Files Explorer copy function.

Hello, yesterday, I copied a folder containing about 450 000 audio samples
for virtual musical instruments to another hard drive for backup purpose
(external USB 2.0); it was to take about 8 hours. So I let it go all night.

This morning when I woke up, it reported some conflicts (files already
existing in the destination folder). I choose to ignore and the process
ended normally.

I then compared the 2 folders and and there was about 2000 more files in
the source compared to the destination.

Since the destination folder didn't exist in the first place (I dragged the
source folder to the external HD) how is it possible to have files already
in the destination folder and the end result not containing the same number
of files?

What am I missing here?

TIA

Dominique wrote:
Hello, yesterday, I copied a folder containing about 450 000 audio samples
for virtual musical instruments to another hard drive for backup purpose
(external USB 2.0); it was to take about 8 hours. So I let it go all night.

This morning when I woke up, it reported some conflicts (files already
existing in the destination folder). I choose to ignore and the process
ended normally.

I then compared the 2 folders and and there was about 2000 more files in
the source compared to the destination.

Since the destination folder didn't exist in the first place (I dragged the
source folder to the external HD) how is it possible to have files already
in the destination folder and the end result not containing the same number
of files?

What am I missing here?

Windows Explorer isn't up to a job like that, and it certainly isn't
suitable for clearing up its own mess afterwards. I'd use a file sync
program: Google it.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 17:44:35 -0000 (UTC), Dominique wrote:

Hello, yesterday, I copied a folder containing about 450 000 audio samples
for virtual musical instruments to another hard drive for backup purpose
(external USB 2.0); it was to take about 8 hours. So I let it go all night.

This morning when I woke up, it reported some conflicts (files already
existing in the destination folder). I choose to ignore and the process
ended normally.

I then compared the 2 folders and and there was about 2000 more files in
the source compared to the destination.

Since the destination folder didn't exist in the first place (I dragged the
source folder to the external HD) how is it possible to have files already
in the destination folder and the end result not containing the same number
of files?

What am I missing here?

TIA

For 450,000 files, you really want to use Robocopy, a utility which is included with Windows 7.

See:

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/.../ee851678.aspx

Dominique wrote:

Hello, yesterday, I copied a folder containing about 450 000 audio samples
for virtual musical instruments to another hard drive for backup purpose
(external USB 2.0); it was to take about 8 hours. So I let it go all night.

This morning when I woke up, it reported some conflicts (files already
existing in the destination folder). I choose to ignore and the process
ended normally.

I then compared the 2 folders and and there was about 2000 more files in
the source compared to the destination.

Since the destination folder didn't exist in the first place (I dragged the
source folder to the external HD) how is it possible to have files already
in the destination folder and the end result not containing the same number
of files?

Probably the paths and/or filenames were too long. NTFS lets users be
sloppy or creative in generating extremely long folder and filenames.
Long-named folder upon long-named folder and so on and then a long-named
file all add up to an excessively long path to the file.

It is likely your USB drive is FAT32 formatted. It cannot handle path
and filenames as huge as can NTFS. You'll need to short the folder and
filenames before transfer.

If you don't want to shorten the folder and file names then consider
rolling all of them into a .zip file. Most zip tools will handle the
longer pathnames. There may be a limit as to how many files a .zip can
contain. I've never dealt with trying to put half a million files into
a .zip archive file. According WinZip, their constraints a file size
(to pu into zip) 16 exabytes, .zip size 16 exabytes (both of those are
probably far outside the max file size your Windows will allow), number
of folders and files within archive 4 billion, max path length 250
characters. So even when using a .zip archive, you could have source
files that are too excessively long for their full (absolute) pathname
(folder names and filenames). Also, when you later want to extract the
files while maintaining their original path, you will need to extract to
an NTFS formatted volume. If a .zip tool won't handle your pathnames
because they are too long then you'll have to look at using a backup
program to roll those files into a backup file. There are several free
3rd party backup programs.

When you select a bunch of files using Windows Explorer, it buffers
those filenames (path+file) before copying. Half a million files is too
large for any buffer that Windows has so it will have to grab some, work
on those, grab some more, work on those, during which some other process
might be touching those files, like your anti-virus (most likely for all
the writes). Windows Explorer was not designed to handle excessively
long pathnames (by shortening them somehow at the destination) or to
copy that many files. You need something that focuses on one file for
one copy at a time. Windows Explorer will abort the entire copy process
on the first error it hits. You might want to try the 'xcopy' command
in a console window so you can use its /c parameter (continue copying
even if errors occur). If any of the source folders or files are marked
hidden or system then you will want to add its /h parameter, too. Too
better ensure (not guarantee) the target copy matches the source file,
add the /v parameter. That will slow down the copy process by having to
verify the target file after each copy. Xcopy will puke, too, on
excessively long paths but, at least, it will continue the copy
operation for the rest of the files (unless they, too, are excessively
long).

