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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
There are so many - what do you use for a freeware duplicate file finder on Windows?
Chris,
And neither can you trust your computer, OS or the program your find those duplicates with. Your point ? Er, ok. With that attitude just shut down the computer and throw it out the window. Exactly. So, please explain to me why you cannot trust that "last written" time. And than why you still have a 'puter infront of you. Regards, Rudy Wieser |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
There are so many - what do you use for a freewareduplicate file finder on Windows?
R.Wieser wrote:
Chris, And neither can you trust your computer, OS or the program your find those duplicates with. Your point ? Er, ok. With that attitude just shut down the computer and throw it out the window. Exactly. So, please explain to me why you cannot trust that "last written" time. And than why you still have a 'puter infront of you. Because those timestamps can be modified by poorly written software or by improperly copying/moving the files. Filesystem issues can also render timestamps meaningless. They aren't a reliable piece of information unlike a checksum. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
There are so many - what do you use for a freeware duplicate file finder on Windows?
In article , R.Wieser
wrote: If handled with some care a good CD/DVD can easily outlast a drive. i've slowly been migrating old cd/dvds to hard drives, only to find that quite a few discs have issues. all of the discs were safely stored and rarely used, until the migration. most discs took a couple of minutes to read (i.e., normal), but some took 10-15 minutes each to read and a few are not readable at all. these were all quality cds, not the cheap crap. the dyes in cd/dvds degrade. there's no way around that. Magnetism fades away you know. And that becomes a problem when you do not really use the drive (meaning: do not give it a chance to refresh sectors). the main issue with hard drives that sit unused are frozen bearings. however, fading away can be an issue with some ssds. nothing lasts forever. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
There are so many - what do you use for a freeware duplicate file finder on Windows?
Chris,
Exactly. So, please explain to me why you cannot trust that "last written" time. And than why you still have a 'puter infront of you. Because those timestamps can be modified by poorly written software So, vaguely referred to "poorly written software" can/will just change those timestamps (but nothing more), and both your "diplicates finder" and your OS do not fall in that range - for which reason please ? or by improperly copying/moving the files. When you do something "improperly" a lot more can be changed/damaged than just that timestamp (owner, permissions). *Especially* when you use "poorly written software". So again, your point ? Filesystem issues can also render timestamps meaningless. Lolz. You just *ran* into that one, didn't you ? With open eyes no less. I mentioned that if you cannot trust those timestamps you also should not trust your OS (or any programs on it) - to which you reponded that that was a negative attitude - and now you're actually telling me that the OS could well not be trustworthy in this regard ? They aren't a reliable piece of information unlike a checksum. True, but now you're trying to change the subject to "what is the best method to detect changes between two files", which I'm not going along with. Besides, the using of checksums/hashes has its own problems. Like the stored hash and its file going outof sync. Or maybe some "poorly written software" generating weak hashes with lots of collisions ... :-) Bottom line, you still have not told me (apart from some FUD) why I should actually distrust the last written timestamp. Or why you still own a 'puter. Or in simpler words: why do you distrust that timestamp, but still trust your 'puter for everything else ... Also, you have lost sight of the reason what that timestamp used for. To detect if the file has changed. If that timestamp has changed you may assume that the file has changed, and thus needs to be re-backupped. And that regardles of who actually changed it. Or why. Regards, Rudy Wieser P.s. If you have "poorly written software" on your 'puter I would suggest you delete it and find something better. :-p |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
There are so many - what do you use for a freeware duplicate file finder on Windows?
In article , R.Wieser
wrote: Also, you have lost sight of the reason what that timestamp used for. To detect if the file has changed. If that timestamp has changed you may assume that the file has changed, and thus needs to be re-backupped. And that regardles of who actually changed it. Or why. except when the time stamp changes simply by copying a file yet its contents did *not* change. in other words, two files with different time stamps can be identical. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
There are so many - what do you use for a freeware duplicate file finder on Windows?
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 07:11:21 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote: Shadow wrote: On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 20:16:52 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: 2 copies. It only takes a few more minutes and DVDs are dirt cheap. And unreliable. Writable DVDs are not suitable for archiving. Why not just use an external hard drive? Cheaper, simpler and more reliable. I'm still recovering from the last crash. 2 TB of backups or archives or whatever down the drain. The drive lasted 4 months. No warranty possible as it contains personal files. You have to hand it in so Seagate can "refurbish it" and sell it to another sucker, and probably sell all your data once they replace the controller. Checking 1998 programming - TDK CD-R 650MB 74 Min (everything from Softice to C compilers, assemblers, editors, tutors etc. Sadly, most installers are 16 bit) 2000 books - Memorex 2000 Diablo 2 - 2 disks TDK All 100% readable with DVDDisaster. Use decent media and keep it in a cool, dark and dry place. Checking Megaupload - keep your files safe on "The Cloud" Gone - 100% failure []'s -- Don't be evil - Google 2004 We have a new policy - Google 2012 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
There are so many - what do you use for a freeware duplicate file finder on Windows?
