Hi, all:

Just posted a new release (the betatest version happens
to be the same for now) -- v.2.84.6.

This release is essentially the same as the beta v.2.84.5
which has been available for a month or so.

The main reason for this release is to deal with the new
Windows 2000 SP3 release and Windows 2003 server edition
(to suppress the warning which calls for the /WV0 switch).
No feature changes.

Kan Yabumoto

Hi,
I'm sorry but to address you as J is just not on.
So my apologies for the lack of a proper greeting.
I'm running Windows XP Home Edition. 1.7GHz Intel Pentium. 384Mb Ram Main
Drive is 40Gb Image Drive is 8.4GB.
When I pressed the Control and Spacebar I could not get a Menu. The only way
I could access a menu, was to Right Click with my mouse on the Minimise
Icon. The menu appeared and I followed your advice. Initially all that
appeared to happen, was that I could drag the window around. Then I thought
just past the end of my nose, tried to resize by moving to the top of
screen, to see if I could get the Double headed arrowhead, which would then
allow me to move the top down. Magic seem to happen from then on in.
You have my sincere thanks. Regedit is now at the correct size, roughly half
screen, when I click on the maximise Icon it does go to full screen and
click again back to half screen size. Similarly all other icon function
exactly as expected.
My sincere thanks to the Wizard, that is you J. Merril.
Kind regards
Thanks
Pat
----- Original Message -----
From: "J. Merrill" <jvm_cop@...>
To: <xxcopy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: [xxcopy] Slight digression away from XXcopy, Help??


> What version of Windows do you run?  As far as I know, this works the same
on all versions.
>
> When you press ctrl-spacebar, do you see a menu?  If you do, and the form
is maximized, the Restore option will be highlighted; and if you choose that
(press R or click with mouse or press Enter) the form will no longer be
maximized.
>
> Once the form is not maximized, you can use ctrl-spacebar and choose Move
or Size.
>
> If you choose Size, then press down-arrow, the cursor will change to an
up-down icon at the bottom of the form (but you might not be able to see
it).  Pressing up-arrow will make the form shorter by moving the bottom up.
When the lower-right corner of the form is visible, you can drag it with the
mouse to change the size.
>
> If you choose Move, the arrow keys move the window.
>
> You can make the Regedit window any size you want, once it's not maximized
(or minimized).
>
> Please try again, and if you still don't succeed, try to describe exactly
what you did and what happened.  Good luck!
>
> At 05:55 AM 6/30/2003 +0100, Pat Hyde wrote
> >Hi and many thanks,
> >Have done as you have suggested, yet using the keyboard functions does
not
> >assist in any way.
> >regedit open in full screen, stays in full screen. Using the keystrokes
does
> >not seem to apply in this particular instance.
> >I have found that if I use the mouse, right click on the Minimise icon, I
> >can then get the box you are referring to. But no matter what I do I
cannot
> >get the screen to give me a regedit in approximate half screen size.
Perhaps
> >I am attempting to get it to do something it is not designed to do.???
> >Thank you though for sharing your expertise
> >Kind regards
> >Pat
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "J. Merrill" <jvm_cop@...>
> >To: <xxcopy@yahoogroups.com>
> >Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 3:26 AM
> >Subject: Re: [xxcopy] Slight digression away from XXcopy, Help??
> >
> >
> >> At 07:33 AM 6/29/2003 +0000, pat1ck wrote
> >> >Hi,
> >> >I am completely and totally frustrated with a problem I have, no not
> >> >with XXCOP. If everything ran as well as XXCOPY I would not be
> >> >asking the question.
> >> >I carry out a registry backup into a special directort on my H\D. I
> >> >export thr registry to it.
> >> >My problem is, and it only happens here with this:
> >> >
> >> >Start/Run/regedit then I go from there. However when the regedit
> >> >window opens it does so into full screen mode. There is nothing I
> >> >can do to minimise it. Top right of the Window are three Icons. Red
> >> >Cross; Page with a Partial Border at the top; Page wuith a minus
> >> >sign at the bottom;
> >> >Red cross is to close the Window, Stillfunctions correctly:
> >> >Page with the minus sign is to minimise and still functions
> >> >correctlt:
> >> >Page with a partial border at the top is to maximise the page and
> >> >does not function other than to cause the svreen to flicker.
> >> >Has anyone got any ideas how or what i can do to rectify the problem
> >> >Sorry that the question does not relate to XXcopy, but there are no
> >> >questions on that from me. It's a first class product.
> >> >Kind Regadrs
> >> >Pat
> >>
> >> The other response was correct, but failed to mention the possibility
of
> >moving the window with the keyboard -- this works even if, somehow, the
> >entire title bar is off the screen.
> >>
> >> Press ctrl-spacebar.  If the screen is maximized, the menu that appears
> >will have the Move choice greyed out (unavailable); in that case, choose
> >Restore and press ctrl-spacebar again.  After selecting Move, use the
> >down-arrow key (or up- or left- or right-) to move the window; when it's
in
> >a better place, press Enter.
> >>
> >> Good luck.
> >>
> >> J. Merrill / Analytical Software Corp
>
>
> J. Merrill / Analytical Software Corp
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe eMail to:  <X xcopy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
> Or to post a message, send eMail to   <X xcopy@yahoogroups.com>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Hi all:

When I read someone talking about the space-bar, it just occurred
to me.

Melissa and others were talking about XXCOPY occasionally "hangs".
This may explain the problem...

That is, XXCOPY has a "hidden" feature that allows you to control
the console display using the space-bar.  This feature is
handy when you want to freeze the fast-moving console display
by XXCOPY by pressing the space-bar once.  The display will
resume when the space-bar is pressed again.

May be we should make a switch to disable this feature.

I don't think this feature is explained anywhere :-(
We really should (along with disabling switch).


Kan Yabumoto

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 08:46:47 -0500, Kan Yabumoto wrote:

> That is, XXCOPY has a "hidden" feature that allows you to control
> the console display using the space-bar.  This feature is
> handy when you want to freeze the fast-moving console display
> by XXCOPY by pressing the space-bar once.  The display will
> resume when the space-bar is pressed again.
>
> May be we should make a switch to disable this feature.

