Really, I came to play baseball with Campanella.
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
(e-mail address removed)
|
| |
| > Well, you are tough to please, Rod Speed.
|
| Wrong. As always.
|
| > But I never did come here to please you.
|
| Wrong. As always.
|
|
| > | > |
| > | | > |
| > | > Ah, Kan Yabumoto! This is one bright guy, Yabumoto is.
| > |
| > | > Reading the URLs you provided, I understand the problem
| > | > very likely is & always was solved in the case of XXCopy going
| > | > to an empty folder, provided the OS is pure. It is when SFNs
| > | > already exist in the destination folder that a problem may
arise.
| > |
| > | Pity that aint the situation originally being discussed.
| > |
| > | > The problem with mixed OS's,
| > |
| > | That aint the situation being discussed either.
| > |
| > | > is that they SFNs differently. There are other
| > | > cautions mentioned in the URL trail you posted,
| > | > but I think it is not involved in this situation.
| > |
| > | Yep, and that cant be the reason that a few
| > | reboots are necessary to boot the clone either.
| > |
| > | > However, there are two versions of XXCopy. The one that
| > | > runs in "true" DOS may not be as capable as the 32-bit version.
| > |
| > | Waffle. That particular SFN question cant be the cause of
| > | the problem originally being discussed, and neither can the
| > | swap file either. You utterly mangled the story, as I said.
| > |
| > | > Yet this is likely not the reason cindykapitan
| > | > needs to boot thrice to boot once.
| > |
| > | Yep, you have finally managed to grasp that NOW. And it wasnt
| > | cindykapitan that had that problem, it was Angelo Campanella.
| > |
| > | > But I never said it was!
| > |
| > | Liar. You initially claimed that the problem could be the
| > | swap file being copied. Wrong. Then you claimed that it
| > | could be xxcopy at fault with that SFN problem. Wrong.
| > |
| > | Its all still in the quoting below.
| > |
| > | > I take you at your word that XXCopy
| > | > also handles the Swap File correctly.
| > |
| > | You dont have to take my word for that, Kan says that quite
| > explicitly.
| > |
| > | > I only offered that as a possibility.
| > |
| > | Neither of those are a possibility.
| > |
| > | > So, why does she need to boot thrice?
| > |
| > | Most likely some problem with clone
| > | drive or the controller channel its on.
| > |
| > | > ......Start...of exchange between me & him......
| > |
| > | Which basically just says in more words that
| > | your original claim that xxcopy could be the
| > | reason for the multiple boots is just plain wrong.
| > |
| > | If there is a problem with the SFN/LFN pair,
| > | the problem would occur on every boot attempt.
| > |
| > |
| > | > | > | > | Hi, PCR;
| > | > |
| > | > | XXCOPY's /NX operation (it is a default setting) tries to
preserve
| > the
| > | > | SFN that is associated with the source file at the destination
| > file
| > | > | as much as possible. Since this feature is only an added
"bonus"
| > | > | when XXCOPY finds a situation in the destination which does
not
| > | > | easily accommodate the desired outcome, it gives up the effort
on
| > | > | that file. There are a number of scenarios where the /NX
| > operation
| > | > | fails. For example, when there is another file in the
destination
| > | > | which already has the desired file name, then, XXCOPY will not
try
| > | > | to vacate the desired SFN by renaming the existing one.
Another
| > | > | scenario is when the source or destination volume is
controlled by
| > | > | both Win9X/ME and NT/2K/XP families of Windows (e.g., with a
| > dual-boot
| > | > | system). While the first four SFN names are synthesized using
the
| > | > | same scheme (starting with XXXXXX~1, XXXXXX~2, .... XXXXXX~4)
by
| > both
| > | > | the 9X/ME family and the NT family, the NT-family Windows
switches
| > | > | the algorithm using a 4-digit hexadecimal hash value (e.g.,
| > XXABCD~1)
| > | > | to avoid excessive SFN collisions. The following article
| > explains
| > | > | the details:
| > | > |
| > | > |
http://www.xxcopy.com/xxcopy08.htm
| > | > |
| > | > | Another notable case is with the file system for the CD-R/W
| > | > | (packet-write) volume such as InCD and DirectCD. The file
system
| > | > | for CD-R/W uses a totally different scheme to assign the SFN.
| > | > |
| > | > | Since XXCOPY uses a combination of standard file I/O API
functions
| > | > | iteratively to manipulate the SFN in order to preserve the
| > | > | SFN (rather than using direct low-level device I/O
operations),
| > | > | XXCOPY will give up the /NX operation when the SFN
preservation is
| > | > | not possible.
| > | > |
| > | > | Therefore, it is true that XXCOPY does not always succeed in
| > | > | preserving the SFN. However, we believe it is not critical in
| > | > | most situations (except when one tries to save the whole
system
| > | > | volume into a CD-R/W volume and hopes to maintain the exact
| > | > | 8.3-name based referencing --- often found in the system
| > registry).
| > | > | Typically, the most common place to encounter a massive
| > SFN-collisions
| > | > | is in the cookies directory where the web browser (e.g., IE
and
| > | > Mozilla)
| > | > | saves cookies using a series of files whose name share the
| > | > | same beginning. Since the cookie files are always referenced
by
| > | > | their LFN name, the SFN preservation for those files should
not
| > | > | be critical.