I had a aunt that would write a book when naming folders and files. So
the total pathname was huge. I couldn't get all the files copies using
Windows Explorer because eventually it would error with a "path too
long" error. Since this was for backup purposes, I archived her data
files into a .zip file.

If you don't want to wait around for all the copying to finish, consider
doing the copying in the background or at a scheduled time. When you
change a file in the source folder(s), it gets synchronized to a target
copy somewhere else. SyncBack Free is, well, free and is a good sync
tool. You could schedule SyncBack Free to do the source-to-target sync
at a scheduled time, like while you are sleeping. The first sync will
obviously take a long time but each sync thereafter will only need to
copy the few files to the target that have changed at the source.

http://www.2brightsparks.com/freeware/index.html

Since it is freeware, it is also crippled from the payware version. A
comparison of free versus paid versions is at:

http://www.2brightsparks.com/syncback/compare.html

The free version will not handle (will error on) files that are inuse.
So, for example, it won't copy my Outlook files because I leave Outlook
running all the time which means its files are locked (open for write).
Make sure whatever source files on which you want to sync are not in use
by some other program during the time the sync job runs. When SB Free
errors on a file that is inuse, it will still continue the rest of the
sync job; that is, it will skip over the error to continue copying the
remainder of the source file. You can configure a sync job to always
push all source files to the target location, copy only the files in the
source that don't exist in the target, copy only the files in the source
that have changed to the target, select to do a mirror copy (anything
that changes in source or target get reflected in both the source and
target), and can even sync backwards from target to source. It has a
simulate mode that lets you see what would happen in a sync job without
having to actually wait for the entire sync job to finish. Help to
correct a wrongly chosen sync mode. Oops, didn't want to do that, try
this instead. With SyncBack, you can choose if the target location has
a copy of each file or if you roll the source files into a .zip file at
the location so you only have 1 file to manage and copy somewhere else.

Obviously if you are going to sync half a million files that may have
excessively long paths then the source and target should both be
formatted using NTFS. Most USB flash drives come pre-formatted using
FAT32, so you will need to reformat it using NTFS. That will also bring
along to the target copy other NTFS attributes, like permissions. With
FAT32, the maximum file size is only 4 GB so you could also run into a
problem if the .zip file in which you roll those half million files got
bigger than that. The theoretical maximum file size for NTFS is 16
exabytes but the OS and hardware have much smaller limit, like 16 TB.

If the source files are inuse at the time of a copy operation, you could
look into VSScopy. That uses the volume shadow service just like backup
programs do; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Copy. It allows
copying files that are currently inuse. However, I don't know if it
handles copying half a million files. Like xcopy, it is also a console-
mode program (you run it at a command prompt).

http://www.vsscopy.com/

VanguardLH écrivait :

Dominique wrote:

Hello, yesterday, I copied a folder containing about 450 000 audio
samples
for virtual musical instruments to another hard drive for backup
purpose
(external USB 2.0); it was to take about 8 hours. So I let it go all
night.

This morning when I woke up, it reported some conflicts (files already
existing in the destination folder). I choose to ignore and the
process
ended normally.

I then compared the 2 folders and and there was about 2000 more files
in
the source compared to the destination.

Since the destination folder didn't exist in the first place (I
dragged the
source folder to the external HD) how is it possible to have files
already
in the destination folder and the end result not containing the same
number
of files?

Probably the paths and/or filenames were too long. NTFS lets users be
sloppy or creative in generating extremely long folder and filenames.
Long-named folder upon long-named folder and so on and then a long-
named
file all add up to an excessively long path to the file.

It is likely your USB drive is FAT32 formatted. It cannot handle path
and filenames as huge as can NTFS. You'll need to short the folder and
filenames before transfer.

If you don't want to shorten the folder and file names then consider
rolling all of them into a .zip file. Most zip tools will handle the
longer pathnames. There may be a limit as to how many files a .zip can
contain. I've never dealt with trying to put half a million files into
a .zip archive file. According WinZip, their constraints a file
size
(to pu into zip) 16 exabytes, .zip size 16 exabytes (both of those are
probably far outside the max file size your Windows will allow), number
of folders and files within archive 4 billion, max path length 250
characters. So even when using a .zip archive, you could have source
files that are too excessively long for their full (absolute) pathname
(folder names and filenames). Also, when you later want to extract the
files while maintaining their original path, you will need to extract
to
an NTFS formatted volume. If a .zip tool won't handle your pathnames
because they are too long then you'll have to look at using a backup
program to roll those files into a backup file. There are several free
3rd party backup programs.

