[<<]Message[>>]    [<<]Author[>>]    [<<]Subject[>>]    [<<]Thread[>>]

Number   :  3510
Date     :  2003-01-13
Author   :  Kan Yabumoto
Subject  :  Re: Windows Explorer vs XXCOPY
Size(KB) :  3


Loong:

You have a valid point. If you find Windows Explorer all you
need, then, there is no reason to try XXCOPY. But...

If you observe the number of files on a typical personal computers
over the years, you will find a frightening trend. The number of
files are doubling every two years (or even faster).

About ten years ago, typical computers had a few hundred files.
We knew by heart what most of the files were. Most well-documented
applications had a list of files that are included in the package,
and the purpose of those files.

Now, many of us are feeling that we are losing control of the
system because the number of files are unmanageably large.
A typical computer today has over 10,000 files. With such a
large number of files, we just cannot tell what is what.
And the number is still growing everyday.

We often operate our system with the disk over 95%
full. Removing hundreds of small files are very time consuming,
yet, yields relatively insignificant amount of free space.
The key is to go after only big files. Big files that are
old (or a backup of backup, or redundant) are a good
candidate to go after when you need more room. All these
operations need some tools that can quickly shows you which
one to target.

In essence, while drag-and-drop is very easy if the operation
is in small scale. When, the scale goes up, Windows Explorer
becomes just too time-consuming. Learning XXCOPY's features
is time-consuming, too. But, spending one hour to learn
XXCOPY to run something may be easier than spending 48 hours
doing drag-and-drop inside Windows Explorer.

I just give you a few examples in XXCOPY that is hard to do
with THE Explorer:


Select files whose length is 0 from everywhere in drive c:

XXCOPY c:\ /rs/s/pd0/sz:0

Copy files on C: that were made today to D:

XXCOPY C:\ D:\ /S/H/Y/DA#0

Or, the job may be more complicated. Locate all the files
in C: whose parent directory contains "jack" somewhere in
the name (including "Hijack" and "jackie") and the filename
ends with .DOC and we don't know where the directory is
and we also know that there are many directories that fits
to the description. Oh yes, it may not be just a parent
directory, it could be "grandparent" directory whose name
contains the "jack"...

XXCOPY C:\*\*JACK*\*\*.DOC /H/LZT

Anyway, the more files you have, the more you want to
throw in more file-selection mechanisms to distinguish
them. It seems that our headaches with files grow
proportionally with the number of files.

So, if you don't really feel a need for XXCOPY, just set is
aside. A few years later, you will appreciate it more.

Kan Yabumoto
===================================================================
At 2003-01-12 22:29, you wrote:
>Dear xxcopy users:
>
>I am new to xxcopy for a week and had tried to use it
>with highly confidence in it--a powerful software.
>Reading many posted articles, I still have a big
>question in my mind about the xxcopy since many and
>most of the functions can be replaced by using windows
>explorer. In my multiple OS computer, I can move files
>from Win 98 to Win XP with graphic interface (copy and
>paste). So, what is the difference or benefits to use
>xxcopy instead. Is there some examples that xxcopy
>cannot be replaced by the Windows Explorer? I know
>"CLONE" is one of the function that is irreplaceable
>by Windows Explorer. Is there other functions that is
>irreplaceable? Thank you for your time.
>
>Loong Lin



This message if part of XXCOPY's message Archive.
The archive contains all the messages posted at Yahoo!Groups: XXCOPY.