| > | > |
| > | > | The most important SFN that should be preserved is the common
| > | > | ones such as "C:\Program Files\", "C:\Documents and
Settings\".
| > | > |
| > | > | Kan Yabumoto
| > | > | The author of XXCopy
| > | > |
| > ====================================================================
| > | > | > | > | > Mr. Yabumoto, I thought I read somewhere that even XXCopy
has a
| > | > problem
| > | > | > with Short File Names (8+3), after the tilde (~), if two in
the
| > same
| > | > | > folder differ only by the tilde portion. Is that true?
| > | > | >
| > | > | > --
| > | > | > Thanks & Good Luck,
| > | > | > PCR
| > | > | > (e-mail address removed)
| > | > ......End...of exchange between me & him......
| > | >
| > | > --
| > | > Thanks or Good Luck,
| > | > There may be humor in this post, and,
| > | > Naturally, you will not sue,
| > | > should things get worse after this,
| > | > PCR
| > | > (e-mail address removed)
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | | > | > |
| > | > | > | > Well, you must investigate. Let me see whether I have a
| > site...
| > | > | > | >
http://www.xxcopy.com/
| > | > | > | > What about the XXCopy site, itself? Surely there are
FAQs
| > there?
| > | > |
| > | > | > | > I also know XXCopy suffers of Short File Name mishaps.
That
| > is,
| > | > | > | > if there are two or more names such as "Progra~1" &
| > "Progra~2",
| > | > | > | > there is a possibility they are switched in the copy.
They
| > will
| > | > get
| > | > | > | > the correct LFN, but "can" get switched in the SFN. This
| > would
| > | > | > | > only matter if something referred to the SFN.
| > | > |
| > | > | > | You've mangled that utterly. Its the standard xcopy that
has
| > that
| > | > | > | particularly problem and xxcopy that ensures that doesnt
| > happen.
| > | > |
| > | > | > No. I did not.
| > | > |
| > | > | Yes you did, utterly.
| > | > |
| > | > | > Gosh, I can't recall his name, but the author
| > | > | > of XXCopy said it is a Windows problem.
| > | > |
| > | > | And YOU claimed above that its an xxcopy problem which it
aint.
| > | > | He says very explicitly indeed that xxcopy FIXES that problem.
| > | > |
http://www.xxcopy.com/xxcopy03.htm
| > | > |
| > | > | > Harper even posted that Explorer itself suffers of it, not
just
| > DOS.
| > | > |
| > | > | I didnt even mention dos.
| > | > |
| > | > | > It is as I said.
| > | > |
| > | > | Nope, not as far as xxcopy having the problem it aint.
| > | > |
| > | > | > LFNs will still be assigned to the proper file, but SFNs can
| > switch.
| > | > |
| > | > | Not when xxcopy is used.
| > | > |
| > | > | > Sorry, I have no quick way to find the URL Harper posted
about
| > it.
| > | > |
| > | > | > But, create say nine files in one folder that will get names
| > | > "Progra~1"
| > | > | > through "Progra~9". Then try the copy in DOS & in Explorer.
| > | > |
| > | > | Pity about what happens when xxcopy is used. THATS
| > | > | what you mangled utterly. It FIXES that problem by
| > | > | ensuring that the short and long file name pairs are
| > | > | the same on the source and the destination.
| > | > |
| > | > | > | > However, I can't see how three re-boots could fix such a
| > thing.
| > | > |
| > | > | > | It cant, and there is nothing to be 'fixed' in that area
| > anyway.
| > | > |
| > | > | > | > But never copy your Swap File that
| > | > | > | > way. That might have done it, I think.
| > | > |
| > | > | > | Unlikely that 3 reboots would fix that either.
| > | > |
| > | > | > It isn't an experiment I will do. However, Angelo might,
when
| > | > | > next he does his XXCopy. (He's already done it the wrong
way.)
| > | > | > Copying the Swap File that way is the most often heard
| > | > | > prohibition about Xcopy32, XXCopy & even an Explorer copy.
| > | > |
| > | > | Thats for a different reason. Win just wont let you copy the
| > | > | swap file and so the copy aborts when you get to that file.
| > | > |
| > | > | And the xxcopy documentation doesnt say its a problem.
| > | > |
http://www.xxcopy.com/xxcopy10.htm
| > | > |
| > | > | In fact it wont copy it and that will cause an automatic
| > | > | recreation of that file when the clone is booted.
| > | > |
| > | > | > | > Let Windows regenerate the Swap File
| > | > | > | > (Win386.swp) when you boot the copy.
| > | > |
| > | > |
message
| > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | PCR wrote:
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | > You should investigate why it takes 2/3 boots to
boot
| > once,
| > | > | > after an
| > | > | > | > | > XXCopy. Can it be you copy the swap file
(Win386.swp)
| > with
| > | > it? I
| > | > | > | > have
| > | > | > | > | > read that should not be copied. It will generate
anew
| > when
| > | > you
| > | > | > boot
| > | > | > | > to
| > | > | > | > | > Windows.
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | Perhaps true. I just did it the really dumb and simple
| > way;
| > | > Copy
| > | > | > and
| > | > | > | > Run!
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | Angelo Campanella
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | >
| > | > | > --
| > | > | > Thanks or Good Luck,
| > | > | > There may be humor in this post, and,
| > | > | > Naturally, you will not sue,
| > | > | > should things get worse after this,
| > | > | > PCR
| > | > | > (e-mail address removed)
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|