Also, when the pause is active a screen prompt like [XXcopy is paused] at
the bottom of the screen could be useful.


> I don't think this feature is explained anywhere :-(
> We really should (along with disabling switch).

--
Regards,
Michael

Michael responded to Kan with: -

> Also, when the pause is active a screen prompt like [XXcopy
is paused] at
> the bottom of the screen could be useful.

I agree with Michael.  I find XXcopy's prompts invaluable when
coping with the unexpected.  A further step would be a prompt
containing what to do, such as: -

XXcopy is paused, press Space to continue

regards,

Bob Weir

Bob Weir wrote:

  > Michael responded to Kan with: -
  >> Also, when the pause is active a screen prompt like
  >> [XXcopy is paused] at
  >> the bottom of the screen could be useful.
  >
  > I agree with Michael.  I find XXcopy's prompts invaluable
  > when coping with the unexpected.  A further step would be
  > a prompt containing what to do, such as: -
  >
  > XXcopy is paused, press Space to continue
  >

Yes, of course.
Why didn't I think of such an obvious!!!

Thanks Michael and Bob.

You will soon find a beta version with the prompt-at-space.

Kan Yabumoto

Glad it worked for you.

By the way, "J." is exactly right.  If you don't care to read the story, stop
here.

My given name is James, but when quite young (about 5th grade IIRC) I got
annoyed that the world called me Jim after I introduced myself as James.  I
decided I'd rather call myself "Jay" (no one would corrupt that, would they?)
but my mother said I could do so only if I spelled it "J."

I have been listed in at least one publication (that had a semi-serious editor)
as "Jperiod Merrill"....

At 10:29 AM 7/1/2003 +0100, Pat Hyde wrote
>Hi,
>I'm sorry but to address you as J is just not on.
>So my apologies for the lack of a proper greeting.
>I'm running Windows XP Home Edition. 1.7GHz Intel Pentium. 384Mb Ram Main
>Drive is 40Gb Image Drive is 8.4GB.
>When I pressed the Control and Spacebar I could not get a Menu. The only way
>I could access a menu, was to Right Click with my mouse on the Minimise
>Icon. The menu appeared and I followed your advice. Initially all that
>appeared to happen, was that I could drag the window around. Then I thought
>just past the end of my nose, tried to resize by moving to the top of
>screen, to see if I could get the Double headed arrowhead, which would then
>allow me to move the top down. Magic seem to happen from then on in.
>You have my sincere thanks. Regedit is now at the correct size, roughly half
>screen, when I click on the maximise Icon it does go to full screen and
>click again back to half screen size. Similarly all other icon function
>exactly as expected.
>My sincere thanks to the Wizard, that is you J. Merril.
>Kind regards
>Thanks
>Pat
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "J. Merrill" <jvm_cop@...>
>To: <xxcopy@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 6:19 PM
>Subject: Re: [xxcopy] Slight digression away from XXcopy, Help??
>
>
>> What version of Windows do you run?  As far as I know, this works the same
>on all versions.
>>
>> When you press ctrl-spacebar, do you see a menu?  If you do, and the form
>is maximized, the Restore option will be highlighted; and if you choose that
>(press R or click with mouse or press Enter) the form will no longer be
>maximized.
>>
>> Once the form is not maximized, you can use ctrl-spacebar and choose Move
>or Size.
>>
>> If you choose Size, then press down-arrow, the cursor will change to an
>up-down icon at the bottom of the form (but you might not be able to see
>it).  Pressing up-arrow will make the form shorter by moving the bottom up.
>When the lower-right corner of the form is visible, you can drag it with the
>mouse to change the size.
>>
>> If you choose Move, the arrow keys move the window.
>>
>> You can make the Regedit window any size you want, once it's not maximized
>(or minimized).
>>
>> Please try again, and if you still don't succeed, try to describe exactly
>what you did and what happened.  Good luck!
[snip]

J. Merrill / Analytical Software Corp

--- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, Joe Armstrong-Champ <joseph.
armstrong-champ@t...> wrote:
> The fact that you see it happen with copy means that it may be a
problem
> with the scheduler rather than xxcopy. Did you have any luck testing
> over the w/e?
>
> Joe

Joe, We run scripts at will ("scripts"=batch files & Python code), to
push data files around between the server and many locals
("many"=more than several). None of it is run through the scheduler.
When a part has been tested, the test software uploads the data;
likewise with the analysis software and "run" software. In addition,
there are scripts that update our "Master" directory on the server,
and the local copies of the Master with their individual
requirements. and, there are scripts that archive data files from the
server to CDs. None of this would be possible without xxcopy.exe and
its myriad switches; I rarely write a script that uses /clone.  When
Kan's team releases a new version, I cringe in fear at the same time
that I drool at new possibilities.

Our server OS is Windows 2000. The locals run from W95 to WME.
Because we are cursed with some legacy software that as yet has not
been rewritten, we still need a DOS 16-bit window and xxcopy16.exe.

We have two particular "hanging" problems. When the more benign one
occurs, the script appears to hang, but then over a minute later it
begins to work again, v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y.  We see this less often
since we replaced Lantastic software with Windows Client software,
but it still happens. Usually, restarting the PC helps. Sometimes
restarting makes no difference.

The less benign problem happens on certain computers more than
others, but it has happened on every computer at least once, and,
this is what happened at least once using command.com's COPY.  A
copy activity hangs up while copying a file from the local to the
server.  On the server, the file's name with "now" as date and time
has been written, but that's all. The file cannot be deleted because
the permission is locked. The local computer has to be restarted
with the Reset button or turning off and on.  If a script was
running an xxcopy command line that was going to clear the archive
bit after copying (/m), the archive bit was not cleared.  On the
server, the corrupt file is either zero bytes in size, or it will be
about 1500b; it is expected to be about 1.2Mb.

I have had to write a script that finds these files on a local, and
replaces the corrupt ones on the server with the uncorrupted ones
from the local.