When you select a bunch of files using Windows Explorer, it buffers
those filenames (path+file) before copying. Half a million files is
too
large for any buffer that Windows has so it will have to grab some,
work
on those, grab some more, work on those, during which some other
process
might be touching those files, like your anti-virus (most likely for
all
the writes). Windows Explorer was not designed to handle excessively
long pathnames (by shortening them somehow at the destination) or to
copy that many files. You need something that focuses on one file for
one copy at a time. Windows Explorer will abort the entire copy
process
on the first error it hits. You might want to try the 'xcopy' command
in a console window so you can use its /c parameter (continue copying
even if errors occur). If any of the source folders or files are
marked
hidden or system then you will want to add its /h parameter, too. Too
better ensure (not guarantee) the target copy matches the source file,
add the /v parameter. That will slow down the copy process by having
to
verify the target file after each copy. Xcopy will puke, too, on
excessively long paths but, at least, it will continue the copy
operation for the rest of the files (unless they, too, are excessively
long).

I had a aunt that would write a book when naming folders and files. So
the total pathname was huge. I couldn't get all the files copies using
Windows Explorer because eventually it would error with a "path too
long" error. Since this was for backup purposes, I archived her data
files into a .zip file.

If you don't want to wait around for all the copying to finish,
consider
doing the copying in the background or at a scheduled time. When you
change a file in the source folder(s), it gets synchronized to a target
copy somewhere else. SyncBack Free is, well, free and is a good sync
tool. You could schedule SyncBack Free to do the source-to-target sync
at a scheduled time, like while you are sleeping. The first sync will
obviously take a long time but each sync thereafter will only need to
copy the few files to the target that have changed at the source.

http://www.2brightsparks.com/freeware/index.html

Since it is freeware, it is also crippled from the payware version. A
comparison of free versus paid versions is at:

http://www.2brightsparks.com/syncback/compare.html

The free version will not handle (will error on) files that are inuse.
So, for example, it won't copy my Outlook files because I leave Outlook
running all the time which means its files are locked (open for write).
Make sure whatever source files on which you want to sync are not in
use
by some other program during the time the sync job runs. When SB Free
errors on a file that is inuse, it will still continue the rest of the
sync job; that is, it will skip over the error to continue copying the
remainder of the source file. You can configure a sync job to always
push all source files to the target location, copy only the files in
the
source that don't exist in the target, copy only the files in the
source
that have changed to the target, select to do a mirror copy (anything
that changes in source or target get reflected in both the source and
target), and can even sync backwards from target to source. It has a
simulate mode that lets you see what would happen in a sync job without
having to actually wait for the entire sync job to finish. Help to
correct a wrongly chosen sync mode. Oops, didn't want to do that, try
this instead. With SyncBack, you can choose if the target location has
a copy of each file or if you roll the source files into a .zip file at
the location so you only have 1 file to manage and copy somewhere else.

Obviously if you are going to sync half a million files that may have
excessively long paths then the source and target should both be
formatted using NTFS. Most USB flash drives come pre-formatted using
FAT32, so you will need to reformat it using NTFS. That will also
bring
along to the target copy other NTFS attributes, like permissions. With
FAT32, the maximum file size is only 4 GB so you could also run into a
problem if the .zip file in which you roll those half million files got
bigger than that. The theoretical maximum file size for NTFS is 16
exabytes but the OS and hardware have much smaller limit, like 16 TB.

If the source files are inuse at the time of a copy operation, you
could
look into VSScopy. That uses the volume shadow service just like
backup
programs do; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Copy. It allows
copying files that are currently inuse. However, I don't know if it
handles copying half a million files. Like xcopy, it is also a
console-
mode program (you run it at a command prompt).

http://www.vsscopy.com/


Many thanks for your time. The destination drive is a 3 TB hard disk (not
flash) GPT - NTFS. I've checked some of the path and the longest I've
found is about 110 characters including spaces and backslashes. The
filenames and the last level of folders names (if I can say so) are
created by the software installer (Native Instruments) and the software
is called Komplete 10 Ultimate. There's a version for Mac that probably
uses the same samples.

I guess Windows Explorer is not able to handle that many files like
suggested by Mike Barnes in a previous reply.

I will explore the suggestions I got in this thread. Thanks again.

