original
directory. I think the option is /TC .

Dunno. But I know there is such a feature. I'd just rather prepend a
date/time to the filenames so I have a readable history of the backups.

You apparently have quite a closed mind and prefer to regurgitate the same
things you think you know as oposed to making sure your comments/opinions
are accurate. I'm not sure I have anything more to say to you.



HTH,

Twayne`

In ,
Andy typed:
On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 11:07:21 AM UTC-6, G.F.
wrote:

....

Pretty good code, Andy. Prepend a date now and you have a history of the
file too; handy in some cases, not all. I use the date/time for web site
backups though. A quick click and they're done.

HTH,

Twayne`

In message , Twayne
writes:
In ,
micky typed:
[]
XXCOPY won't make a bootable copy of an XP partition, but
it will back up all the files in the partition.

No, it won't. You have admitted that by sayng it didn't create a bootable
disk; Bootability IS part of the files that are backed up! All the images of
my boot drive include making the drvie bootable by nature of what was backed
up. Even if you backed everything up on your boot drive, or thought you did,
if it doesn't make a bootable recovery then it's missing files. Something

Probably not so. It's really pointless continuing such a discussion
because - whether we like it or not - the meaning of terms change.
However, to use the terms as _I_ think _most_ people currently use them,
I think you're talking about a _clone_, which implies certain facts
about the hardware to which you are copying (and/or the hardware on
which you intend to use it), as well as what you actually copying. I
think most people these days mean, by the term "backup", the taking of a
copy _which could be restored_. Granted, much discussion of various
backup mechanisms these days seems to leave out the all-important
consideration of _how_ any such restoration is to be achieved, but to
say that the backup must itself be bootable is a step too far. For any
backup to be actually _worth_ anything, there must _be_ a way of
restoring, which must be something bootable, but that doesn't have to be
the _same_ as the system being backed up (and in fact usually isn't).

tells me you still need to do a lot more research on this subject and that

You too (-:

you are creating unusable boot drive backups; Else they would be bootable.

No.
[]
Of course it does; the backp has to iinclude the MBR and everything in it
and everything it in turn needs, just to start with.

I would agree that the backup ought to contain everything, and as I've
said there should also be a means of restoring it. But to take a silly
example, you could have a backup which stored all the bytes in reverse
order, or bit inverted, and - provided you had independent means of
restoring - it would still be a backup, as most people use the term at
present. (More seriously, it could be encrypted, which as long as
there's still a way of restoring it [with, obviously, decryption], many
people might want.)
[]
To gt a complete backup of a boot drive, it needs to back up sector by
sector and byte by byte. Not all the information is located on the "tracks";
only actually files are located on the tracks, not the system kernal
innards, preparations and setups.

Agreed. But as long as everything is there, and can be put back, it
doesn't have to make a bootable result. (It might be on a succession of
DVDs, though these days drive capacities are such that even with
double-sided dual-layer Blu-ray ones, that's getting impractical.) If it
_is_ bootable, i. e. a clone in current parlance, it is arguably more
useful - though I can see circumstances where it could also be desirable
that the backup copy is _not_ bootable.
[]
Have you ever even tried a recovery of your boot drive using the XXCopy
sourced backup? If it's untested, then you have NO idea whether it will work

Now _there_, I'd agree: no-one should rely on a(ny) backup mechanism
without checking that they know how to do the recovery from it (to a
non-bootable, such as new, drive/system).
[]
You apparently have quite a closed mind and prefer to regurgitate the same

You too in some ways - or at least are excessively pedagogic (as, in
many ways, am I).

things you think you know as oposed to making sure your comments/opinions
are accurate. I'm not sure I have anything more to say to you.

Nor I you (though you weren't talking to me, but this is a public
forum); however, I expect we'll continue to argue, as it's in both our
natures (-:! [Probably micky too.]


HTH,

Twayne`



--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... now that television history is simply /The One Show/ in doublet and hose.
Alison Graham, Radio Times 14-20 July 2012

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:45:59 -0500, "Twayne"
wrote:

In ,
micky typed:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:08:26 -0500, "Twayne"
wrote:

In ,
micky typed:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:07:21 +0100, "G.F."
wrote:


...