Part of my problem is that I don't know how computers and network
software work.  Mostly I watch some bizarre thing happen, and wail,
"What the ---- is it DOING."

Melissa Evans
ASML Optics, LLC
Richmond CA

"Pat Hyde" <pat.hyde@n...> wrote:

> When I pressed the Control and Spacebar I could not get a Menu.

~snip~

Try alt+spacebar instead :-).

Julie,
who's been reading the public archives for a while, but couldn't
throw her 2¢ in that way

Hi,
I have discovered that xxcopy has problems copying files or directories
with accentuated characters.
I use french version of Win XP home to copy from a NTFS drive to a FAT32 drive.

Example copied from the batch output console result :
G:\Photos\Shows\`34.tmp                                                 Deleted
G:\Photos\Shows\`35.tmp                                                 Deleted
C:\Photos\Shows\Madère.sli                                                  888
C:\Photos\Shows\Pérou.sli                                                 1 107

These two files, Madère and Pérou, were not changed. Each backup results in
a creation of tmp files which will be deleted at next backup.

Another example copied from the batch output console result :
G:\S_\ScanJob\`6.tmp                                     <DIR>        Processed
G:\S_\ScanJob\`6.tmp\`4.tmp                                             Deleted
G:\S_\ScanJob\`6.tmp\`5.tmp                                             Deleted
C:\Program Files\DS_Dual2\Job\Défaut\Défaut.135                             246
C:\Program Files\DS_Dual2\Job\Défaut\Défaut.APS                             246

The backup files and directories are in general not recognizable, and the
user gets no warning

I saw in another thread that Unicode characters are not handled by xxcopy.
If this is the problem:
- you should explain that limitation clearly in the FAQ or in the
documentation. Users don't know they are handling Unicode characters, they
only see accentuated characters. In the doc, Unicode limitation is only
indicated with command files
- this behaviour can be very annoying for non-english users because they
don't limit their file and directory names anymore. The result may be
entire directories needlessly copied.

Sorry to be so negative, as xxcopy is a very smart program in other aspects.
    Bemaly

Hi J,
I really do not understand the reason why, the humane race seem hell bent on
destroying everything.
You are given a name by your parents, who love you and never but never
shorten it to something else. Others seem determine to do so.
James is a very nice name, and don't take that the wrong way.
Jim is an illuminate way of saying the same thing, but it is not right.
If you are happy being called J then that is what I shall refer to you as in
the future.
Again I offer you my sincere thanks for saving my sanity regarding regedit.
Why it did what it did I will never know.
Sincere thanks

Kind Regards
Pat
----- Original Message -----
From: "J. Merrill" <jvm_cop@...>
To: <xxcopy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: [xxcopy] Slight digression away from XXcopy, Help??


> Glad it worked for you.
>
> By the way, "J." is exactly right.  If you don't care to read the story,
stop here.
>
> My given name is James, but when quite young (about 5th grade IIRC) I got
annoyed that the world called me Jim after I introduced myself as James.  I
decided I'd rather call myself "Jay" (no one would corrupt that, would
they?) but my mother said I could do so only if I spelled it "J."
>
> I have been listed in at least one publication (that had a semi-serious
editor) as "Jperiod Merrill"....
>
> At 10:29 AM 7/1/2003 +0100, Pat Hyde wrote
> >Hi,
> >I'm sorry but to address you as J is just not on.
> >So my apologies for the lack of a proper greeting.
> >I'm running Windows XP Home Edition. 1.7GHz Intel Pentium. 384Mb Ram Main
> >Drive is 40Gb Image Drive is 8.4GB.
> >When I pressed the Control and Spacebar I could not get a Menu. The only
way
> >I could access a menu, was to Right Click with my mouse on the Minimise
> >Icon. The menu appeared and I followed your advice. Initially all that
> >appeared to happen, was that I could drag the window around. Then I
thought
> >just past the end of my nose, tried to resize by moving to the top of
> >screen, to see if I could get the Double headed arrowhead, which would
then
> >allow me to move the top down. Magic seem to happen from then on in.
> >You have my sincere thanks. Regedit is now at the correct size, roughly
half
> >screen, when I click on the maximise Icon it does go to full screen and
> >click again back to half screen size. Similarly all other icon function
> >exactly as expected.
> >My sincere thanks to the Wizard, that is you J. Merril.
> >Kind regards
> >Thanks
> >Pat
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "J. Merrill" <jvm_cop@...>
> >To: <xxcopy@yahoogroups.com>
> >Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 6:19 PM
> >Subject: Re: [xxcopy] Slight digression away from XXcopy, Help??
> >
> >
> >> What version of Windows do you run?  As far as I know, this works the
same
> >on all versions.
> >>
> >> When you press ctrl-spacebar, do you see a menu?  If you do, and the
form
> >is maximized, the Restore option will be highlighted; and if you choose
that
> >(press R or click with mouse or press Enter) the form will no longer be
> >maximized.
> >>
> >> Once the form is not maximized, you can use ctrl-spacebar and choose
Move
> >or Size.
> >>
> >> If you choose Size, then press down-arrow, the cursor will change to an
> >up-down icon at the bottom of the form (but you might not be able to see
> >it).  Pressing up-arrow will make the form shorter by moving the bottom
up.
> >When the lower-right corner of the form is visible, you can drag it with
the
> >mouse to change the size.
> >>
> >> If you choose Move, the arrow keys move the window.
> >>
> >> You can make the Regedit window any size you want, once it's not
maximized
> >(or minimized).
> >>
> >> Please try again, and if you still don't succeed, try to describe
exactly
> >what you did and what happened.  Good luck!
> [snip]
>
> J. Merrill / Analytical Software Corp
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe eMail to:  <X xcopy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
> Or to post a message, send eMail to   <X xcopy@yahoogroups.com>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Hi folks - I'm a new member of this group & still have much to learn,
so apologies if I sound stupid !!

I've been able to use XXcopy to clone my C: drive, but after re-
formatting it when Win98SE went pear-shaped, I now want to restore my
cloned backup to the blank drive C.