On 03/30/2016 04:42 PM, Dominique wrote:
VanguardLH �crivait :

Dominique wrote:

Hello, yesterday, I copied a folder containing about 450 000 audio
samples
for virtual musical instruments to another hard drive for backup
purpose
(external USB 2.0); it was to take about 8 hours. So I let it go all
night.

This morning when I woke up, it reported some conflicts (files already
existing in the destination folder). I choose to ignore and the
process
ended normally.

I then compared the 2 folders and and there was about 2000 more files
in
the source compared to the destination.

Since the destination folder didn't exist in the first place (I
dragged the
source folder to the external HD) how is it possible to have files
already
in the destination folder and the end result not containing the same
number
of files?

Probably the paths and/or filenames were too long. NTFS lets users be
sloppy or creative in generating extremely long folder and filenames.
Long-named folder upon long-named folder and so on and then a long-
named
file all add up to an excessively long path to the file.

It is likely your USB drive is FAT32 formatted. It cannot handle path
and filenames as huge as can NTFS. You'll need to short the folder and
filenames before transfer.

If you don't want to shorten the folder and file names then consider
rolling all of them into a .zip file. Most zip tools will handle the
longer pathnames. There may be a limit as to how many files a .zip can
contain. I've never dealt with trying to put half a million files into
a .zip archive file. According WinZip, their constraints a file
size
(to pu into zip) 16 exabytes, .zip size 16 exabytes (both of those are
probably far outside the max file size your Windows will allow), number
of folders and files within archive 4 billion, max path length 250
characters. So even when using a .zip archive, you could have source
files that are too excessively long for their full (absolute) pathname
(folder names and filenames). Also, when you later want to extract the
files while maintaining their original path, you will need to extract
to
an NTFS formatted volume. If a .zip tool won't handle your pathnames
because they are too long then you'll have to look at using a backup
program to roll those files into a backup file. There are several free
3rd party backup programs.

When you select a bunch of files using Windows Explorer, it buffers
those filenames (path+file) before copying. Half a million files is
too
large for any buffer that Windows has so it will have to grab some,
work
on those, grab some more, work on those, during which some other
process
might be touching those files, like your anti-virus (most likely for
all
the writes). Windows Explorer was not designed to handle excessively
long pathnames (by shortening them somehow at the destination) or to
copy that many files. You need something that focuses on one file for
one copy at a time. Windows Explorer will abort the entire copy
process
on the first error it hits. You might want to try the 'xcopy' command
in a console window so you can use its /c parameter (continue copying
even if errors occur). If any of the source folders or files are
marked
hidden or system then you will want to add its /h parameter, too. Too
better ensure (not guarantee) the target copy matches the source file,
add the /v parameter. That will slow down the copy process by having
to
verify the target file after each copy. Xcopy will puke, too, on
excessively long paths but, at least, it will continue the copy
operation for the rest of the files (unless they, too, are excessively
long).

I had a aunt that would write a book when naming folders and files. So
the total pathname was huge. I couldn't get all the files copies using
Windows Explorer because eventually it would error with a "path too
long" error. Since this was for backup purposes, I archived her data
files into a .zip file.

If you don't want to wait around for all the copying to finish,
consider
doing the copying in the background or at a scheduled time. When you
change a file in the source folder(s), it gets synchronized to a target
copy somewhere else. SyncBack Free is, well, free and is a good sync
tool. You could schedule SyncBack Free to do the source-to-target sync
at a scheduled time, like while you are sleeping. The first sync will
obviously take a long time but each sync thereafter will only need to
copy the few files to the target that have changed at the source.

http://www.2brightsparks.com/freeware/index.html

Since it is freeware, it is also crippled from the payware version. A
comparison of free versus paid versions is at:

http://www.2brightsparks.com/syncback/compare.html

The free version will not handle (will error on) files that are inuse.
So, for example, it won't copy my Outlook files because I leave Outlook
running all the time which means its files are locked (open for write).
Make sure whatever source files on which you want to sync are not in
use
by some other program during the time the sync job runs. When SB Free
errors on a file that is inuse, it will still continue the rest of the
sync job; that is, it will skip over the error to continue copying the
remainder of the source file. You can configure a sync job to always
push all source files to the target location, copy only the files in
the
source that don't exist in the target, copy only the files in the
source
that have changed to the target, select to do a mirror copy (anything
that changes in source or target get reflected in both the source and
target), and can even sync backwards from target to source. It has a
simulate mode that lets you see what would happen in a sync job without
having to actually wait for the entire sync job to finish. Help to
correct a wrongly chosen sync mode. Oops, didn't want to do that, try
this instead. With SyncBack, you can choose if the target location has
a copy of each file or if you roll the source files into a .zip file at
the location so you only have 1 file to manage and copy somewhere else.