Are the two DOS newsgroups inactive these days? (Great
answer, huh?)

Nope, they are still there and still active.



...


I'll second the XXCopy nomination. I use it to quickly
copy my web sites to my external drive with the date and
time appended to the filename and a log of the activity
is also created. XXCopy is what XCopy should have
been. I bought the lifetime license for XXCopy Pro and
have used it for many, many years without a glitch. If
you already know XCopy, you'll get along fine with
XXCopy as it's very familiar but with many, many more
features and capabilities. Far as I know it can't call
the VSS copy though, so any files "in use", especially
system files, won't get backed up; you still need a
dedicated program for that, like the Norton Ghost that I
use.

I second everything you say.

I havent' used xxcopy for a while, but now t hat you
mention it, if copying a whole system drive, it does have
to be run more than once to get everything, probably for
the same reason xcopy does. I can't remember which
files don't get copied. But it sets a return code. If n
files don't get copied, the return code is 100 plus n.
So it would be a simple matter to just write a .bat file
that runs it 5 times or until the return code is 100,
whichever comes first. Running it when only a few
files are copied can take only 3 or 4 minutes for a whole
drive,

The reason that "seems" to work on boot drives, is that different system
files are "in use" at various and different times. Unless they've added the
capability to use Volume Shadow Copy (VSS) somehow, it will never completely
back up an actve boot drive. Are you implying that it will?
I just checked online and I don't see any mention of handling files "in
use"; on any drive. Also:
I've never had anything but a successful copy using XXCopy but I don't
need it for backups of the boot drive. For backup its major use is to
quickly back up a day's work, which is much faster than a backup program.
And, it knows what's backed up (not by the A bit) and doesn't repeat copying
a program that already exists.
Also unless you have a licensed version, there are some functions that
don't work.

Replied to in an earlier post.

Not knowing which of my posts will appear first or be read first:,
I'll put this paragraph in each of them.:

I'm going to try to take a lesson from JPG and make my reply
unquarrelsome, but I've noticed with myself and others, that if one
just sticks to the facts as he sees them, and doesn't very frequently
put in niceties like "I'm sure you're right in most cases...", if one
is just cut and dried, meat and potatoes, it comes off as sounding
quarrelsome. And if there is even one actually quarrelsome phrase
anywhere, well, there's the ball game. The whole thing seems hostile.



Another thing to note is that the option /clone , which
implies a half dozen other options, to make the
destination file just like the current source file, does
all of that except one thing. it doesn[t' copy the
creation date and time and other date/times from the
source directory. Oh, I said this already.

I would really suggest you check out the site groups; lots of good info
there.

What site groups? When I first read this I thought you meant the
Yahoo list for xxcopy** (and maybe the google list for xxclone). but
now I'm not sure.

**That is, there is only ONE list that deals with XXCopy. In other
lists and groups conversations if any are mostly speculation and
inference.

Ask them about these things or look thru the past posts for relevant
information.

If you mean the yahoo list for XXCopy, I've already read what Kan
himself wrote.

If you mean some other list, well, very few people know much about
XXCopy or XXClone. . Considering how good they are and that each
has a free version, very few people even know they exist.

And even googling with XXCopy as one of the search terms returns very
little. A search I did yesterday returned only one hit that actually
included XXCopy and after that, they all involved XCopy, which is
what google does when it can't find what one asked for. Google
assumes the person made a spelling mistake and looks for more common
but similar words.

(Another search did give a lot more.)

HTH,

Twayne`

On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 14:55:23 -0500, "Twayne"
wrote:

In ,
micky typed:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:45:59 -0500, "Twayne"
wrote:

In ,
micky typed:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:08:26 -0500, "Twayne"
wrote:

In ,
micky typed:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:07:21 +0100, "G.F."
wrote:


Not knowing which of my posts tonight will appear first or be read
first, I'll put this paragraph in each of them.:

I'm going to try to take a lesson from JPG and make my reply
unquarrelsome, but I've noticed with myself and others, that if one
just sticks to the facts as he sees them, and doesn't very frequently
put in niceties like "I'm sure you're right in most cases...", if one
is just cut and dried, meat and potatoes, it comes off as sounding
quarrelsome. And if there is even one actually quarrelsome phrase
anywhere, well, there's the ball game. The whole thing seems hostile.

