Replace Windows XP copy?

"Mark L. Ferguson" wrote in message
...
"Total Commander" will run from a USB stick. http://www.ghisler.com/

Hmm, come to think of it, Microsoft's SyncToy (free) might also work.
Have it installed but haven't needed to use it yet. Although not so
stated, guess the OP wants a 3rd party GUI solution. I don't know how
it handles copy errors.

"Noozer" wrote in message
...
It's a pretty bad thing if you have a "copy" that isn't the same as
the original, but you don't know it's not the same.

The fact that the file can NOT be copied is the error, and obviously
there was no copy made to be different than the original (unless you
include non-existence as a difference).

Duh! A copy of a file structure (multiple files, SINGLE copy
operation) that is missing a single byte of information is "not the
same."

Not possible. If the copy fails then there is no copied file so there
is no mismatch on bytes. Yes, a non-existent file is not the same as an
existent file.

And "the fact that the file can NOT be copied" is NOT the error. It's
the result. The error could be a CRC error on the disk, file in use,
path name too long, target full, etc...

Which again means there is no copied file to have a byte mismatch. Or
was it that you actually want the files copied that cannot be read? Not
sure how you copy anything that you can't read, kind of like writing a
book report on a book that you couldn't open.

How do you run "xcopy /?" from the desktop context menu? I'm looking
for a COPY/MOVE replacement. I'm not looking for a lesson in using
DOS.

Oh, so now the criteria has changed. Didn't see in your original post
that you demanded a GUI application so you could wade through menus and
select from a slew of options in one or multiple screens rather than
specify parameters on the command line. Okay, then go try Microsoft's
SyncToy. Might be better for you with its comfy, fuzzy, Fisher-Price
interface.

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:37:46 -0600 from Noozer :
What I want to do is copy ? of files from one USB drive to another USB
drive.

This should have read "...is copy 258gig of files, comprised of 600000 files
and 47000 directories, from one USB..."

Nope. "Composed of", maybe, but "comprising" not "comprised of".

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:33:25 -0400, Stan Brown
wrote:

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:37:46 -0600 from Noozer :
What I want to do is copy ? of files from one USB drive to another USB
drive.

This should have read "...is copy 258gig of files, comprised of 600000 files
and 47000 directories, from one USB..."

Nope. "Composed of", maybe, but "comprising" not "comprised of".


Congratulations! You're one of the very few people who knows what
"comprise" means.

But why are you correcting his English?

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

The fact that the file can NOT be copied is the error, and obviously
there was no copy made to be different than the original (unless you
include non-existence as a difference).

Duh! A copy of a file structure (multiple files, SINGLE copy operation)
that is missing a single byte of information is "not the same."

Not possible. If the copy fails then there is no copied file so there is
no mismatch on bytes. Yes, a non-existent file is not the same as an
existent file.

Uhm... Were are talking about a single COPY execution, which could include
multiple files. If you do A copy to duplicate 10 files, and only end up
with 9 at the target location then the resulting copy is different from the
original.

Say I hand you a file folder with 10 pages in it and tell you, "please copy
these". You begin copying each page, but run out of copy paper at page 8. Do
you return the result and tell me that it's done? Do you toss the first 8
into the trash and tell me that you couldn't do it? No, you give me a whole
folder containing only SOME of the pages.

And "the fact that the file can NOT be copied" is NOT the error. It's the
result. The error could be a CRC error on the disk, file in use, path
name too long, target full, etc...

Which again means there is no copied file to have a byte mismatch. Or was
it that you actually want the files copied that cannot be read? Not sure
how you copy anything that you can't read, kind of like writing a book
report on a book that you couldn't open.

You're telling me that the cover of a book will never be interesting enough
to take notes about it?



But HOW is ignoring the failure in any way useful if you don't know why it's
happening?

How do you run "xcopy /?" from the desktop context menu? I'm looking for
a COPY/MOVE replacement. I'm not looking for a lesson in using DOS.

Oh, so now the criteria has changed. Didn't see in your original post
that you demanded a GUI application so you could wade through menus and
select from a slew of options in one or multiple screens rather than
specify parameters on the command line. Okay, then go try Microsoft's
SyncToy. Might be better for you with its comfy, fuzzy, Fisher-Price
interface.

I used that for a long while to do a backup at each shutdown. It had it's
place. Still not any good for what I said.

I *NEVER* changed the criteria. I asked originally for a REPLACEMENT.
Something that works like COPY/MOVE but with some extra functionality.