Obviously if you are going to sync half a million files that may have
excessively long paths then the source and target should both be
formatted using NTFS. Most USB flash drives come pre-formatted using
FAT32, so you will need to reformat it using NTFS. That will also
bring
along to the target copy other NTFS attributes, like permissions. With
FAT32, the maximum file size is only 4 GB so you could also run into a
problem if the .zip file in which you roll those half million files got
bigger than that. The theoretical maximum file size for NTFS is 16
exabytes but the OS and hardware have much smaller limit, like 16 TB.

If the source files are inuse at the time of a copy operation, you
could
look into VSScopy. That uses the volume shadow service just like
backup
programs do; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Copy. It allows
copying files that are currently inuse. However, I don't know if it
handles copying half a million files. Like xcopy, it is also a
console-
mode program (you run it at a command prompt).

http://www.vsscopy.com/


Many thanks for your time. The destination drive is a 3 TB hard disk (not
flash) GPT - NTFS. I've checked some of the path and the longest I've
found is about 110 characters including spaces and backslashes. The
filenames and the last level of folders names (if I can say so) are
created by the software installer (Native Instruments) and the software
is called Komplete 10 Ultimate. There's a version for Mac that probably
uses the same samples.

I guess Windows Explorer is not able to handle that many files like
suggested by Mike Barnes in a previous reply.

I will explore the suggestions I got in this thread. Thanks again.

If you copied the folder from A to B then you can just use Robocopy to
clean it up.

Robocopy source dest /MIR /NJS /NJH /DST /NDL
or if you want to see a bunch of verbose info
Robocopy source dest /MIR

This will mirror source to destination. Anything that needs to be
added or deleted will be adjusted. And things that are the same are
skipped, speeding things up. I use it all the time to "sync" folders
since it only makes the needed changes.

Here is a small list of the arguments I think are more useful.

rem /NP No percentage progress displayed

rem /MIR Mirror the data from source to dest

rem /NDL No Directory List

rem /NJS No Job Summary

rem /NJH No Job Header

rem /XO Exclude older folders

rem /XF Exclude Files ....

rem /XD Exclude Directories ....

rem /DST Compensate for one-hour DST time differences.

In article ,
lid says...

VanguardLH écrivait :

Dominique wrote:

Hello, yesterday, I copied a folder containing about 450 000 audio
samples
for virtual musical instruments to another hard drive for backup
purpose
(external USB 2.0); it was to take about 8 hours. So I let it go all
night.

This morning when I woke up, it reported some conflicts (files already
existing in the destination folder). I choose to ignore and the
process
ended normally.

I then compared the 2 folders and and there was about 2000 more files
in
the source compared to the destination.

Since the destination folder didn't exist in the first place (I
dragged the
source folder to the external HD) how is it possible to have files
already
in the destination folder and the end result not containing the same
number
of files?

Probably the paths and/or filenames were too long. NTFS lets users be
sloppy or creative in generating extremely long folder and filenames.
Long-named folder upon long-named folder and so on and then a long-
named
file all add up to an excessively long path to the file.

It is likely your USB drive is FAT32 formatted. It cannot handle path
and filenames as huge as can NTFS. You'll need to short the folder and
filenames before transfer.

If you don't want to shorten the folder and file names then consider
rolling all of them into a .zip file. Most zip tools will handle the
longer pathnames. There may be a limit as to how many files a .zip can
contain. I've never dealt with trying to put half a million files into
a .zip archive file. According WinZip, their constraints a file
size
(to pu into zip) 16 exabytes, .zip size 16 exabytes (both of those are
probably far outside the max file size your Windows will allow), number
of folders and files within archive 4 billion, max path length 250
characters. So even when using a .zip archive, you could have source
files that are too excessively long for their full (absolute) pathname

I use a program called "FreeFileSync" for that. I ran across same kind
of problem doing more or less same thing as you. In my case 800Gbs of
mp3 files.

Basically I just made a "root folder" with same name as my existing
"Music" folder, selected both and told it to sync. 1/2 day later it had.

Dominique écrivait news:XnFA5DB8C51B5676douminvalidnet@
213.239.209.88:

Hello, yesterday, I copied a folder containing about 450 000 audio
samples
for virtual musical instruments to another hard drive for backup purpose
(external USB 2.0); it was to take about 8 hours. So I let it go all
night.

This morning when I woke up, it reported some conflicts (files already
existing in the destination folder). I choose to ignore and the process
ended normally.

I then compared the 2 folders and and there was about 2000 more files in
the source compared to the destination.