Yes, it will back up every file on a boot drive and will
do so while the drive is in use. It probably won't back
up a file that is being written to until that file is no
longer being written to, but during the intervening time,
it will copy the other files. It may be necessary to
run XXCopy more than once at a time..

No, it will not. There are always files "in use" even if the machne is idle.

I think we are both right, but for different situations***. For
example, I did some reading since yesterday and found that some
Outlook files can be a problem, but I never run Outlook, so those
files are not a problem for me. .

***I'm sincere here, and it's also a good example of trying to set a
nice tone, but for a reply as long as this one, it's probably not
enough to keep the tone nice until the end. ::-)


Get yourself a copy of regmon and flemon , run it, and let the machine
sit. You'll see that files are being called and released

I used to have both of those programs, on another computer. If it were
earlier in the night, I'd go get them again, but it's 6:35AM at the
moment, so I'll take your word that they are repeatedly called and
released. But the end result wrt copying the files, I review below.

and the Regstry is
in constant flux, never inactive.

The registry is *never* inactive? Regardless, I'm positive I've
backed up the XP registry using XXCopy.

Not only that, every time except for once or twice that I've XXCopy
/clone 'ed a whole partition, I've ended with a run that returns a
code of 100, meaning that every file that should be copied was copied.
How is that possible if my setup (because of what you say is the case
with every setup) makes copying every file impossible?. (The rest of
this question is in my next paragraph, below about 10 lines of your
next paragraph..)

Moreso too if you have any app/s that run
in the background when the machne is "idle".
XCCopy can NOT back up any files that are "in use". That means they're
opened and locked from any other access, including backups of any kind
unless the Volume Shadow Copy is running. Then a "snapshot" of the file at
that instant of tme will be backed up successfully, exactly as it was at
that second in time. Thus it will match all the other system files etc. at
the chosen backup point in time.
You will not get ALL Of the fles by doing multiple backups; unless you
know somethinig I don't, which is somethng I doubt.

During the last backup run, the one that returns a code of 100, only a
few files, maybe only one or two, will be copied, but all the others
will be checked for their date and time and will be found to match the
name, date, and time of the corresponding file in the backup. Thus
we know that those files have not changed sine they were backed up 3,
5, 10 minutes ago. Thus after those last 1 or 2 files are backed up
on the last run (that returns 100) , one will have a copy of all the
files at the time the last backup is run.


As I implied, I may have had one or two back-up efforts where I never
got a return code of 100, but for all the other times, I did get 100.


I've looked closely at the latest XXCopy downloads and descrips and not a
single one mentions that it can create a complete backup of the boot disk
and all of its files.


XXCOPY won't make a bootable copy of an XP partition, but
it will back up all the files in the partition.

No, it won't. You have admitted that by sayng it didn't create a bootable
disk; Bootability IS part of the files that are backed up!

That's like saying that love is part of your organs and tissues.
There are things in a partition that are not in any file. I think
they are in the Partition Table, or something like that.

All the images of
my boot drive include making the drvie bootable by nature of what was backed
up. Even if you backed everything up on your boot drive, or thought you did,
if it doesn't make a bootable recovery then it's missing files.

No. Kan addressed that specifically. That''s the way he backed up
win98 partitions and automatically made a bootable copy. He figured
that would work with WinXP too, but it didn't , for a reason he at
first did not know. That's when he realized that while XXCOPY would
work for all XP partition files, if he wanted to make a bootable coy,
he'd have to come up with something more, and that's what XXClone is.

I wish I knew which email he discussed this in, but there have been
probably hundreds by him alone and I don't know.

Something
tells me you still need to do a lot more research on this subject and that
you are creating unusable boot drive backups;

There's no doubt that the files I copy with XXCopy are copies of the
files I copy. (Something Gracie Allen would say.)

Else they would be bootable.

No.