Oh, so now the criteria has changed. Didn't see in your original post
that you demanded a GUI application so you could wade through menus and
select from a slew of options in one or multiple screens rather than
specify parameters on the command line. Okay, then go try Microsoft's
SyncToy. Might be better for you with its comfy, fuzzy, Fisher-Price
interface.

Actually, I *am* going to change the criteria. I'm moving more files around
now and realized that one thing I'd like to do is be able to do a pause on a
long copy process to speed some smaller ones.

"Noozer" wrote in message ...

Uhm... Were are talking about a single COPY execution, which could
include multiple files. If you do A copy to duplicate 10 files, and
only end up with 9 at the target location then the resulting copy is
different from the original.

So you want the copy to first test if all files are readable before
doing the copy? Okay, then use the already suggested method in my other
post of copying to NUL to see if the files can be read before doing the
copying to destination files. Until the program attempts to actually
read a file, it won't know whether or not it can be read.

You can run multiple commands at the DOS command prompt. See
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/d....mspx?mfr=true
for help on using DOS commands. By using the "&&" command delimiter,
you can have the following command run only if the prior command exited
with zero status, so you could run:

xcopy srcSpec /s && xcopy srcSpec destPath [path]xcopy.log

Since no destination path was specified in the first command, output
goes to NUL. This checks if xcopy can read all the files included by
the source filespec. If that command is successful then the following
xcopy does have a destination path specified so the files that were
already tested as readable will be copied by this second command.

Maybe this gives you want you want. No files will get copied if any of
them cannot be read. I had figured you wanted to get whatever files
were readable.

"Noozer" wrote in message ...

Actually, I *am* going to change the criteria. I'm moving more files
around now and realized that one thing I'd like to do is be able to do
a pause on a long copy process to speed some smaller ones.

Can't help you there. It's possible to do with a batch script but a lot
of logic would be involved in walking through all the subdirectories
starting at the parent source path to record the files with their paths
along with their sizes, record into a table, sort that table by
filesize, and then use a for-loop to copy each file in the order listed
in the sorted table.

Of course, to meet your first criteria that no files get copied if one
of them is not readable, the for-loop would first have to perform a copy
to NUL to guarantee the file could be read. If the exit code of the
copy to NUL were zero then execute a 2nd copy within that for-loop
following the 1st copy to NUL. The 2nd copy specifies a destination
path so the file actually gets copied. However, that means that the
for-loop would either abort on the first file that couldn't be read (so
you end up with only a partial copy in filesize order) or it would
simply skip the following copy and you end up with the for-loop
completing but only get in the destination path the files that could be
read okay. Alternatively, an if-statement on a non-zero exit code for
the 1st copy to NUL could delete all files and subdirectories at the
destination path and then exit the for-loop. The for-loop would contain
2 copy commands: the first copy goes to NUL to check the file is
readable; an if-statement checks if the exit code from the 1st copy was
non-zero and, if not , deletes all files and subdirectories thus far
created at the destination path and exits the for-loop; and the 2nd copy
would copy the file that has passed the test by the 1st copy to ensure
it was readable.

The single for-loop would result in testing each file in the order they
are specified in the input list. It would also copy each passed file
until a read test failed (and then do cleanup and exit). That means
each successful pass through the for-loop would do 2 copies: one to test
the file was readable and another to do the copy. The abort only occurs
after some time has been expended on testing and copying each file that
has so far passed. To get around the time for the copying, and because
you want all or none as your first criteria, two for-loops would be
needed. The first for-loop does only the testing that the sorted listed
of files are readable. The exit value from the copy command (to NUL) is
added to a variable (that started with a value of zero). An exit value
of zero means the command was successful. After doing the copy to NUL
and adding that command's exit value to the variable, an if-statement
checks if the variable is non-zero and, if so, exits the for-loop. This
would abort the testing for-loop when the first non-readable file was
discovered. No point in wasting time to check the rest that the rest of
the files are readable because, again, the first criteria is all or no
files. The second for-loop to do the actual copying using the same
sorted file list would be contained within an if-statement that tests
the value of the variable was zero; if the variable is zero from the
first for-loop then run the second for-loop. No point in doing any
copying if any file was unreadable to meet the first criteria.

So it's possible but I'm not going to spend the time to figure out the
batch script. Good luck finding another GUI utility that first reads
all files to ensure they are readable (rather than skipping on error or
aborting on the first error) and then does the copying only if all files
were tested as readable, and which does all copying in filesize order
across all subdirectories starting from the parent source path.

Take a look at http://www.nonags.com/nonags/diskbk.html

They have lots of programs for file management and synchronizing.


