If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
|
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
On 9/15/2013 3:45 PM, Paladin wrote: On 2013-09-15, Juan Wei wrote: has written on 9/15/2013 12:17 PM: I'm, by some quirk (anal retentive, obsessive compulsive, other ???) of my mentality, an organizational freak. I, by nature, want things well structured and organized logically. So, in XP-Pro I have the hard drive partitioned into multiple partitions _- Office Apps, Internet Apps, Accessories, Utilities, etc. Why not just use a directory structure? What do you gain by all those partitions? Alphabet soup. Some people get off on a P:/ drive. You can "name" any folder as a drive letter. Simply r-click it, select Properties, Sharing, Share, Select Everyone from the pull down and set R/W. Then in the Tools menu in Windows Explorer, select "Map network drive" to give the letter of choice to the shared folder. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
On 2013-09-16, Bob I wrote:
On 9/15/2013 3:45 PM, Paladin wrote: On 2013-09-15, Juan Wei wrote: has written on 9/15/2013 12:17 PM: I'm, by some quirk (anal retentive, obsessive compulsive, other ???) of my mentality, an organizational freak. I, by nature, want things well structured and organized logically. So, in XP-Pro I have the hard drive partitioned into multiple partitions _- Office Apps, Internet Apps, Accessories, Utilities, etc. Why not just use a directory structure? What do you gain by all those partitions? Alphabet soup. Some people get off on a P:/ drive. You can "name" any folder as a drive letter. Simply r-click it, select Properties, Sharing, Share, Select Everyone from the pull down and set R/W. Then in the Tools menu in Windows Explorer, select "Map network drive" to give the letter of choice to the shared folder. You can name your foot a hand. It serves no real purpose. Just use folders. Or, create partitions, if it helps you sleep at night. -- IBM Pollyanna Principle: Machines should work. People should think. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:43:39 -0500, Bob I wrote:
On 9/15/2013 11:17 AM, wrote: I'm, by some quirk (anal retentive, obsessive compulsive, other ???) of my mentality, an organizational freak. I, by nature, want things well structured and organized logically. So, in XP-Pro I have the hard drive partitioned into multiple partitions _- Office Apps, Internet Apps, Accessories, Utilities, etc. I've been told that this "slows" the machine down -- but I don't do anything (except 1 or 2 CPU-intensive math things I've programmed) where the slow-down , if it exists, is noticeable. So, my question --- what's the downside of doing the same thing on a new Win 7 64 bit computer? Primarily a waste of time and effort. Makes successful restoration from backups less likely. All the registry and user info for the installations remains on the C: drive anyway. I generally agree but sometimes partitioning makes sense. Back in 1999 I bought a new computer and the biggest hard disk available was 8 Gig. When bigger drives became available I got a 40 Gig one, and partioned it into D, E, F, and G drives -- back then it was Fat 32, and making it all one partition would have wasted a bit of space because it would have required a bigger cluster size. My plan was to use D to back up C, E for programs, F for games (I didn't want the kids installing them in my working disk space) and G for data. I installed programs on E because there wasn't enough space on C. And I've carried the same configuration over ever since, because I don't like reinstalling programs -- much too time-consuming. When I bought a new computer, I bought it without an OS. I just backed up each partition on Acronis, and restored it on the new computer's 500 Gig drives. Everything worked. -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
XXcopy
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 20:43:18 +0100, choro wrote:
And incidentally, in preference to W7's Xcopy I always XXcopy my data/user files to an external HD. That way they are immediately accessible. I have the necessary XXcopy commands ready on a Word document with its own shortcut on the desktop. Nice and neat! The only files XXcopy cannot deal with (at least the freebie version) is filenames with more than 256 characters including the path. And that is no problem for me. Please tell more. I once had DR DOS, which had some useful variants like XDel, which don't seem to work in Windows XP or 7. I still use a useful utility that dates back to 1984 or so, called bac.com. It copies files, but only when the size or date differ. I would have expected that M$ would long ago have included such a command in their operating system, but they haven't. Unfortunately bac doesn't work with long file names, so I try to keep filenames to the 8.3 pattern. -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
On 15/09/2013 21:08, Jabberwocky wrote:
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 20:43:18 +0100, choro wrote: On 15/09/2013 20:34, choro wrote: On 15/09/2013 19:28, wrote: "Ken Blake" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:17:38 -0500, wrote: I'm, by some quirk (anal retentive, obsessive compulsive, other ???) of my mentality, an organizational freak. I, by nature, want things well structured and organized logically. Yes, separating different kinds of files on partitions is an organizational technique, but so is separating different kinds of files into folders. The difference is that partitions are static and fixed in size, while folders are dynamic, changing size automatically as necessary to meet your changing needs. That generally makes folders a much better way to organize, in my view. So, in XP-Pro I have the hard drive partitioned into multiple partitions _- Office Apps, Internet Apps, Accessories, Utilities, etc. In my opinion, that's *way* overpartitioned. Please don't