You might want to do a lot more research on this with Kan Yabumoto or
several of the other knowledgable people at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xxcopy/ where you can look at the
archives, without registering iirc, and can subscribe to the list and
then ask questions.

What
the difference between those two things is, I don't think
I ever knew. Kan was a bit surprised to see this, also
afaicr, and it took him a while to realize he had to
write a new program, XXCLone, to get a bootable output
file.) Maybe it has to do with markiing the partition
Active, or something like that. Anyhow, to make a
bootable copy of an XP partition, one needs XXClone or
someone else's product.

Of course it does; the backp has to iinclude the MBR and everything in it
and everything it in turn needs, just to start with.

Well, the MBR is in addition to copies of every file, so you've just
contradicted yourself. That is, copying every file in a partition
will not copy the MBR nor will it modify the destination MBR to be the
same as in the source.

WRT XXCLone: However, unlike all the other partition
clone products,, XXCLone copies files one file at a time,
not one track at a time or by regarding the whole
partition as one big file (or whatever other products do.
)

To gt a complete backup of a boot drive, it needs to back up sector by
sector and byte by byte.

No it doesn't. That's the way afaik every product,, free or
commercial, does it, EXCEPT for XXClone. My guess is that Kan had
put so much effort into writing XXCopy, and he understood the way
files were stored so well, that he didn't want to go write another
program like all the others after he realized how little had to be
added to XXCopy with the /Clone options** to create XXClone

**Which, despite the name, only clones Win98 and earlier partitions***
and doesn't clone WinXP partitions.

***The whole idea that there would be different kinds of partitions
based on what OS is installed in it is also counter to most people's
expectations. Here's an analogy. For a given subway system there
are only 3 kinds of cars that fit the tracks, A, B, and C (3 kinds of
partitions) but in practice, some cars are used only by men, or only
by women, or only by Greeks or only by Portuguese. So in practice
there can be AM, AW, AG, and AP, as well as B M, BW, BG, and BP, and
so on with C. )

Not all the information is located on the "tracks";
only actually files are located on the tracks, not the system kernal
innards, preparations and setups.

And up until now you've been saying that copying all the files, the
*files* will give one a bootable partition Now it sounds like
you're saying otherwise.


Kan is working all the time and he may have added VSS to
XXCopy for all I know. I haven't read the mailling list
for over a year. .

I've scoured the site as best I can and there is no mention of backing up
files that are in use on a boot drive has been added. If you only "thnk" he
may have added VSS to XXCopy,

I will accept your searching and agree there is no VSS in XXcopy

then you are again admitting that you know you
cannot get a complete, working backup of the OS with XXCopy.

It's not because of the lack of VSS. I've already told you and I've
never said otherwise that one can't get a bootable clone from XXCopy,
even though it will copy all the files. To get a bootable clone, one
needs XXClone. So ;I'm admit6ting nothing, despite what you inferred.



I just checked online and I don't see any mention of
handling files "in use"; on any drive

It's understood. When it says that it copies every file.
And when a system partition (not just a data partition)
is copied and a return code of 100 is returned.

I'm not sure what you mean by "in use".

"In Use means a file is Opened and beiing Used by someone, or waiting to be
used. Post '98, that means the files are "locked" and won't even allow read
access by any other means. Win98 and before are entirely different animals
and there is no comparison to anything written after that OS at MS.

As I said almost at the top, in some instances of XP, there may be
files that remain open so much that it's hard to copy them. Not in
mine.

Here's one tidbit I found with google.

http://www.xxcopy.com/xarc/msg/msg08149.htm
--start quote --
Can XXClone or XXCopy copy in use locked files such as the master file for
Oulook, Outlook.pst?

Peter Martin

I can't speak for xxclone but xxcopy will not copy the in use .pst
file(s) if Outlook is running.

However you can test to see if Outlook is running and if so, close it
before you start your backup. Below is one way to do it on an XP Pro
machine:

John

[Here is a bat file that will do this: Statements that start with a
colon are comments.]