In article , Shadow
wrote: Why not just use an external hard drive? Cheaper, simpler and more reliable. I'm still recovering from the last crash. 2 TB of backups or archives or whatever down the drain. The drive lasted 4 months. No warranty possible as it contains personal files. next time, encrypt it, and also make more than one backup. Checking Megaupload - keep your files safe on "The Cloud" Gone - 100% failure a cloud service focusing on piracy shut down. imagine that. meanwhile, amazon, google, apple, microsoft, dropbox, etc. are still around and not likely to go away any time soon, certainly not in our lifetimes. hard drives also crash, as did yours. 100% failure there too. nothing is guaranteed, which is why one should have *multiple* backups and in mulitple locations. ask the people affected by the california wildfires, or the hurricanes last year, where everything in their houses was destroyed, whether they prefer a cloud backup or a local (and now non-existent) backup. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
There are so many - what do you use for a freeware duplicate file finder on Windows?
On Wed, 08 Aug 2018 12:17:32 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Shadow wrote: Why not just use an external hard drive? Cheaper, simpler and more reliable. I'm still recovering from the last crash. 2 TB of backups or archives or whatever down the drain. The drive lasted 4 months. No warranty possible as it contains personal files. next time, encrypt it, and also make more than one backup. Yes, still trying to figure out the most reliable encrypted backup.A real time sync would be best, as in just replace the bad drive(assuming the backup goes bad) and it would boot into your old workspace. But encrypted ? I could just carry on backupping films and photos to DVDs. As to Cloud services, I'll take my luck with hurricanes and wildfires. Until hurricanes and wildfires figure out how to sell your data too, of course. Are Seagate and Western Digital the only choices left ? So much for capitalism. Any ideas as to an encrypted system, "type password at boot" and with a real-time mirror to a second HD, ie, anything changed in main drive will also be changed in second drive ? []'s Checking Megaupload - keep your files safe on "The Cloud" Gone - 100% failure a cloud service focusing on piracy shut down. imagine that. meanwhile, amazon, google, apple, microsoft, dropbox, etc. are still around and not likely to go away any time soon, certainly not in our lifetimes. hard drives also crash, as did yours. 100% failure there too. nothing is guaranteed, which is why one should have *multiple* backups and in mulitple locations. ask the people affected by the california wildfires, or the hurricanes last year, where everything in their houses was destroyed, whether they prefer a cloud backup or a local (and now non-existent) backup. -- Don't be evil - Google 2004 We have a new policy - Google 2012 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
There are so many - what do you use for a freeware duplicate file finder on Windows?
In message , Shadow
writes: [] Any ideas as to an encrypted system, "type password at boot" and with a real-time mirror to a second HD, ie, anything changed in main drive will also be changed in second drive ? [] I think one of the RAIDs (0 or 1?) will do the second bit; I assume they can be used with type-password-at-boot type systems, but I don't know. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf The motto of the Royal Society is: 'Take nobody's word for it'. Scepticism has value. - Brian Cox, RT 2015/3/14-20 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
There are so many - what do you use for a freeware duplicate file finder on Windows?
In article , J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote: Any ideas as to an encrypted system, "type password at boot" and with a real-time mirror to a second HD, ie, anything changed in main drive will also be changed in second drive ? I think one of the RAIDs (0 or 1?) will do the second bit; I assume they can be used with type-password-at-boot type systems, but I don't know. most nases support encryption, regardless of which raid it's set up as, and some of which have a hardware encryption chip so there's little to no impact on performance. and raid 0 is for performance, not backups. |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
There are so many - what do you use for a freeware duplicate file finder on Windows?
Chris,
Quote:
# When the "last changed" times differ (but the contents are the same) than : 1) the "duplicate finder" will consider them as different. The negative site of that will be that you will have two copies instead of the desired single one. 2) the backup program makes a copy of it. The negative side of that would be that it needs more time and storage space to complete. # The chance that both files "last changed" times do actually match (after some "poorly written software" has altered it) is rather small (understatement). In other words, a false positive (the files are considered the same when they are not) is rather unlikely, and a false negative isn't destructive. But even if those "last changed" timestamps would match (like after some PEBKAC has run a "touch" on its whole drive), its just *one* part in the whole "are the files the same" check, which includes size and (when backupping/comparing with a backup) the full filepath (among others). Regards, Rudy Wieser |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
There are so many - what do you use for a freeware duplicate file finder on Windows?