HTH


On Jul 22, 6:37 am, "Noozer" wrote:
I often copy large amounts of files. Nothing is more frustrating than having
the computer copy files for an hour and then pop up an error. This means I
have to start over.

Now that Tucows has officially gone to crap I can't find any software there,
and Googling for "XP copy replacment" or "xp file copy" generate a bazillion
unrelated hits.

Are there any GOOD file copy utilities out there that I can use to replace
the XP file copy?

ROBOCOPY is cumbersome but so so versatile and customizable.

"Noozer" wrote:

I often copy large amounts of files. Nothing is more frustrating than having
the computer copy files for an hour and then pop up an error. This means I
have to start over.

Now that Tucows has officially gone to crap I can't find any software there,
and Googling for "XP copy replacment" or "xp file copy" generate a bazillion
unrelated hits.

Are there any GOOD file copy utilities out there that I can use to replace
the XP file copy?

PowerDesk. Has both a freebie and a pay for version. Will replace Explorer
if you want it to. Bad files don't stop the process of copying. Can copy
filepaths, names, etc., as text; e.g.
"C:\Program Files\Windows NT\Accessories\wordpad.exe" was done with a
copy/paste operation. Many other bells & whistles. Also beats Explorer for
search times.

Go to www.v-com.com/product/pd_ind.html

Looks like the freebie's he
http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/fil...scription.html


HTH,

Pop`




Noozer wrote:
I often copy large amounts of files. Nothing is more frustrating than
having the computer copy files for an hour and then pop up an error.
This means I have to start over.

Now that Tucows has officially gone to crap I can't find any software
there, and Googling for "XP copy replacment" or "xp file copy"
generate a bazillion unrelated hits.

Are there any GOOD file copy utilities out there that I can use to
replace the XP file copy?

PowerDesk. Has both a freebie and a pay for version. Will replace Explorer
if you want it to. Bad files don't stop the process of copying. Can copy
filepaths, names, etc., as text; e.g.
"C:\Program Files\Windows NT\Accessories\wordpad.exe" was done with a
copy/paste operation. Many other bells & whistles. Also beats Explorer for
search times.

Go to www.v-com.com/product/pd_ind.html

Looks like the freebie's he
http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/fil...scription.html


HTH,

Pop`




Noozer wrote:
I often copy large amounts of files. Nothing is more frustrating than
having the computer copy files for an hour and then pop up an error.
This means I have to start over.

Now that Tucows has officially gone to crap I can't find any software
there, and Googling for "XP copy replacment" or "xp file copy"
generate a bazillion unrelated hits.

Are there any GOOD file copy utilities out there that I can use to
replace the XP file copy?

"Noozer" wrote in
:

I often copy large amounts of files. Nothing is more frustrating than
having the computer copy files for an hour and then pop up an error.
This means I have to start over.

Now that Tucows has officially gone to crap I can't find any software
there, and Googling for "XP copy replacment" or "xp file copy"
generate a bazillion unrelated hits.

Are there any GOOD file copy utilities out there that I can use to
replace the XP file copy?




Go to Snapfiles.com and look in the freeware area, and see if
theres any file coping software

Try XCOPY {source} {Destination} -h -i -c -k -e -r -y

--
SoCalCommie
"Country Pumpkin" wrote in message
7...
"Noozer" wrote in
:

I often copy large amounts of files. Nothing is more frustrating than
having the computer copy files for an hour and then pop up an error.
This means I have to start over.

Now that Tucows has officially gone to crap I can't find any software
there, and Googling for "XP copy replacment" or "xp file copy"
generate a bazillion unrelated hits.

Are there any GOOD file copy utilities out there that I can use to
replace the XP file copy?




Go to Snapfiles.com and look in the freeware area, and see if
theres any file coping software

On 20 Okt, 21:49, Country Pumpkin wrote:
"Noozer" wrote :

I often copy large amounts of files. Nothing is more frustrating than
having the computer copy files for an hour and then pop up an error.
This means I have to start over.

Now that Tucows has officially gone to crap I can't find any software
there, and Googling for "XPcopy replacment" or "xpfile copy"
generatea bazillion unrelated hits.

Are there any GOOD file copy utilities out there that I can use to
replace theXPfile copy?

Go to Snapfiles.com and look in the freeware area, and see if
theres any file coping software

XP has a bundled utility for this purpose : XCOPY.EXE
Open a Command prompt and write : XCOPY /? for a complete set of
switches.
Used with the /D switch, XCOPY will not copy files allready existing
on target directory.

"Power to the people!"
PKM