misinterpret here, I don't mean to be argumentative at all, but if one is partitioning what becomes "too much" ?? I've been told that this "slows" the machine down -- but I don't do anything (except 1 or 2 CPU-intensive math things I've programmed) where the slow-down , if it exists, is noticeable. With modern computers, the slowdown is very slight if it exists at all. You might want to read this article I've written: http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=326 Nice sensible advice. Thx! Everybody should tick to go to your article and read it carefully. Personally I put backups on a 2nd internal HD. But just to be on the safe side I also copy them to an external HD. With HDs so cheap these days, I see no reason to try and economize on HDs. +1 fully earned. And incidentally, in preference to W7's Xcopy I always XXcopy my data/user files to an external HD. That way they are immediately accessible. I have the necessary XXcopy commands ready on a Word document with its own shortcut on the desktop. Nice and neat! The only files XXcopy cannot deal with (at least the freebie version) is filenames with more than 256 characters including the path. And that is no problem for me. Can I suggest that you have a look at Microsoft's SyncToy 2.1? Read about it on the Internet. Saw some user comments about it being dead slow at times. Just grinding on and on all night long, as someone said. Besides, XXcopy is a DOS program and as such very rapid. And not only that it has got so many options/parameters that it is to all extent and purpose more or less *limitless* in its choices. However, one has to write one's own command/s which scares many people. But if you are conversant with how old DOS commands worked, it is in fact very easy to tailor to your needs. -- choro ***** |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
On 16/09/2013 00:41, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
AllWay Sync I will look into this AllWaySync and see if it will serve me better than XXcopy. I've commented on XXcopy, its ease of use and speed of action, to say nothing of its tailorability, once you have written the simple DOS commands. But anything is worth trying once. Who knows, I might discard XXcopy! This would be like going into a new relationship while having a long standing steady relationship with all the dangers that it entails. -- choro ***** |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
XXcopy
On 16/09/2013 02:37, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 20:43:18 +0100, choro wrote: And incidentally, in preference to W7's Xcopy I always XXcopy my data/user files to an external HD. That way they are immediately accessible. I have the necessary XXcopy commands ready on a Word document with its own shortcut on the desktop. Nice and neat! The only files XXcopy cannot deal with (at least the freebie version) is filenames with more than 256 characters including the path. And that is no problem for me. Please tell more. I once had DR DOS, which had some useful variants like XDel, which don't seem to work in Windows XP or 7. I still use a useful utility that dates back to 1984 or so, called bac.com. It copies files, but only when the size or date differ. I would have expected that M$ would long ago have included such a command in their operating system, but they haven't. Unfortunately bac doesn't work with long file names, so I try to keep filenames to the 8.3 pattern. You can doctor XXcopy to copy all the files OR to copy only new files or updated files that have the A attribute set. What is more you can change the A attribute of any file that you might not want copied beforehand and it will skip those files. I did this the other day with some huge video files that I didn't want copied. It just went ahead and copied only the other new files. And because I have the commands on a Word doc file with a shortcut on my desktop, all I have to do is open the Word document, click in the margin of the command line to select and copy the command and then paste the command at the Command prompt. The possibilities are more or less limitless. It is all done by choosing your parameters. -- choro ***** |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
On 15 Sep 2013, choro wrote in
alt.windows7.general: I will look into this AllWaySync and see if it will serve me better than XXcopy. I've commented on XXcopy, its ease of use and speed of action, to say nothing of its tailorability, once you have written the simple DOS commands. But anything is worth trying once. Who knows, I might discard XXcopy! This would be like going into a new relationship while having a long standing steady relationship with all the dangers that it entails. Another possibility, and the one I use, is Microsoft's Robocopy, which is included with Windows Vista and later. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
XXcopy
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 03:00:44 +0100, choro wrote:
On 16/09/2013 02:37, Steve Hayes wrote: On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 20:43:18 +0100, choro wrote: And incidentally, in preference to W7's Xcopy I always XXcopy my data/user files to an external HD. That way they are immediately accessible. I have the necessary XXcopy commands ready on a Word document with its own shortcut on the desktop. Nice and neat! The only files XXcopy cannot deal with (at least the freebie version) is filenames with more than 256 characters including the path. And that is no problem for me. Please tell more. I once had DR DOS, which had some useful variants like XDel, which don't seem to work in Windows XP or 7. I still use a useful utility that dates back to 1984 or so, called bac.com. It copies files, but only when the size or date differ. I would have expected that M$ would long ago have included such a command in their operating system, but they haven't. Unfortunately