@echo off & setlocal

:: If outlook is running, close it
tasklist|find /i "outlook.exe" && goto:CLOSEOUTLOOK

:GO
::begin xxcopying
echo xxcopy \SRC\ \DST\ /OPTIONS
pause
goto:EOF

:CLOSEOUTLOOK
taskkill /F /IM OUTLOOK.EXE
goto:GO

-- end quote--

[I don't use Outlook so I don't have to worry about this. Micky]


http://www.xxcopy.com/xxgroup/m05/msg05444.htm ,
-- start quote --
There are a number of programs that are able to backup live
registry files e.g.

RDisk (NT4) and NTBackup (W2k/XP)
RegBack (Resource Kit)
ERUNT http://home.t-online.de/home/lars.hederer/erunt
DCOPY http://www.merkespages.de/

Whilst these solutions aren't complete answers, they do go some
way by backing up the registry files and in most cases, the
remaining locked files are of no significance e.g. registry
.log and .alt files are temporary and can be ignored for backup
purposes.
--- end quote ---

BTW, XXClone iirc doesn't copy pagefile.sys or iirc hiberfile.sys,
because they really have no role in a clone, XXCOPY will copy these
files and every other file unless they are listed in the list of
exclusions one can and should make.

Now it's 7 AM, and I have to stop replying. I left the rest because
I don't like to snip unless necessary.


It copies every
changed file from Eudora and Agent, including in.mbx,
in.toc, and the various 0000nnnn.dat and .idx files that
are used during the current windows session. Most
system files don't get modified, so they only get copied
the first time XXCopy is used to copy a whole partition
or the directory[s] where the system files reside. s.

Please, do some more research and become cognizant of what you're trying to
claim. In one breath here you're saying it's a perfect OS backup and in the
next, admitting it can't succeed,

No. I said "it will copy every file, but it won't make a bootable
copy of an XP partition". Because you think if every file is copied
there will be a bootable copy, you think I've contradicted myself.

albeit obtusely but that's what you're
doing.

No.


. Also:
I've never had anything but a successful copy using
XXCopy but I don't need it for backups of the boot
drive. For backup its major use is to quickly back up a
day's work, which is much faster than a backup program.
And, it knows what's backed up (not by the A bit)

That's right. It uses dates and times. That's why I was
thinking about datestamps in my first answer.

and doesn't repeat copying
a program that already exists.
Also unless you have a licensed version, there are
some functions that don't work.

Yes, I know, some functions of XXCopy don't work in the
free version, but i don't think those affect this
discussion. I haven't gotten a warning for a long time.

See, that's your problem; you don't THNK.

Then you give me an example of a function that works in XXCopy Home or
XXCopy Pro that isn't present in Free XXCopy, and which DOES affect
this discussion.

You have to KNOW when you get into

Don't look for too much meaning just because I use modest language
like "I don't think...." I know your statement about the licensed
version having more functions is irrelevant to this conversation, but
I wrote only "I don't think..." to be less confrontational than you
want to be.

areas like this or you're going to reach a point down the road where you're
going to be very frustrated and disappointed.

I'm not there yet.

Have you ever even tried a recovery of your boot drive using the XXCopy
sourced backup?

How many times do I have to tell you. An XXCopy of all the files of a
winXP partition will NOT create a bootable partition. So of course I
haven't tried to boot from it.

If it's untested, then you have NO idea whether it will work

I'm told it won't work. I believe Kan and all the other veterans on
the mailing list who say that. I don't have to try to fly with no
special apparatus to know I can't do it.

or not. Get yourself a freebie or Tral-version VSS-using backup program,
back up your boot drive/s, test that it works, and then once you know you're
safe go ahead and try a backup from XXCopy and see what happens. It's going
to fail, so ... that's where you get out the Trial and use it to Restore
your boot drive.
Actually, you would get a lot of mileage out of a good disc imaging app
like Norton Ghost. It's not that expensive.

I have Norton Ghost somewhere. I'm happy with XXCopy and XXClone.,
and Acronis True Image Home.


There are also decent freebies
out there but I don't use them and thus cannot recommend them.


...


I would really suggest you check out the site groups;
lots of good info there. Ask them about these things or
look thru the past posts for relevant information.

