copy/delete/move/etc. stopping when they hit a problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter J. P. Gilliver (John)
  • Start date Start date
J

J. P. Gilliver (John)

Sometimes, when I've selected a lot of files to be deleted/moved/copied
or whatever, the system will stop, with the message cannot delete file
xyz as it's in use, or similar. This is fair enough.

When I accept this, however, the copying/deleting/whatever stops - even
though there are still lots of files left on which the operation hasn't
been performed, and which _don't_ have the problem. This is irritating,
if say I'm doing a structure copy (copying lots of folders including the
files in them), as it's virtually impossible to proceed - other than
repeating the whole operation, which then involves lots of "there's a
file of that name there already [from what was copied _before_ the
problem] - overwrite?" questions.

Does anyone know a way to tell explorer (I presume it's explorer) to do
all it can before asking about the problems, or at least to carry on
after I've "OK"d the problem report?

This isn't exclusive to XP of course - it was there in '9x. I'm just
asking here because if I ask in '9x, there are one or two people who
will say "explorer is rubbish - use this or that shell instead", and I'm
hoping they haven't followed me here. (Is it still the same in Vista/7/8
- the problem I mean, not the shell-pushers?) [I do have Xtree Gold,
which _can_ get round such problems, but that doesn't handle long
filenames. I've never got to grips with Ztree.]

I do know about the "Yes for all" button, but (a) I _want_ to be asked
about the files where there is a problem, (b) it doesn't always appear
(a block delete for example).
 
J. P. Gilliver said:
Sometimes, when I've selected a lot of files to be
deleted/moved/copied or whatever, the system will stop, with the
message cannot delete file xyz as it's in use, or similar. This is
fair enough.

When I accept this, however, the copying/deleting/whatever stops -
even though there are still lots of files left on which the operation
hasn't been performed, and which _don't_ have the problem. This is
irritating, if say I'm doing a structure copy (copying lots of
folders including the files in them), as it's virtually impossible to
proceed - other than repeating the whole operation, which then
involves lots of "there's a file of that name there already [from
what was copied _before_ the problem] - overwrite?" questions.
Click to expand...

xcopy included in Windows XP has more features, like the /c parameter
to ignore errors. Open a command shell and run the following to see
its help output:

xcopy /?

There are many operations for which console-mode (DOS-like) commands
are still preferrable.
I do know about the "Yes for all" button, but (a) I _want_ to be asked
about the files where there is a problem, (b) it doesn't always
appear (a block delete for example).
Click to expand...

You can scroll through the stdout in the command shell (provided you
configured cmd.exe to buffer a lot of lines). Or you can pipe the
output to a file and then use a text editor to review the output, as
in:

xcopy {params} > \xcopylog.txt && notepad.exe \xcopylog.txt

& lets you concatenate several commands on one command line. && is a
conditional test that executes the next command only if the previous
one did not error. No point in trying to show a logfile that won't
exist (or hasn't been replaced with a new version) if the xcopy failed.
 
In message <[email protected]>, VanguardLH <[email protected]>
writes:
[]
xcopy included in Windows XP has more features, like the /c parameter []
There are many operations for which console-mode (DOS-like) commands
are still preferrable.
Click to expand...
[]
I use command line more than most people I know; however, the GUI way
_is_ more convenient in many ways (for example, it's a lot easier to
select if you only want to copy some files, by ctrl-clicking). I was
just wondering if anyone knew a way to get explorer to behave more
sensibly.
 
J. P. Gilliver (John) said:
In message <[email protected]>, VanguardLH <[email protected]>
writes:
[]
xcopy included in Windows XP has more features, like the /c parameter []
There are many operations for which console-mode (DOS-like) commands
are still preferrable.
Click to expand...
[]
I use command line more than most people I know; however, the GUI way
_is_ more convenient in many ways (for example, it's a lot easier to
select if you only want to copy some files, by ctrl-clicking). I was
just wondering if anyone knew a way to get explorer to behave more
sensibly.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, not without installing some 3rd party tool that
extends explorer.exe or is used separately for the file operations (and
why such programs exist since they do something that Windows Explorer
does not).
 
Just to add to the information provided by "VanguardLH"; I know you don't
want 3rd-party software but feel I should mention the "Unlocker"
shell-extension software. It is, my view, an excellent utility.

Amongst it's benefits being; it's free and it's integrated into Explorer
(i.e. a shell-extension).

This means you can both right-click on *any* fi8le or folder and select
"Unlocker" (with it's WinZip-style menu-icon) to find out if and what
process[es] have a handle on that file or folder, stopping any
modifications that you were trying to carry out on it.

Also, a resident-portion of the software "jumps" in whenever it detects
that an Explorer operation (such as rename, move or delete) has failed due
to any other process having "hooked" the target object. This intervention
is in the form of a dialog which lists every process[es] that prevent
the operation being carried out at that time, plus the ability to halt
those processes but more usefully, to simply "unhook" those processes from
the target object, enabling the operations to continue unhindered.

I absolutely endorse the installation of this useful utility that has son
proved itself indispensible on my own system...

Also, many command-line utilities such as [xcopy.exe], [xxcopy.exe] and
[robocopy.exe] have "modifiers" (or switches) that give "continue after
encountering an error" functionality to that application (x & xx copy have
the [/C] switch ([C]ontinue) while robocopy has the [/R:0] switch ([R]epeat
[0] times after failed copy)).