bac doesn't work with long file names, so I try to keep filenames to the 8.3 pattern. You can doctor XXcopy to copy all the files OR to copy only new files or updated files that have the A attribute set. What is more you can change the A attribute of any file that you might not want copied beforehand and it will skip those files. I did this the other day with some huge video files that I didn't want copied. It just went ahead and copied only the other new files. And because I have the commands on a Word doc file with a shortcut on my desktop, all I have to do is open the Word document, click in the margin of the command line to select and copy the command and then paste the command at the Command prompt. The possibilities are more or less limitless. It is all done by choosing your parameters. I don't seem to have it on my XP system, is it only in Win 7? Does it do deletions? -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
XXcopy
On 16/09/2013 11:35, Steve Hayes wrote:
I don't seem to have it on my XP system, is it only in Win 7? XXCOPY is not in either system as standard - you have to download it from xxcopy.com and install it. Does it do deletions? It can do, if you use the Clone command. That makes a copy of Source in Destination - including deleting any existing files in Destination which are not in Source. -- Cheers, Roger ____________ Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom checked. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
XXCOPY (Was Disk Partitioning)
On 15/09/2013 20:43, choro wrote:
And incidentally, in preference to W7's Xcopy I always XXcopy my data/user files to an external HD. That way they are immediately accessible. I have the necessary XXcopy commands ready on a Word document with its own shortcut on the desktop. Nice and neat! I do the same, except that I have a batch file which contains all the commands, and which is scheduled to run automatically each day. The only files XXcopy cannot deal with (at least the freebie version) is filenames with more than 256 characters including the path. And that is no problem for me. Another thing the freebie version can't cope with is copying files to a network drive rather than to a directly connected external drive. To be more accurate, it *can* do it - but not without producing a 'nag' message which suggests that you ought to be using the 'paid for' version. You have to "press any key to continue" to get rid of the message, which means that you can't automate the process. This is annoying because the T&C's *do* allow copying to network drives as long as they're your personal property. In order to overcome this problem, I've taken to using Robocopy. There's a bit of a learning curve, but it enables me to achieve everything I want to do, without any nag messages. -- Cheers, Roger ____________ Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom checked. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
XXcopy
On 16/09/2013 11:35, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 03:00:44 +0100, choro wrote: On 16/09/2013 02:37, Steve Hayes wrote: On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 20:43:18 +0100, choro wrote: And incidentally, in preference to W7's Xcopy I always XXcopy my data/user files to an external HD. That way they are immediately accessible. I have the necessary XXcopy commands ready on a Word document with its own shortcut on the desktop. Nice and neat! The only files XXcopy cannot deal with (at least the freebie version) is filenames with more than 256 characters including the path. And that is no problem for me. Please tell more. I once had DR DOS, which had some useful variants like XDel, which don't seem to work in Windows XP or 7. I still use a useful utility that dates back to 1984 or so, called bac.com. It copies files, but only when the size or date differ. I would have expected that M$ would long ago have included such a command in their operating system, but they haven't. Unfortunately bac doesn't work with long file names, so I try to keep filenames to the 8.3 pattern. You can doctor XXcopy to copy all the files OR to copy only new files or updated files that have the A attribute set. What is more you can change the A attribute of any file that you might not want copied beforehand and it will skip those files. I did this the other day with some huge video files that I didn't want copied. It just went ahead and copied only the other new files. And because I have the commands on a Word doc file with a shortcut on my desktop, all I have to do is open the Word document, click in the margin of the command line to select and copy the command and then paste the command at the Command prompt. The possibilities are more or less limitless. It is all done by choosing your parameters. I don't seem to have it on my XP system, is it only in Win 7? Does it do deletions? XXcopy is not part of Windows though Windows does, I believe, still include a similar command called Xcopy accessible from the Command Prompt. XXcopy on the other hand is a 3rd party program which you've got to download and install first before you can use it. The two are very similar with similar commands, though XXcopy is reckoned to be superior to Xcopy. The free version is more than capable of serving your home needs. The paid version is more for commercial use to run on servers and is fairly pricey. You can find the command parameters on the Internet. the /m parameter for example will only copy previously uncopied files, i.e. files with the A attribute set AND also change the A attribute to N once copied so the same file will not be copied over and over, again and again. There are attributes that will do almost anything except make the coffee! It helps if you allocate a fixed unchanging letter to your external HD. Then you can just copy and paste the command from a line in your Word doc directly to your Command Prompt. Will