[<<]Message[>>] [<<]Author[>>] Subject [<<]Thread[>>]
Number : 739 Date : 2001-09-30 Author : Dan Anderson Subject : Re: Cloning with XXCopy - why? - Just use Windows Copy for a new HD! - NO Size(KB) : 10
Peter, further to your comments and Kan's, my own experience is that the functionality that xxcopy provides (over and beyond xcopy's functionality) is the essential ability to preserve the 1-1 link between short file names and long file names. That feature is critical to effectively back up programs and even operating systems. I have used xxcopy to reliably restore my laptop's operating system and all programs and data without doing a re-install and re-configuration of everything. That would have been impossible (assuming one is using an operating system more recent than WIN3.1) if xcopy had been used to create the backup. I agree that xxcopy does not produce an absolutely identical copy of the contents of the hard drive because the directory creation dates change (determined by the MS-OS environment), and people should be aware of that, but from a functionality point of view that directory-date-change factor is almost completely irrelevant to more than 99% of people. Programs such as ghost do an excellent job of creating clones, but they do it in a proprietary manner that makes some people uncomfortable, rather than using xxcopy's more direct file-copy process. Furthermore, the ability of xxcopy to incrementally update the cloned copy is, as I understand it, a feature that is unavailable with programs such as Ghost and Drive Image since each time they clone a logical or primary drive they do the whole thing. My only caution with regard to xxcopy is its current limitations with regard to creating backups on CDRs. I guess a final comment is to echo what Kan has said in the past and that is that xxcopy is not intended as freeware for business-oriented applications, and within reason it is ultimately intended as a commodity product with some compensation provided to the creator. Best wishes. ...Dan =============================== ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 2:30 AM Subject: [xxcopy] Re: Cloning with XXCopy - why? - Just use Windows Copy for a new HD! > Dear Kan, > > Please don't misunderstand me - XXCopy is a great program and we > all are lucky that we have freeware and people like you providing it. > And what MS does with the OS is an nightmare - it is not able (or does > not want) to handle the own (stupid) concept... > > But I think we are both not completely correct. If anybody wants to > have an exact copy of the HD there might be no other way than to > copy it bit by bit and sector by sector with one of the tools not using > the stupid MS OS. And you are correct with the filenames - there might > occur problems. But there are more problems. The user has to be > aware that all file creation dates will be changed - not so good for > documents and other things. Also all creation dates of the folders are > not correct anymore - I have software which uses this date to find out > the installation date - does not work anymore. Some tools provide > special defrag orders - Norton for instance. This special order of your > files has to be created again on your new HD what can be VERY time > consuming. > > I think the user has to be aware - if you really want to have the same - > clone it bit by bit and nothing else. But again - be careful and check > after the cloning the partitions - I had a very bad experience - even the > Norton Tools didn't find any problem - but I lost data - use FDISK after > the cloning to check if the partitions are okay. > > And again, XXCopy is a great tool. And we are greatful for people like > you. I just got confused that you used XXCopy to replace cloning. The > results can never be the same and the user has to be aware of this. > > Peter > > > --- In xxcopy@y..., Kan Yabumoto wrote: > > > > At 2001-09-28 05:03, stindlpeter wrote: > > > > > I am referring to the article XXCOPY TECHNICAL BULLETIN #10 > > > > > >I am competely confused. There is no need to use XXcopy or > > >anything else. Apart from a new HD you need FDISK, FORMAT, > SYS > > >and COPY - all come with Windows. > > > > Well, this is XXCOPY's home turf. While I appreciate stindlpeter's > > rather innocent question and it deserve an answer, I wonder how > > we can end this kind of discussion which keeps coming back. Many > > of us thought the case has long been closed... > > > > One thing I have to make clear is that XXCOPY's extra work in > > preserving the SFN while longnamed-files/directories are copied > > is for good reasons. > > > > Just bare with me for a tedious discussion here. Let me start > > by listing pointers to various web sites on this subject. > > > > We document the problem in the following article > > > > http://www.xxcopy.com/xxcopy/xxcopy03.htm > > > > Microsoft has its own knowledge-base article entitled > > "Copying Files with Mix of LFN and SFN May Lead to Data Loss" > > > > http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q195/1/44.asp > > > > Many third parties have described it in many places: > > > > http://www.pcguide.com/art/xcopy.htm > > http://navasgrp.home.att.net/tech/clone_copy.htm > > http://members.tripod.com/~diligent/harddisk.htm > > > > > > Now, let me rephrase the problem if you are overwhelmed by > > the articles that I listed above. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > There are continued discussions in various usenet news groups that > > are repeated over and over. Basically the theme goes like this: > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Why does XXCOPY make big deal out of just copying everything > > from one drive to another. I use the Windows Explorer (drag- > > and-drop) and have ever experienced any problems. > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > The answer is that for a great many systems (probably a big > > majority of non-professional users' PCs) the Windows Explorer > > probably works just fine using drag-and-drop. However, it is > > also true that the subtle shortname mismatch causes lots of > > trouble on some machines. Let me use my machine as an example: > > In my C: drive, inside the "Program Files" directory, I find > > the following Microsoft-related applications. Microsoft seems > > to have a bad habit of naming the directories in such a way > > that exacerbates the SFN problem. Here is a copy of my > > screen which lists the Microsoft-related directories. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > C:\Program Files> dir micro* > > > > MICROS~1 08-31-01 5:33p Microsoft Exchange > > MICROS~3 08-31-01 5:33p Microsoft Internet > > MICROS~4 08-31-01 5:33p Microsoft Agent > > MICROS~2 08-31-01 5:33p Microsoft Batch 98 > > MICROS~5 08-31-01 5:33p Microsoft Dictation > > MICROS~6 08-31-01 5:33p Microsoft Speech SDK > > MICROS~7 08-31-01 5:33p Microsoft Voice > > MICROS~9 08-31-01 5:33p Microsoft Visual Studio > > MICROS~8 08-31-01 5:34p Microsoft Platform SDK > > MICRO~10 08-31-01 5:35p Microsoft FrontPage > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > This is a result of many cycles of installations/uninstallation/ > > reinstallation/update, what have you. > > > > Now, I did a drag-and-drop of the entire "C:\Program Files" directory > > into another using Windows Explorer. It created a directory called > > "C:\Copy of Program Files". When I displayed the same list inside > > the new directory, here is what I got > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > C:\Copy of Program Files> dir micro* > > > > MICROS~1 09-28-01 11:38a Microsoft FrontPage > > MICROS~2 09-28-01 11:38a Microsoft Visual > Studio > > MICROS~3 09-28-01 11:38a Microsoft Platform > SDK > > MICROS~4 09-28-01 11:38a Microsoft Voice > > MICROS~5 09-28-01 11:38a Microsoft Speech > SDK > > MICROS~6 09-28-01 11:38a Microsoft Dictation > > MICROS~7 09-28-01 11:38a Microsoft Agent > > MICROS~8 09-28-01 11:38a Microsoft Internet > > MICROS~9 09-28-01 11:38a Microsoft Batch 98 > > MICRO~10 09-28-01 11:38a Microsoft Exchange > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > As you can see the SFNs on the left hand side do not match the one > > in the original directory. Still, as long as you remain in the beautiful > > world of GUI, the details are still hidden from your eyes. But the > > SFNs with the curly character play vital roles in pointers all over > > the place inside the system registry. > > > > You may just open the RegEdit ( [ Start > Run... > RegEdit ]) utility > > and search for "Micro~" you will find many reference to similar > > Microsoft-related directories. Microsoft often chooses the 8.3 > > format inside registry for backward compatibility. Also note that > > almost all VxD files are loaded from the hard disk using the 8.3 > > format. If a vital VxD file is placed inside a long-named directory, > > the system will definitely fail to load such a VxD (and you may not > > even get to the Windows when you boot up). > > > > The list I showed here is a real cases, not a hypothetical one. If > > I follow your advice and perform a drag-and-drop to clone my system > > drive, I will have lots of problems even if I could succeed in aching > > the Windows GUI world (I doubt it). My Visual Studio (the debugger > > for XXCOPY) would certainly stop responding when I click its icon. > > > > I sincerely wish people stop advocating ill-informed advices to the > > unsuspecting public. The fact one can succeed in duplicating a > system > > disk using the drag-and-drop method on some (many) machines > does > > not prove it is a safe and good method. > > > > For one thing, the problem may not be apparent and you would > never > > know if you have succeeded in creating a logically equivalent > volume. > > Of course, if you have a relatively small number of files on your > > system, you may not need XXCOPY's enhanced features. > > > > Kan Yabumoto > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> > Get your FREE VeriSign guide to security solutions for your web site: encrypting transactions, securing intranets, and more! > http://us.click.yahoo.com/UnN2wB/m5_CAA/yigFAA/QzvwlB/TM > ---------------------------------------------------------------------~ -> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > >
This message if part of XXCOPY's message Archive. The archive contains all the messages posted at Yahoo!Groups: XXCOPY.