Question is, how do I get the cloned files restored to C ?

I've tried using XXcopy16 under true Dos & it works fine, but the
long filenames are all shortened of course, due to Dos limitations.
I've then tried using the XXcopy16 with the /NL switch - only some
files are corrected, but many are not!

What is the answer? I don't want to use Ghost or Drive Image.

Can XXcopy achieve what I want?

Many thanks for any advice or help.

--- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, "culpittsmith" <cwcs@i...> wrote:
> Hi folks - I'm a new member of this group & still have
> much to learn, so apologies if I sound stupid !!
>
> I've been able to use XXcopy to clone my C: drive, but
> after re-formatting it when Win98SE went pear-shaped, I
> now want to restore my cloned backup to the blank drive C.
>
> Question is, how do I get the cloned files restored to C ?
>
> I've tried using XXcopy16 under true Dos & it works fine,
> but the long filenames are all shortened of course, due to
> Dos limitations. I've then tried using the XXcopy16 with
> the /NL switch - only some files are corrected, but many
> are not!
>
> What is the answer? I don't want to use Ghost or Drive
> Image.
>
> Can XXcopy achieve what I want?

You need to be in windows and use Xxcopy (not Xxcopy16) for /NL to be
effective because long file names don't exist as far as DOS (and
therefore Xxcopy16) is concerned.

Do you have a windows bootable drive - either the one you backed up
to or the C: drive itself? If so, using Xxcopy /NL should sort out
the LFN files. If not, I think you can do it either of these ways.

1. Create a bootable C: drive using your boot disk and the steps
outlined in Tech Bulletin #10; use Xxcopy16 /clone to copy all your
original files back onto the C:\ drive; boot into windows safe mode
(you might get some complaints but should be OK because all the
critical files should have SFNs); use xxcopy /clone/nl to fix the
LFNs on the C: drive then re-boot and you should be right.

2. Do a fresh minimal windows install on the blank drive; boot to
windows; do an Xxcopy /clone; boot back into pure DOS; repeat the
Xxcopy16 /clone to copy any locked files that weren't copied under
windows then re-boot and you should be right.

Garry

--- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, "culpittsmith" <cwcs@i...> wrote:
> Hi folks - I'm a new member of this group & still have much to
learn,
> so apologies if I sound stupid !!
>
> I've been able to use XXcopy to clone my C: drive, but after re-
> formatting it when Win98SE went pear-shaped, I now want to restore
my
> cloned backup to the blank drive C.
>
> Question is, how do I get the cloned files restored to C ?
>
> I've tried using XXcopy16 under true Dos & it works fine, but the
> long filenames are all shortened of course, due to Dos limitations.
> I've then tried using the XXcopy16 with the /NL switch - only some
> files are corrected, but many are not!
>
> What is the answer? I don't want to use Ghost or Drive Image.
>
> Can XXcopy achieve what I want?
>
> Many thanks for any advice or help.

You already have a clone, why not boot from it and back it up to the
blank drive?  At some point you will have to make the clone a bootable
drive in order to use it as the primary drive.

Hello Everyone,

I'm new to the list - Apologies if this has been addressed already.
I didn't find anything when I searched the archives.

I have a batch file that runs each night on my win 2K pro box,
backing up my hard drive to an external hard drive using XXCOPY.  The
key syntax in the batch file is:

xxcopy c:\*.* /E /C /H

I was working fine, however I recently upgraded my Windows 2000 Pro
box to service pack 4 (from service pack 3).

Once I did that, xxcopy reported this:

=====================
Warning: A new Operating System environment is detected.
At least one system DLL has a newer date than XXCOPY's.
In other words, this program has not been fully tested
in the environment.  Run this program at your own risk.
(To suppress this warning, add /WV0 in the command line.)
=====================

I downloaded the latest version of xxcopy and tried that, no luck, so
I modified my syntax as they suggested.

xxcopy c:\*.* /E /C /H /WV0

Now the batch file runs for about five minutes (It should take two
hours) and then aborts with an error message, which isn't' terribly
helpful:

=====================
X X C O P Y . E X E

Error Trap

A fatal situation forced XXCOPY.EXE
to terminate before it has finished
all the work it set out to accomplish.
This message is given by XXCOPY.EXE
to replace the Blue Screen of Death!
=====================

Any ideas how I can get my batch file working again?  Regular old
xcopy aborts with an "insufficient memory" error.

Thanks in advance.

Geoff Glave
Vancouver, Canada

--- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, "Melissa Evans" <mevans2@e...> wrote:
<snip>
> We have two particular "hanging" problems. When the more
> benign one occurs, the script appears to hang, but then
> over a minute later it begins to work again, v-e-r-y
> s-l-o-w-l-y.  We see this less often since we replaced
> Lantastic software with Windows Client software,
> but it still happens. Usually, restarting the PC helps.
> Sometimes restarting makes no difference.
>
> The less benign problem happens on certain computers more
> than others, but it has happened on every computer at
> least once, and, this is what happened at least once using
> command.com's COPY.  A copy activity hangs up while copying
> a file from the local to the server.  On the server, the
> file's name with "now" as date and time has been written,
> but that's all. The file cannot be deleted because the
> permission is locked. The local computer has to be
> restarted with the Reset button or turning off and on.
> If a script was running an xxcopy command line that was
> going to clear the archive bit after copying (/m), the
> archive bit was not cleared.  On the server, the corrupt
> file is either zero bytes in size, or it will be
> about 1500b; it is expected to be about 1.2Mb.
<snip>

Mel,

It's been a while since we had similar problems so I'm not 100% sure
our problems were the same as you're experiencing but they do seem
familiar. IIRC, our major problem was with DOS based LAN software and
the redirector not automatically re-establishing a dropped
connection. Although it would seem that this shouldn't be an issue
during an active copy, changing this fixed up a lot of apparently
unrelated problems we had been experiencing.

The solution was to disable autodisconnect on the server which by
default, is set to disconnect the client after 15 mins of inactivity.
See this KB article for details on autodisconnect and how to change
it http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;297684

Depending on the number and nature of connections your server has to
maintain, possibly just increasing the autodisconnect time might be
appropriate rather than setting it to the maximum value.