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 23:50:06 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote: In message , Shadow writes: [] Any ideas as to an encrypted system, "type password at boot" and with a real-time mirror to a second HD, ie, anything changed in main drive will also be changed in second drive ? [] I think one of the RAIDs (0 or 1?) will do the second bit; I assume they can be used with type-password-at-boot type systems, but I don't know. I'm still recovering from a rather large surgery I had 5 days ago, and my head is full of narcotics. I hate narcotics, having trouble thinking. In my perception, the Bouffant's posts have gone from extremely imbecilic to just stupid. That's how bad my thinking process is ATM. Re backup = That's what I want. I don't mind paying for a second or third HD if they are kept strictly in sinc, and preferably if the backup drives do not appear in explorer. I would still backup or archive personal photos, movies, letters, documents etc to DVDs, as they are irreplaceable, and it's possible a power surge could burn out both HDs at once. So a RAID with only the basic boot-up files not encrypted, and no network access until the drives have been unencrypted and firewalls etc are all working. How would I go about that ? []s -- Don't be evil - Google 2004 We have a new policy - Google 2012 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
There are so many - what do you use for a freeware duplicate file finder on Windows?
Arlen Holder wrote:
Jesus...There are so many - what do you use for a freeware duplicate file finder on Windows? Googling, I find so many it's not funny...where you know there's a problem when no two articles even have agreement on the top few. First I tried the canonical duplicate file remover from Microsoft... Microsoft Duplicate File Remover https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/duplicate-file-remover/9nblggh4sqnp But it was too much GUI and too little customization. http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=9081255duplicatefileremover.jpg Then I searched for better duplicate file removers, and was aghast that there is very little consensus among the "reviews" (many of which, I know, are simply shills). The Best Duplicate File Finder for Windows * dupeGuru https://dupeguru.voltaicideas.net/ * Ccleaner https://www.ccleaner.com/ccleaner https://lifehacker.com/the-best-duplicate-file-finder-for-windows-1696492476 What Is the Best Duplicate File Finder? https://www.easyduplicatefinder.com/best-duplicate-file-finder.html How to Find and Remove Duplicate Files on Windows https://www.howtogeek.com/200962/how-to-find-and-remove-duplicate-files-on-windows/ 5 Best Free Duplicate File Finder Software for Windows https://www.cisdem.com/resource/best-free-duplicate-file-finder-for-windows.html 5 Best Free Duplicate File Finder and Remover http://perfectgeeks.com/free-duplicate-file-finder-remover/ https://www.top5freeware.com/duplicate-file-finder * Auslogics Duplicate File Finder https://softfamous.com/auslogics-duplicate-file-finder/ * AllDup https://softfamous.com/alldup/ * CloneSpy http://www.filesriver.com/app/117/clonespy * Fast Duplicate File Finder http://www.filesriver.com/app/118/mindgems-fast-duplicate-file-finder * Anti-Twin http://www.filesriver.com/app/119/anti-twin 26 Best Free Duplicate File Finders https://listoffreeware.com/list-of-best-free-duplicate-file-finder/ What do you use for a freeware duplicate file finder on Windows? I recently did a fair bit of searching and settled on a commercial program, Duplicate Cleaner Pro, after briefly trying the free version. Basically because it looked more versatile than most. And I'm not so stingy about buying stuff nowadays. https://www.duplicatecleaner.com/ Too early to give a useful assessment, but I've found no serious issues on the few occasions I've used it to prune large folders of photos. Terry, East Grinstead, UK |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
There are so many - what do you use for a freewareduplicate file finder on Windows?