Since the destination folder didn't exist in the first place (I dragged
the
source folder to the external HD) how is it possible to have files
already
in the destination folder and the end result not containing the same
number
of files?

What am I missing here?

TIA


Thanks all for your suggestions, I used a program called Goodsync and it
worked.

I've read that FreeFileSync tries to install malware, I don't know if it's
true but I didn't take the risk.

In article ,
lid says...

Dominique écrivait news:XnFA5DB8C51B5676douminvalidnet@
213.239.209.88:

Hello, yesterday, I copied a folder containing about 450 000 audio
samples
for virtual musical instruments to another hard drive for backup purpose
(external USB 2.0); it was to take about 8 hours. So I let it go all
night.

This morning when I woke up, it reported some conflicts (files already
existing in the destination folder). I choose to ignore and the process
ended normally.

I then compared the 2 folders and and there was about 2000 more files in
the source compared to the destination.

Since the destination folder didn't exist in the first place (I dragged
the
source folder to the external HD) how is it possible to have files
already
in the destination folder and the end result not containing the same
number
of files?

What am I missing here?

TIA


Thanks all for your suggestions, I used a program called Goodsync and it
worked.

I've read that FreeFileSync tries to install malware, I don't know if it's
true but I didn't take the risk.

Didn't when I installed it years ago now. Note - I seldom update
anything that's working and it's always worked for me.

Dominique wrote:

Thanks all for your suggestions, I used a program called Goodsync and it
worked.

I've read that FreeFileSync tries to install malware, I don't know if it's
true but I didn't take the risk.

Did you get the free version of Goodsync? If so, you might want to read
their freeware versus payware web page at:

http://www.goodsync.com/free-vs-pro

Notice the severe limit, especially in your case, in the number of files
that you can copy. During the trial period, you won't be limited.
After the trial expires, you had better have only 100 files MAXIMUM that
have changed that will need to by synchronized. That free version of
that product severely cripples itself after the trial expires. I know
of no such limit with SyncBack Free or FreeFileSync.

There are lots of boobs who blindly install software without looking at
the installer's screens or electing a custom install to choose what to
install. So they get whatever was bundled in the installer. When
driving blind, it is the driver's fault for crashing into something.

While software authors are responsible for bloating their installers
with bundleware or using OpenCandy to offer the bloatware, they do not
know what products are included or are not familiar with their behavior.
The warning I get at softpedia.com about FreeFileSync is that it is
ad-supported which is a euphemism that it contains foistware.
Bundleware that is opted-in by default (so the user has to overtly opt
out) is considered foistwa a lazy user that clicks as fast as they
can through an install ends up with unwanted software foisted up them.
Here is what Softpedia says:

- Offers to change the homepage for web browsers installed in the
system
(So read the installer's screens and opt-out of that change.)
- Offers to change the default search engine for web browsers
installed in the system
(So read the installer's screens and opt-out of that change.)
- Offers to download or install software or components (such as
browser toolbars) that the program does not require to fully
function
(Yep, bundleware. So opt out of it. Read the options to make sure
you actually opt out as some are negatively worded.)

If you do software installs then you have delegated yourself the
sysadmin of your computer so you are responsible for monitoring
installations along with preparing an escape route (e.g., backup image)
before the installation.

OpenCandy is not itself malware despite what the boobs claim. OpenCandy
runs during or after an install to issue bundleware offers. So say no
to those offers. Opt out of them. The OpenCandy plug-in is not
malware. The offers, however, can be adware, hijackware, or worse.
OpenCandy gets paid to show the offers but they don't seem particularly
motivated to investigate those offers. OpenCandy itself is not malware
but its payloads might be nasty.

Rather than increase the size of the download for a program by including
the bundleware inside the installer file, OpenCandy is a small plug-in
used by the installer to show offers. If you disable your network
connection then it cannot phone home. If you start the installation,
you can delete the extracted OpenCandy lib file so it cannot be found
when called. Or you could just read the offer screens and opt out. For
more info, see http://opencandy.com/faqs/.

The only way that I've see OpenCandy remain on a computer after the
installation completes (which is merely a dead lib file since there is
no longer a caller) is when the installation crashed or the user killed
it via Task Manager. That means the program did not get to run its
cleanup code. They provide a tool for cleanup if you don't know what
file(s) to delete: http://opencandy.com/cleanup/OCCleanupTool.exe. If
you run the installer and exit it normally then nothing permanent is
left on your computer. All OpenCandy does is offer bundleware that the
author decided not to physically bundle inside his installer file;
however, the software author has no control over the OpenCandy offers
(too many times I've seen OpenCandy offers include hijackware but mostly
it is fluffware - worthless crap that wants money for utilities you can
get for free).