There is no doubt about this. I noticed it myself,
verified it for myself, and I did discuss itt with the
list and with Kan (mostly because I wanted to either a)
let them know that it didn't work right, or b) find out
why he made it work the way he did. It turned out to be
b). ) . Kan's the one who gave me the reason why
XXCOPY uses the current date and time when creating a
duplicate directory. Instead of using the date and time
of the directory it's duplicating. But there is an option
to make it copy the date and time from the original
directory. I think the option is /TC .

Dunno. But I know there is such a feature. I'd just rather prepend a
date/time to the filenames so I have a readable history of the backups.

I wasn't referring to your prepending scheme. I was just giving the
one exception to "XXCopy /Clone". It copies all the files but without
/TC it doesn't make exact copies of the directories/folders, because t
he dates are different. Prepending the date/time is useful for
some things, but some files can't be renamed or the program that uses
them won't work. I want every directory to have the same date and
time as the one it was copied from.

You apparently have quite a closed mind and prefer to regurgitate the same
things you think you know as oposed to making sure your comments/opinions
are accurate.

A) What I said, both facts and opinions, were accurate. When I
wasn't certain, I indicated I wasn't certain, to maintain my accuracy.

B) Wow, you can be insulting. What is the point of that? I thought
we were having an interesting technical conversation. I contradicted
you several times, but I don't think I ever insulted you.

I'm not sure I have anything more to say to you.

Your loss.



HTH,

Twayne`

In message , micky
writes:
[]
I'm going to try to take a lesson from JPG and make my reply
unquarrelsome, but I've noticed with myself and others, that if one

Gee (-:! Thanks. (I find if I can stop the steam coming out of people's
ears, both sides can make useful contributions.)
[]
[Here is a bat file that will do this: Statements that start with a
colon are comments.]

@echo off & setlocal

:: If outlook is running, close it
tasklist|find /i "outlook.exe" && goto:CLOSEOUTLOOK

:GO
::begin xxcopying
echo xxcopy \SRC\ \DST\ /OPTIONS
pause
goto:EOF

:CLOSEOUTLOOK
taskkill /F /IM OUTLOOK.EXE
goto:GO
[]
Hmm, all that jumping around. Assuming I've understood what "&&" does,
i. e. some sort of if/then construct, the following is shorter:

@echo off & setlocal

:: If outlook is running, close it
tasklist|find /i "outlook.exe" && taskkill /F /IM OUTLOOK.EXE

::begin xxcopying
echo xxcopy \SRC\ \DST\ /OPTIONS
pause


(The final "pause" may not be required either.)

Assuming "&&" can be followed by other than goto (and that if it can
spaces aren't a problem).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

And if you kill Judi Dench, you can't go back home. - Bill Nighy (on learning
to ride a motorbike [on which she would be side-saddle] for "The Best Exotic
Marigold Hotel"), quoted in Radio Times 18-24 February 2012.

On Tue, 5 Mar 2013 07:20:40 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , micky
writes:
[]
I'm going to try to take a lesson from JPG and make my reply
unquarrelsome, but I've noticed with myself and others, that if one

Gee (-:! Thanks. (I find if I can stop the steam coming out of people's
ears, both sides can make useful contributions.)
[]
[Here is a bat file that will do this: Statements that start with a
colon are comments.]

@echo off & setlocal

:: If outlook is running, close it
tasklist|find /i "outlook.exe" && goto:CLOSEOUTLOOK

:GO
::begin xxcopying
echo xxcopy \SRC\ \DST\ /OPTIONS
pause
goto:EOF

:CLOSEOUTLOOK
taskkill /F /IM OUTLOOK.EXE
goto:GO
[]
Hmm, all that jumping around. Assuming I've understood what "&&" does,
i. e. some sort of if/then construct, the following is shorter:

@echo off & setlocal

:: If outlook is running, close it
tasklist|find /i "outlook.exe" && taskkill /F /IM OUTLOOK.EXE

::begin xxcopying
echo xxcopy \SRC\ \DST\ /OPTIONS
pause


(The final "pause" may not be required either.)

Assuming "&&" can be followed by other than goto (and that if it can
spaces aren't a problem).

You're probably right. I can write simple bat files but there are a
lot of things I don't know.