Of course there's plently of harware related problems that could also
produce similar symptoms but that would normally be confined to a
particular network segment or one or two NICs.

Garry

Hi Wjburl - many thanks for your very quick response & your excellent
solution to my restoring problem.

You said, "You already have a clone, why not boot from it and back it up to
the blank drive?  At some point you will have to make the clone a bootable
drive in order to use it as the primary drive."

Yes, this would be a possibility if I had used two drives, but in my case I
cloned my C: drive's contents to another partition on the same 40gB drive !
So I can't make that the boot drive as you suggest!

When I used XXcopy16 to restore the clone back to my C: drive, it did the
job & Windows runs just fine, apart from a number if files having shortened
filenames. I then ran XXcopy /NL /E as suggested in the XXcopy help files,
& this did manage to fix some of Windows files back to their normal long
filenames, but not all.

This is the XXcopy16 command I used, but could it be improved?

XXCOPY16.exe  %drivetwo%:\%folder%\*.*  %driveone%:\ /c /e /h /k /r /s /y
/pb

If you have any further ideas, then I'd be pleased to hear them.

Thanks again.

  Colin

--- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, "garrydeane" <garrydeane@y...> wrote:
> --- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, "culpittsmith" <cwcs@i...> wrote:
> > I've been able to use XXcopy to clone my C: drive, but
> > after re-formatting it when Win98SE went pear-shaped, I
> > now want to restore my cloned backup to the blank drive C.
> >
> > Question is, how do I get the cloned files restored to C ?

You suggested:-
> You need to be in windows and use Xxcopy (not Xxcopy16) for /NL to
be
> effective because long file names don't exist as far as DOS (and
> therefore Xxcopy16) is concerned.
>
> Do you have a windows bootable drive - either the one you backed up
> to or the C: drive itself? If so, using Xxcopy /NL should sort out
> the LFN files. If not, I think you can do it either of these ways.
>
> 1. Create a bootable C: drive using your boot disk and the steps
> outlined in Tech Bulletin #10; use Xxcopy16 /clone to copy all your
> original files back onto the C:\ drive; boot into windows safe mode
> (you might get some complaints but should be OK because all the
> critical files should have SFNs); use xxcopy /clone/nl to fix the
> LFNs on the C: drive then re-boot and you should be right.
>
> 2. Do a fresh minimal windows install on the blank drive; boot to
> windows; do an Xxcopy /clone; boot back into pure DOS; repeat the
> Xxcopy16 /clone to copy any locked files that weren't copied under
> windows then re-boot and you should be right.
>
> Garry

Many thanks Garry for your suggestion, which I'll try out ASAP & post
a reply telling you if it worked.
I cloned my C: drive's contents to another partition on the same 40gB
drive. So I can't make that the boot drive as you suggest!

Colin

using xxcopy 2.82.9 on win2k-pro. have a 5gb dir tree with many sub
dirs and files. need to copy to several 650mb cdr discs using ezcd
creator, not directcd packet writing. haven't figured the combination
of switches in xxcopy to do this. also unaware of any other utils for
this. thanks in advance for your ideas.

Geoff Glave wrote:

The new version, v.2.84.6 should handle the new Win 2000 version.

As to the command,

     xxcopy c:\*.*  /E /C /H

This is not a well written command.

I suppose Geoff wants to copy everything from the C: volume
to somewhere else.  The presence of /H suggests that even
hidden/system files needs to be copied.  Since /E was selected
as opposed to /S, he wants "everything".

If I assume what Geoff is doing is not by design but his
goal is similar to most other people's periodic backup
operations, the following command is more suitable:


    xxcopy c:\  x:\  /clone /yy

    where X: is the destination (external drive) volume.

This command will remove files and directories that are
no longer present in the source.  Also, this command
skips files that have not been modified.

Generally speaking, you should avoid "ambiguous" command
line like the Geoff's original version which omits the
destination directory (default to the current directory
of the current drive).  That is, unless you know the
"current drive/current directory" at the time of invocation,
the batch file cannot even releal where the destination
will be.  I see very little justification for it.

Speaking of ambiguity, one should also consider the rare
but possible case of inadvertent drive-letter miss-assignment.

If you perform your backup routine to prepare for the
rare but somewhat inevitable disk failure, you should
also consider this scenario with an equal seriousness.

In some cases, the volume drive letter may not always
be predictable.  For example, on a dual-boot system,
the drive letter assignment varies from one environment
to another.  In Win9X, when one volume fails to work
for whatever reason, many other volume's drive letter
will be shifted by one (when D: fails, E: becomes D:
and F: becomes E:, etc. --- but not always).  The
NT-family Windows use sticky" drive letter (the drive
letter assignment is based upon the "signature" value
stored in the MBR) which solves this problem.

So, any xxcopy operation, especially a big backup job
(e.g., full volume copy), it is recommended that you
check the volume identity by comparing the volume label.

    xxcopy c:\  x:\  /clone /ild:<label> /yy

Here, with the /ILD switch, the command will proceed
only when the destination volume label matches the
value specified in the switch <label>.


Kan Yabumoto

This thought just occurred to me as I was writing the
message to a backup question.

I just wonder how many companies perform a proactive
hard disk replacement...

Most of us in computer management business, try to set up
and carry out a periodic backup regimen to avoid catastrophic
disk failures that we all know happens with rather almost
predictable fashion.

I have a big pile of failed hard disks.  It seems that
most disks will eventually fail after several years of use.

Knowing that the disk drive being a mechanical device with
moving parts, the more we use, the more the wear-and-tear
and will inevitably fail.  So we do the backup almost
religiously.

But, is this the most optimum and most cost-effective
solution?

1.  If we accept the notion that wear-and-tear is somewhat
       proportional to the amount of usage, then, it leads to
       a conclusion that a daily-backup operation actually
       increases the likelihood of failure.