While Softpedia only mentions FileSyncFree is ad-supported, the
reviewers mention use of OpenCandy. So read the installer's screens to
opt out of the offers. Or disable your network so it cannot phone home
(yank the cable, disable the NIC, power off the router or cable modem).
If you have a 3rd party firewall, it should alert on the unauthorized
outbound connections so reject OpenCandy's connections during the
installation. You can add OpenCandy's hosts to your 'hosts' file; see
http://dottech.org/123619/how-to-blo...sta-7-8-guide/.
If you use a pre-compiled 'hosts' file, like the MVPS hosts file, then
the OpenCandy servers are already listed and will get blocked. After
running the installer but before answering any prompt to proceed through
its screens, go delete the OpenCandy lib file (I'd have to go look up
its filename). OpenCandy's own FAQ (http://opencandy.com/faqs/) tells
you how to thwart the installer plug-in:

Beginner: disconnect your internet connection (beware some software
needs the internet to complete its install).
Intermediate: run the OpenCandy powered installer from the
command-line with /NOCANDY
Advanced: add a domain block in your firewall for *.opencandy.com

Yanking the network is the easiest and surest method without having to
install a 'hosts' file (which can cause havoc at some good sites) or
defining rules or answering prompts in a 3rd party firewall. If the
installer you downloaded is not a full installer but a web installer
then it will need to connect to retrieve the rest of the files for the
installation. For example, when you don't use the in-place web upgrade
of Adobe Flash but instead download their installer, what you get is a
small web installer that connects to Adobe's server to retrieve the
entire installation package. I wouldn't trust the /NOCANDY command-line
argument. That depends on the author of the installer (for the software
you wanted to get) honoring that command-line argument by passing it
onto the OpenCandy plug-in added to the installer. I have seen authors
(who often are inexperienced at configuring the installer program)
accidentally screw it up so the /NOCANDY argument did not get passed on
to the OpenCandy plug-in.

I don't how recently they updated their FAQ page but here is what
FreeFileSync says about the bundleware in their installer:

http://www.freefilesync.org/faq.php#advertisement

So you could opt out of the bundleware. I'm not sure how they can claim
they will only show 1 offer since their installer will pass control to
the OpenCandy plug-in that phones home and displays the offers.
OpenCandy wrote the plug-in code, not the author. They mention that a
silent install will not show bundleware offers (else it wouldn't be a
silent install) or install anything other than their own software, so
that is another method of thwarting the OpenCandy plug-in.

SyncBackFree doesn't come with bundleware (so no OpenCandy, too). They
rely on users liking their freeware version and then upgrading to the
payware version. I don't know what, if any, bundleware is included or
how it is delivered with GoodSync but that looks to severely cripple
itself after an unspecified trial period. Yeah, it is usable now but
worthless in a maybe a month.

VanguardLH écrivait :

Dominique wrote:

Thanks all for your suggestions, I used a program called Goodsync and
it
worked.

I've read that FreeFileSync tries to install malware, I don't know if
it's
true but I didn't take the risk.

Did you get the free version of Goodsync? If so, you might want to
read
their freeware versus payware web page at:

http://www.goodsync.com/free-vs-pro

Notice the severe limit, especially in your case, in the number of
files
that you can copy. During the trial period, you won't be limited.
After the trial expires, you had better have only 100 files MAXIMUM
that
have changed that will need to by synchronized. That free version of
that product severely cripples itself after the trial expires. I know
of no such limit with SyncBack Free or FreeFileSync.

There are lots of boobs who blindly install software without looking at
the installer's screens or electing a custom install to choose what to
install. So they get whatever was bundled in the installer. When
driving blind, it is the driver's fault for crashing into something.

While software authors are responsible for bloating their installers
with bundleware or using OpenCandy to offer the bloatware, they do not
know what products are included or are not familiar with their
behavior.
The warning I get at softpedia.com about FreeFileSync is that it is
ad-supported which is a euphemism that it contains foistware.
Bundleware that is opted-in by default (so the user has to overtly opt
out) is considered foistwa a lazy user that clicks as fast as they
can through an install ends up with unwanted software foisted up them.
Here is what Softpedia says:

- Offers to change the homepage for web browsers installed in the
system
(So read the installer's screens and opt-out of that change.)
- Offers to change the default search engine for web browsers
installed in the system
(So read the installer's screens and opt-out of that change.)
- Offers to download or install software or components (such as
browser toolbars) that the program does not require to fully
function
(Yep, bundleware. So opt out of it. Read the options to make sure
you actually opt out as some are negatively worded.)