R.Wieser wrote:
Chris, Exactly. So, please explain to me why you cannot trust that "last written" time. And than why you still have a 'puter infront of you. Because those timestamps can be modified by poorly written software So, vaguely referred to "poorly written software" can/will just change those timestamps (but nothing more), and both your "diplicates finder" and your OS do not fall in that range - for which reason please ? I don't have duplicates finder. The OS is written to a much higher standard than most userland apps. or by improperly copying/moving the files. When you do something "improperly" a lot more can be changed/damaged than just that timestamp (owner, permissions). *Especially* when you use "poorly written software". So again, your point ? You just made it for me. Checksums are much better than last changed timestamps. Filesystem issues can also render timestamps meaningless. Lolz. You just *ran* into that one, didn't you ? With open eyes no less. I mentioned that if you cannot trust those timestamps you also should not trust your OS (or any programs on it) - to which you reponded that that was a negative attitude - and now you're actually telling me that the OS could well not be trustworthy in this regard ? Whoosh! The OS and filesystem are not synonymous. They aren't a reliable piece of information unlike a checksum. True, but now you're trying to change the subject to "what is the best method to detect changes between two files", which I'm not going along with. This was my original point to Shadow which you butted in on. Is there's one of us who's changing the subject, it's you. Besides, the using of checksums/hashes has its own problems. Like the stored hash and its file going outof sync. Or maybe some "poorly written software" generating weak hashes with lots of collisions ... :-) Nothing's perfect. However comparing timestamps is much worse than checksums. Also, you have lost sight of the reason what that timestamp used for. To detect if the file has changed. No. That is not what a timestamp is for. All it tells you is when it was last re-saved. You cannot make any judgement on state change. For example I have a file with a timestamp of "01 April 2015 11:32:05". Has the file changed? If that timestamp has changed you may assume that the file has changed, Nope. A file can be opened and re-saved without any changes occurring. Why is all this so hard for you to understand? P.s. If you have "poorly written software" on your 'puter I would suggest you delete it and find something better. :-p Well, it is Windows. It comes with the territory :-^) |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
There are so many - what do you use for a freeware duplicate file finder on Windows?
Chris,
The OS is written to a much higher standard than most userland apps. Kiddo, you just told me that even mere moving or copying could muck around with the timestamp, so where are you taking that "higher standard" from ? Also, you seem to be thinking that for "badly written software" changing that "last written" timestamp is something that a program can "just do" - without any particulary intent or reason. Newsflash: Its harder than you think. :-) You just made it for me. Checksums are much better than last changed timestamps. I would strongly suggest you read it again. I was making a case where doing something "improperly" would most likely damage a lot more than just a timestamp. In other words, the changed timestamp would than be the least of your concerns. Checksums are much better than last changed timestamps. Again trying to change the subject ? Whoosh! The OS and filesystem are not synonymous. Just like checksums and hashes are not. You don't give a flying **** about it, but now trying to using distinction like that ? Really ? And yes, I'm quite aware of it. But I mostly do not make a point of it (especially not when its not relevant to the problem) as it just confuses the issue. Just like I have not pointed out the difference between a checksum and a hash. Also, when was the last time you bought your OS and your filesystem seperatily ? Lets guess ... Never ? True, but now you're trying to change the subject to "what is the best method to detect changes between two files", which I'm not going along with. This was my original point to Shadow which you butted in on. Is there's one of us who's changing the subject, it's you. Quote:
process. Would you like to try again ? Nothing's perfect. However comparing timestamps is much worse than checksums. You have said that several times, but no matter what I say you have not even *tried* to come up with anything underbuilding it - other than a vague hand-waving to "poorly written software", which I think I shot outof the water. No. That is not what a timestamp is for. All it tells you is when it was last re-saved. You cannot make any judgement on state change. True. The question is, if you have not changed anything, why would you re-save ? And what if its intentional (the file is ment to be regarded as the most recent one) ? For example I have a file with a timestamp of "01 April 2015 11:32:05". Has the file changed? Im upping you one: How does your "lets take a checksum" indicate a change (or not) ? And when you figured that out, do you think I may also do a compare (of that timestamp against another one) ? If that timestamp has changed you may assume that the file has changed, Nope. A file can be opened and re-saved without any changes occurring. Yes, thats a possibility. But notice the "you may assume that" (for most, if not all, intents and purposes). In other words, I'm quite aware of it. Also, already replied to (repeating yourself doesn't make your case stronger) Why is all this so hard for you to understand? It isn't, and I've given several indications of that in my previous posts. But I have the same question for you: With all my explanation, why don't you understand that "just" using the "last written" timestamp normally works, and when not it isn't destructive ? Also, how is it that you seem to be acutily aware of how bad using a last-written timestamp is, but have given no indication to the problems your preferred method of using hashes has ? In short: You are not even *trying* to compare the two. And FYI, comparing hashes is just *one* step in the process. Which includes generating them from full contents of the sourcefiles file (costs time). If the compare is done to a backup hashes need to be generated for them too {1}. Than comparing them and when they match *compare the actual file contents* (costs time) to be sure they are really the same (and not just hash collisions). {1} If you are thinking about storing the hashes of the backupped files somewhere that file can get lost, altered or corrupted. Or, even worse, someone could alter a file on the backup which throws the list outof sync. My suggested "compare 'last written' timestamps" (among a few things) do not involve any of that ... Bottom line: both methods have their pros and cons. The method involving hashing will find *all* duplicates, but will cost a *lot* of time. The "last written" method is fast, but could miss a few files which contents have not actually changed. But lets end this, shall we ? You seem to be convinced that I'm not understanding any of it, as I'm convinced that its you (who doesn't even try). :-) Regards, Rudy Wieser |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|