it delete files? Yes and No! How come? Well this depends on whether you include a parameter in your XXcopy command to delete files under certain conditions. Read their Help files. Personally I don't use this option/parameter which will delete files on the xternal HD IF you have deleted them on your computer. In other words this option Syncs the original and the XXcopy folders. Not for me! Me no like it! Both the built-in Xcopy in Windows and XXcopy which you've got to download and install are powerful DOS commands, as I said, and you need to know your DOS from DOMESTOS to run them. But both are extremely flexible because of scores of parameters you can pick and choose from. Once, for example, my Xternal HD went kaput so I re-copied and pasted my own command line from my Word document to a brand new Xternal HD but deleted the /m parameter just before pressing ENTER, using the back arrow key to get to and then delete the /m parameter from the command line so that it would copy ALL files willy nilly whether they had the A attribute set or not. Otherwise I would have got copies of just the new or altered files. You get exact immediately working copies of all your files and folders on the Xternal HD too. And I mean working copies just as if they were on your internal HD or partition. Naturally you need a different command line for each partition but this saves you time in the long run as you can just copy and paste the particular command line for each individual partition. XXcopy D:\*.* for example will copy all files and folders on your D partition. You need to change this to XXopy E:\*.* for your E partition, for example. *You can of course specify a particular folder to copy rather than the whole partition*. You specify which drive it will copy to and which folder. You can sensibly call this destination folder G:\XXcopies of TOSHIBA D Drive and it will create this directory on your Xternal HD G:\ for example. If your computer has itself assigned a Drive letter to your Xternal HD and it is not G:\ it will tell you no such destination HD exists. That is why it is important to allocate a fixed letter to your Xternal HD. Of course this saves you time in the long run as you don't have to run around like a beheaded chicken searching for what letter your computer has assigned to your Xternal HD this time. In fact this is a very simple operation but you've got to know your DOS from your DOMESTOS, as I said earlier. Both Xcopy and XXcopy are lightning fast, with teh XXcopy being the more capable of the two. No messing around! They get the job done in no time and it is easy to make the move from the built in Xcopy DOS command to the 3rd party XXcopy because their commands are more or less identical. And you don't really need the more powerful PRO or Paid Version of XXcopy unless you run a server for a corporation. Incidentally, the Freebie version is only allowed for Home Use and NOT for Corporate or Business/Commercial use for which a fairly hefty fee is payable. The PRO version will also do file paths+names of longer than 256 chacaters, which the Freebie version will skip! But I doubt that a home user will have such lengthy filenames. And because XXcopy will create its own destination folders and subfolders on your Xternal HD, you can use the same Xternal HD to XXcopy different computers just by pre-specifying different destination folders which it will then create on your Xternal HD. No need to pre-create the destination folder! So you see, XXcopy is superbly flexible. As flexible in fact as this beautiful Chinese contortionist girl. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=600AHGHwllU Unfortunately it has no parameter/option to include in your command line that will make you a cuppa or something on the rocks! -- choro ***** |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
XXCOPY (Was Disk Partitioning)
On 16/09/2013 14:32, Roger Mills wrote:
On 15/09/2013 20:43, choro wrote: And incidentally, in preference to W7's Xcopy I always XXcopy my data/user files to an external HD. That way they are immediately accessible. I have the necessary XXcopy commands ready on a Word document with its own shortcut on the desktop. Nice and neat! I do the same, except that I have a batch file which contains all the commands, and which is scheduled to run automatically each day. The only files XXcopy cannot deal with (at least the freebie version) is filenames with more than 256 characters including the path. And that is no problem for me. Another thing the freebie version can't cope with is copying files to a network drive rather than to a directly connected external drive. To be more accurate, it *can* do it - but not without producing a 'nag' message which suggests that you ought to be using the 'paid for' version. You have to "press any key to continue" to get rid of the message, which means that you can't automate the process. This is annoying because the T&C's *do* allow copying to network drives as long as they're your personal property. In order to overcome this problem, I've taken to using Robocopy. There's a bit of a learning curve, but it enables me to achieve everything I want to do, without any nag messages. Well, yes, I agree with you that preparing a batch file to run the commands is the more elegant solution though quite frankly I don't mind copying and pasting my commands to the Command Prompt. My solution is to create a desktop folder showing up as a large red tick mark, which includes shortcuts to my constantly used or updated files. And my XXcopy commands .doc file has a shortcut there. The large red tic it makes this desktop folder very easy to find. But maybe I should give *Robocopy* a try. If it's got a learning curve, so be it, if it is worth the effort. You are the second person recommending this program. Anybody to +1 it?-- choro ***** |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|