       In some cases, I would not be surprised if a system
       transfers X GB of data for file I/O and 60% or more
       of the data being shuffled are for the periodic
       backup operation.  If the backup operation actually
       reaches such a high proportion, then one might argue
       the excessive backup operation is actually shortening
       the life of the hard disks significantly.

2.   If hard disk failures are so common and almost
       predictable with a degree of certainty (if not for
       the exact moment of failure), then, a better strategy
       is to replace all the hard disk at corporate
       environments *BEFORE* the failure takes place.

I for one, being a very cost-conscious (cheap) man, never
thought about replacing "perfectly functioning" hard disk
with a new one.  But, it seems to make more sense to
replace a hard disk after certain period of use (say,
18 months) before it fails.

Maybe, reducing the frequency of the backup from once
a day to every other day (or just twice a week) may also
significantly reduce the total disk I/O activities
(that is the fraction of backup job relative to the
overall disk activities) which will prolong the life
of the hard disk.

If you are an IT professional, you may propose to your
boss that you implement a policy that all the disk drives
be replaced with a newer drive within 18 months of use
and you take the old drives home:-)   This seems as
commonsense as replacing the smoke detector battery
periodically.


I don't remember reading this kind of reasoning...

Kan Yabumoto

beckwithdw:  you wrote:

  > using xxcopy 2.82.9 on win2k-pro. have a 5gb dir tree with
  > many sub dirs and files. need to copy to several 650mb
  > cdr discs using ezcd creator, not directcd packet writing.
  > haven't figured the combination of switches in xxcopy
  > to do this. also unaware of any other utils for this.
  > thanks in advance for your ideas.

1. Stop using the very old version of XXCOPY.

     Get the latest version:  v.2.84.6

        http://www.xxcopy.com

2. XXCOPY is a "device-neutral" software.  It does not
     perform any low-level device I/O.  If you cannot perform
     a copy command to write a file to the device, XXCOPY would
     not be able to write it either.  Install a packet-write
     driver such as Ahead Software's InCD (highly recommended),
     or Roxio's DirectCD (not recommended since we have seen
     just too many minor bugs --- I don't believe DirectCD is
     a very stable software).

Kan Yabumoto

--- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, Kan Yabumoto <tech@x> wrote:
>
> beckwithdw:  you wrote:
>
>  > using xxcopy 2.82.9 on win2k-pro. have a 5gb dir tree with
>  > many sub dirs and files. need to copy to several 650mb
>  > cdr discs using ezcd creator, not directcd packet writing.
>  > haven't figured the combination of switches in xxcopy
>  > to do this. also unaware of any other utils for this.
>  > thanks in advance for your ideas.
>
> 1. Stop using the very old version of XXCOPY.
>
>     Get the latest version:  v.2.84.6
>
>        http://www.xxcopy.com
>
> 2. XXCOPY is a "device-neutral" software.  It does not
>     perform any low-level device I/O.  If you cannot perform
>     a copy command to write a file to the device, XXCOPY would
>     not be able to write it either.  Install a packet-write
>     driver such as Ahead Software's InCD (highly recommended),
>     or Roxio's DirectCD (not recommended since we have seen
>     just too many minor bugs --- I don't believe DirectCD is
>     a very stable software).
>
> Kan Yabumoto

I'm trying to avoid packet writing for my archive cdroms.

Kan,

Being in the PC repair business I can assert that hard drives die at
all stages of life.  Sometimes you'll get a new drive that dies in a
month and I have some computers that are 7-8 years old that still
work fine.  There is no way to tell with any certainty when a failure
may occur.  Hence, we have backups.  =)

- Scott Wang
scott@...
http://www.scottscomputing.com




Kan Yabumoto wrote:
>
>This thought just occurred to me as I was writing the
>message to a backup question.
>
>I just wonder how many companies perform a proactive hard
>disk replacement...
>
>Most of us in computer management business, try to set up
>and carry out a periodic backup regimen to avoid
>catastrophic disk failures that we all know happens with
>rather almost predictable fashion.
>
>I have a big pile of failed hard disks.  It seems that
>most disks will eventually fail after several years of
>use.
>
>Knowing that the disk drive being a mechanical device with
>moving parts, the more we use, the more the wear-and-tear
>and will inevitably fail.  So we do the backup almost
>religiously.
>
>But, is this the most optimum and most cost-effective
>solution?
>
>1.  If we accept the notion that wear-and-tear is somewhat
>proportional to the amount of usage, then, it leads to a
>conclusion that a daily-backup operation actually
>increases the likelihood of failure.
>
>In some cases, I would not be surprised if a system
>transfers X GB of data for file I/O and 60% or more of the
>data being shuffled are for the periodic backup operation.
>If the backup operation actually reaches such a high
>proportion, then one might argue the excessive backup
>operation is actually shortening the life of the hard
>disks significantly.
>
>2.   If hard disk failures are so common and almost
>predictable with a degree of certainty (if not for the
>exact moment of failure), then, a better strategy is to
>replace all the hard disk at corporate environments
>*BEFORE* the failure takes place.
>
>I for one, being a very cost-conscious (cheap) man, never
>thought about replacing "perfectly functioning" hard disk
>with a new one.  But, it seems to make more sense to
>replace a hard disk after certain period of use (say, 18
>months) before it fails.
>
>Maybe, reducing the frequency of the backup from once a
>day to every other day (or just twice a week) may also
>significantly reduce the total disk I/O activities (that
>is the fraction of backup job relative to the overall disk
>activities) which will prolong the life of the hard disk.
>
>If you are an IT professional, you may propose to your
>boss that you implement a policy that all the disk drives
>be replaced with a newer drive within 18 months of use and
>you take the old drives home:-)   This seems as
>commonsense as replacing the smoke detector battery
>periodically.
>
>
>I don't remember reading this kind of reasoning...
>
>Kan Yabumoto
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>------------
>---------~--> Save on Coral Calcium. Get Better Health and
>Stronger Bones. Seen on TV
>http://www.challengerone.com/t/l.asp?cid-
>2805&lp=calcium2.asp
>http://us.click.yahoo.com/9gf46B/EfUGAA/ySSFAA/QzvwlB/TM
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>----------~->
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>----
>To unsubscribe eMail to:  <X xcopy-
>unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com> Or to post a message, send
>eMail to   <X xcopy@yahoogroups.com>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>----
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

Can you rar it?  WinRAR makes it very easy to divide files into exact
sizes, right down to the byte.