If you do software installs then you have delegated yourself the
sysadmin of your computer so you are responsible for monitoring
installations along with preparing an escape route (e.g., backup image)
before the installation.

OpenCandy is not itself malware despite what the boobs claim.
OpenCandy
runs during or after an install to issue bundleware offers. So say no
to those offers. Opt out of them. The OpenCandy plug-in is not
malware. The offers, however, can be adware, hijackware, or worse.
OpenCandy gets paid to show the offers but they don't seem particularly
motivated to investigate those offers. OpenCandy itself is not malware
but its payloads might be nasty.

Rather than increase the size of the download for a program by
including
the bundleware inside the installer file, OpenCandy is a small plug-in
used by the installer to show offers. If you disable your network
connection then it cannot phone home. If you start the installation,
you can delete the extracted OpenCandy lib file so it cannot be found
when called. Or you could just read the offer screens and opt out.
For
more info, see http://opencandy.com/faqs/.

The only way that I've see OpenCandy remain on a computer after the
installation completes (which is merely a dead lib file since there is
no longer a caller) is when the installation crashed or the user killed
it via Task Manager. That means the program did not get to run its
cleanup code. They provide a tool for cleanup if you don't know what
file(s) to delete: http://opencandy.com/cleanup/OCCleanupTool.exe. If
you run the installer and exit it normally then nothing permanent is
left on your computer. All OpenCandy does is offer bundleware that the
author decided not to physically bundle inside his installer file;
however, the software author has no control over the OpenCandy offers
(too many times I've seen OpenCandy offers include hijackware but
mostly
it is fluffware - worthless crap that wants money for utilities you can
get for free).

While Softpedia only mentions FileSyncFree is ad-supported, the
reviewers mention use of OpenCandy. So read the installer's screens to
opt out of the offers. Or disable your network so it cannot phone home
(yank the cable, disable the NIC, power off the router or cable modem).
If you have a 3rd party firewall, it should alert on the unauthorized
outbound connections so reject OpenCandy's connections during the
installation. You can add OpenCandy's hosts to your 'hosts' file; see
http://dottech.org/123619/how-to-blo...-xp-vista-7-8-
guide/.
If you use a pre-compiled 'hosts' file, like the MVPS hosts file, then
the OpenCandy servers are already listed and will get blocked. After
running the installer but before answering any prompt to proceed
through
its screens, go delete the OpenCandy lib file (I'd have to go look up
its filename). OpenCandy's own FAQ (http://opencandy.com/faqs/) tells
you how to thwart the installer plug-in:

Beginner: disconnect your internet connection (beware some software
needs the internet to complete its install).
Intermediate: run the OpenCandy powered installer from the
command-line with /NOCANDY
Advanced: add a domain block in your firewall for *.opencandy.com

Yanking the network is the easiest and surest method without having to
install a 'hosts' file (which can cause havoc at some good sites) or
defining rules or answering prompts in a 3rd party firewall. If the
installer you downloaded is not a full installer but a web installer
then it will need to connect to retrieve the rest of the files for the
installation. For example, when you don't use the in-place web upgrade
of Adobe Flash but instead download their installer, what you get is a
small web installer that connects to Adobe's server to retrieve the
entire installation package. I wouldn't trust the /NOCANDY command-
line
argument. That depends on the author of the installer (for the
software
you wanted to get) honoring that command-line argument by passing it
onto the OpenCandy plug-in added to the installer. I have seen authors
(who often are inexperienced at configuring the installer program)
accidentally screw it up so the /NOCANDY argument did not get passed on
to the OpenCandy plug-in.

I don't how recently they updated their FAQ page but here is what
FreeFileSync says about the bundleware in their installer:

http://www.freefilesync.org/faq.php#advertisement

So you could opt out of the bundleware. I'm not sure how they can
claim
they will only show 1 offer since their installer will pass control to
the OpenCandy plug-in that phones home and displays the offers.
OpenCandy wrote the plug-in code, not the author. They mention that a
silent install will not show bundleware offers (else it wouldn't be a
silent install) or install anything other than their own software, so
that is another method of thwarting the OpenCandy plug-in.

SyncBackFree doesn't come with bundleware (so no OpenCandy, too). They
rely on users liking their freeware version and then upgrading to the
payware version. I don't know what, if any, bundleware is included or
how it is delivered with GoodSync but that looks to severely cripple
itself after an unspecified trial period. Yeah, it is usable now but
worthless in a maybe a month.


Yes, the trial period is 30 days and it doesn't install (or offer to
install) anything else. I will have à look at SyncBackFree.

Thanks.