At 07:28 PM 7/3/2003, you wrote:

>--- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, Kan Yabumoto <tech@x> wrote:
> >
> > beckwithdw:  you wrote:
> >
> >  > using xxcopy 2.82.9 on win2k-pro. have a 5gb dir tree with
> >  > many sub dirs and files. need to copy to several 650mb
> >  > cdr discs using ezcd creator, not directcd packet writing.
> >  > haven't figured the combination of switches in xxcopy
> >  > to do this. also unaware of any other utils for this.
> >  > thanks in advance for your ideas.
> >
> > 1. Stop using the very old version of XXCOPY.
> >
> >     Get the latest version:  v.2.84.6
> >
> >        <http://www.xxcopy.com>http://www.xxcopy.com
> >
> > 2. XXCOPY is a "device-neutral" software.  It does not
> >     perform any low-level device I/O.  If you cannot perform
> >     a copy command to write a file to the device, XXCOPY would
> >     not be able to write it either.  Install a packet-write
> >     driver such as Ahead Software's InCD (highly recommended),
> >     or Roxio's DirectCD (not recommended since we have seen
> >     just too many minor bugs --- I don't believe DirectCD is
> >     a very stable software).
> >
> > Kan Yabumoto
>
>I'm trying to avoid packet writing for my archive cdroms.
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups
>Sponsor<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=249982.3512844.4795476.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1707\
277520:HM/A=1524963/R=0/SIG=12o72ctft/*http://hits.411web.com/cgi-bin/autoredir?\
camp=556&lineid=3512844&prop=egroupweb&pos=HM>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe eMail to:  <X xcopy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
>Or to post a message, send eMail to   <X xcopy@yahoogroups.com>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, "beckwithdw" <beckwithdw@y...> wrote:
> using xxcopy 2.82.9 on win2k-pro. have a 5gb dir tree with
> many sub dirs and files. need to copy to several 650mb cdr
> discs using ezcd creator, not directcd packet writing.
> haven't figured the combination of switches in xxcopy to
> do this. also unaware of any other utils for this. thanks
> in advance for your ideas.

As Kan and others have noted, you can't use xxcopy to write
directly to the CD unless using packet writing. However,
provided you have ample disk capacity, you can use Xxcopy
to copy your existing data into 'volume' sets which will fit
onto 1 CD. You then use your CD software to copy each volume
set. The idea is similar to that explained in Tech Bulletin
#20 Item 3 for copying to multiple media.

First, create an exclusion file similar to the following and
add anything additional that you don't want copied. The batch
file assumes this is called xxcopyex.txt and is located in the
%temp% directory. You can call it whatever you like provided
the batch file is amended to suit.

:: xxcopy exclusion list
*.bak
*.bk*
*.chk
*.tmp
*.wbk
*\*ie5\
*\recycle*\
*\temp\

Now create the following batch file. Call it whatever you want
(with a .bat or .cmd extension) and place it in C:\ or C:\Winnt
or somewhere convenient. Adjust the paths and file names as
necessary.

@echo off
:: CDvols.cmd
:: Creates a series of sub-directories called C:\cds\vol1,
:: C:\cds\vol2 ... C:\cds\voln suitable for copying to a CD.
:: Each subdirectory contains no more than 600 Mb of data
setlocal
set src=c:\
set dst=c:\cds\
set exc=%temp%.\xxcopyx.txt
set log=%temp%.\xxcopy.log
set max=600m
set n=0
echo Setting archive bit on all files in %src%
xxcopy %src% /aa/h/s > nul
:loop
set /a n=n+1
:: Note the next line has wrapped - it should end with /oa%log%
:: The critical switches are /bu to carry out a normal backup
:: /m to copy files with the archive bit set and clear after copy
:: /qbL:600m to stop copying when bytes copied will exceed 600 Mb
xxcopy %src% %dst%vol%n%\ /bu/m/qbL:%max%/e0/pz0/ex%exc%/x%dst%/oa%
log%
if %errorlevel% EQU 0 goto :loop
if %errorlevel% GTR 100 goto :loop
echo Deleting extra empty directory
xxcopy %dst% /rsy/s/x*/pd0 > nul
goto :eof

Now open up a cmd prompt and type the path and name of the batch file
which should continue copying your source into as many individual
subdirectories as needed.

Note that you will get some errors due to some files being unable to
be copied because they are in use by the OS. If you want to copy
these files as well, note their names in the log file then use a DOS
boot disk to copy them to a c:\CDs\Voln directory with sufficient
space to fit them (the last Voln directory will probably use well
under 600 Mb).

You should now have 9 or 10 c:\cds\ subdirectories which you can copy
to your CDs one at a time using ezcd. When complete, delete the
c:\cds directory.

If you have limited free space, you can create a CD volume one at a
time using a similar scheme but without the need to create numbered
directories. After each 600Mb copy operation, copy the data to a CD,
delete the data in c:\cds and repeat until done.

Garry

Kan said: -

> Most of us in computer management business, try to set up
> and carry out a periodic backup regimen to avoid
catastrophic
> disk failures that we all know happens with rather almost
> predictable fashion.

Yes, but the normal failure pattern is a "bathtub" shape with
a modest number of early failures followed by a long stable
period with few failures before the terminal failure.  SMART
should predict most failures and trigger replacement at a cost
effective time.  With hardware, "If it ain't bust don't fix
it" is a good motto.  There may be apparent merit in replacing
one of a pair of disks used in an "XX cloned array" half way
through it's expected life but replacing the pair when the
first fails achieves the same result with less intervention.

> 1.  If we accept the notion that wear-and-tear is somewhat
>       proportional to the amount of usage, then, it leads to
>       a conclusion that a daily-backup operation actually
>       increases the likelihood of failure.

I think this will be a marginal effect.  Unlike other schemes
the  great (unsung) advantage for xxcopy is the incremental
nature of  /CLONE (or similar xxcopy switch groupings) that
minimise disk activity during routine holistic backup.  The
decision to backup after certain periods or tasks is based on
the value of the disk contents and the probability of that
content becoming corrupted (more often by software than from
breakdowns or cosmic rays?).
I'm not in computer management but, for me, protecting the
disk contents from corruption by software (e.g. by the use of
routine XX cloning to a second disk) far outweighs any modest
increase in the overall cost of ownership caused by increased
wear and tear on the disks.

Regards,

Bob Weir

--- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, "garrydeane" <garrydeane@y...> wrote:
> --- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, "beckwithdw" <beckwithdw@y...> wrote:
> > using xxcopy 2.82.9 on win2k-pro. have a 5gb dir tree with
> > many sub dirs and files. need to copy to several 650mb cdr
> > discs using ezcd creator, not directcd packet writing.
> > haven't figured the combination of switches in xxcopy to
> > do this. also unaware of any other utils for this. thanks
> > in advance for your ideas.
>
like xxcopy, Garry is AWESOME. the batch file works great. i've only
used xxcopy a couple of times, and it is slick. i'm using the older
2.82.9-pro because our 12 month update window has passed. even that
clunky old version is cool. thanks for your help.

Because of the speed at which the industry
has increased drive size and decreased prices the
thought of replacing hard drives sooner is more
acceptable. Right now life seems to start with a 100
gigabyte drive. In a years time I suppose that 200
Gigabytes will be about as small as one would get on a
new PC purchase. Most people don't want to be on the
bleeding edge when it comes to new gear but they do
want to stay in the ball park. To me that means buying
a new drive at about the two year mark unless the
trend increases. It would mean very little to buy at
18 months instead of 24 months.
--- Bob Weir <rweir@...> wrote:
> Kan said: -
>
> > Most of us in computer management business, try to
> set up
> > and carry out a periodic backup regimen to avoid
> catastrophic
> > disk failures that we all know happens with rather
> almost
> > predictable fashion.
>
> Yes, but the normal failure pattern is a "bathtub"
> shape with
> a modest number of early failures followed by a long
> stable
> period with few failures before the terminal
> failure.  SMART
> should predict most failures and trigger replacement
> at a cost
> effective time.  With hardware, "If it ain't bust
> don't fix
> it" is a good motto.  There may be apparent merit in
> replacing
> one of a pair of disks used in an "XX cloned array"
> half way
> through it's expected life but replacing the pair
> when the
> first fails achieves the same result with less
> intervention.
>
> > 1.  If we accept the notion that wear-and-tear is
> somewhat
> >       proportional to the amount of usage, then,
> it leads to
> >       a conclusion that a daily-backup operation
> actually
> >       increases the likelihood of failure.
>
> I think this will be a marginal effect.  Unlike
> other schemes
> the  great (unsung) advantage for xxcopy is the
> incremental
> nature of  /CLONE (or similar xxcopy switch
> groupings) that
> minimise disk activity during routine holistic
> backup.  The
> decision to backup after certain periods or tasks is
> based on
> the value of the disk contents and the probability
> of that
> content becoming corrupted (more often by software
> than from
> breakdowns or cosmic rays?).
> I'm not in computer management but, for me,
> protecting the
> disk contents from corruption by software (e.g. by
> the use of
> routine XX cloning to a second disk) far outweighs
> any modest
> increase in the overall cost of ownership caused by
> increased
> wear and tear on the disks.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bob Weir
>
>


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Kan,

Thanks for the advice - The newest version of xxcopy took care of the
problem.

I wasn't aware of the "clone" command - I just ported over the
switches from old xcopy.  I'll take a look at it.

Cheers,
Geoff Glave
Vancouver, Canada

--- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, Kan Yabumoto <tech@x> wrote:
>
> Geoff Glave wrote:
>
> The new version, v.2.84.6 should handle the new Win 2000 version.
>
> As to the command,
>
>     xxcopy c:\*.*  /E /C /H
>
> This is not a well written command.
>
> I suppose Geoff wants to copy everything from the C: volume
> to somewhere else.  The presence of /H suggests that even
> hidden/system files needs to be copied.  Since /E was selected
> as opposed to /S, he wants "everything".
>
> If I assume what Geoff is doing is not by design but his
> goal is similar to most other people's periodic backup
> operations, the following command is more suitable:
>
>
>    xxcopy c:\  x:\  /clone /yy
>
>    where X: is the destination (external drive) volume.
>
> This command will remove files and directories that are
> no longer present in the source.  Also, this command
> skips files that have not been modified.
>
> Generally speaking, you should avoid "ambiguous" command
> line like the Geoff's original version which omits the
> destination directory (default to the current directory
> of the current drive).  That is, unless you know the
> "current drive/current directory" at the time of invocation,
> the batch file cannot even releal where the destination
> will be.  I see very little justification for it.
>
> Speaking of ambiguity, one should also consider the rare
> but possible case of inadvertent drive-letter miss-assignment.
>
> If you perform your backup routine to prepare for the
> rare but somewhat inevitable disk failure, you should
> also consider this scenario with an equal seriousness.
>
> In some cases, the volume drive letter may not always
> be predictable.  For example, on a dual-boot system,
> the drive letter assignment varies from one environment
> to another.  In Win9X, when one volume fails to work
> for whatever reason, many other volume's drive letter
> will be shifted by one (when D: fails, E: becomes D:
> and F: becomes E:, etc. --- but not always).  The
> NT-family Windows use sticky" drive letter (the drive
> letter assignment is based upon the "signature" value
> stored in the MBR) which solves this problem.
>
> So, any xxcopy operation, especially a big backup job
> (e.g., full volume copy), it is recommended that you
> check the volume identity by comparing the volume label.
>
>    xxcopy c:\  x:\  /clone /ild:<label> /yy
>
> Here, with the /ILD switch, the command will proceed
> only when the destination volume label matches the
> value specified in the switch <label>.
>
>
> Kan Yabumoto