Otherwise, if a utility does not have a dedicated switch, try seeing if the
utility you are using has either a [/Q] (Quiet) or (Silent) switch
that you could use to allow a command-line utility to skip the processing
of files that have been locked by other processes.


==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)




J. P. Gilliver (John) said:
Sometimes, when I've selected a lot of files to be deleted/moved/copied
or whatever, the system will stop, with the message cannot delete file
xyz as it's in use, or similar. This is fair enough.

When I accept this, however, the copying/deleting/whatever stops - even
though there are still lots of files left on which the operation hasn't
been performed, and which _don't_ have the problem. This is irritating,
if say I'm doing a structure copy (copying lots of folders including the
files in them), as it's virtually impossible to proceed - other than
repeating the whole operation, which then involves lots of "there's a
file of that name there already [from what was copied _before_ the
problem] - overwrite?" questions.

Does anyone know a way to tell explorer (I presume it's explorer) to do
all it can before asking about the problems, or at least to carry on
after I've "OK"d the problem report?

This isn't exclusive to XP of course - it was there in '9x. I'm just
asking here because if I ask in '9x, there are one or two people who will
say "explorer is rubbish - use this or that shell instead", and I'm
hoping they haven't followed me here. (Is it still the same in
Vista/7/8 - the problem I mean, not the shell-pushers?) [I do have Xtree
Gold, which _can_ get round such problems, but that doesn't handle long
filenames. I've never got to grips with Ztree.]

I do know about the "Yes for all" button, but (a) I _want_ to be asked
about the files where there is a problem, (b) it doesn't always appear (a
block delete for example).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985
MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Any fool can set up a Web site, and most of them have." - Mike Moore (or
quoted
by)
Click to expand...
 
In message <[email protected]>, Tim Meddick
Also, a resident-portion of the software "jumps" in whenever it detects
that an Explorer operation (such as rename, move or delete) has failed
due to any other process having "hooked" the target object. This
intervention is in the form of a dialog which lists every process[es]
that prevent the operation being carried out at that time, plus the
ability to halt those processes but more usefully, to simply "unhook"
those processes from the target object, enabling the operations to
continue unhindered.
Click to expand...


Sounds rather useful. Does it allow the explorer operation to proceed
but _skip_ the file in question, since the blocking "hook" might well be
for a valid reason? (Or do you have to repeat the operation?)
I absolutely endorse the installation of this useful utility that has
son proved itself indispensible on my own system...
Click to expand...
[]
 
In J. P. Gilliver (John) <[email protected]> typed:
:: In message <[email protected]>, Tim Meddick
:: []
::: Also, a resident-portion of the software "jumps" in
::: whenever it detects that an Explorer operation (such as
::: rename, move or delete) has failed due to any other
::: process having "hooked" the target object. This
::: intervention is in the form of a dialog which lists every
::: process[es] that prevent the operation being carried
::: out at that time, plus the ability to halt those
::: processes but more usefully, to simply "unhook" those
::: processes from the target object, enabling the operations
::: to continue unhindered.
::
:: Sounds rather useful. Does it allow the explorer operation
:: to proceed
:: but _skip_ the file in question, since the blocking "hook"
:: might well be
:: for a valid reason? (Or do you have to repeat the
:: operation?)
:::
::: I absolutely endorse the installation of this useful
::: utility that has son proved itself indispensible on my
::: own system...
:: []
:: --
:: J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985
:: MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
::
:: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable
:: from a rigged demo. (quoted by Neil D. Jackson [original
:: was probably paraphrasing Clarke])

Powerdesk, an Explorer replacement if you wish it to be, will perform such
copies faithfully, simply skippting a file it cannot work with. Also has a
dual-pane drive window like 98 used to have. Has both a free and Pro
version; well worth the cost IMO. I've replaced Explorer with it, in fact
(just a keyclick to replace/not replace).

http://www.brief-reviews.com/1/powerdesk-review/

HTH,

Twayne`
 
In message <[email protected]>, Twayne
Powerdesk, an Explorer replacement if you wish it to be, will perform such
copies faithfully, simply skippting a file it cannot work with. Also has a
dual-pane drive window like 98 used to have. Has both a free and Pro
version; well worth the cost IMO. I've replaced Explorer with it, in fact
(just a keyclick to replace/not replace).

http://www.brief-reviews.com/1/powerdesk-review/
Click to expand...
[]
Thanks - noted for future reference. You may have missed my original
post where I said I didn't want to replace Explorer but was just hoping
there was a way round the problem. But since the general consensus is
that there isn't, such alternatives seem to be the only solution.
 
In J. P. Gilliver (John) <[email protected]> typed:
:: In message <[email protected]>,
:: []
::: Powerdesk, an Explorer replacement if you wish it to be,
::: will perform such copies faithfully, simply skippting a
::: file it cannot work with. Also has a dual-pane drive
::: window like 98 used to have. Has both a free and Pro
::: version; well worth the cost IMO. I've replaced Explorer
::: with it, in fact (just a keyclick to replace/not
::: replace).
:::
::: http://www.brief-reviews.com/1/powerdesk-review/
:: []
:: Thanks - noted for future reference. You may have missed
:: my original
:: post where I said I didn't want to replace Explorer but
:: was just hoping there was a way round the problem. But
:: since the general consensus is that there isn't, such
:: alternatives seem to be the only solution. --
:: J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985
:: MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
::
:: Solution: a more subtle problem

There is no need to "replace" explorer with PD. It's simply an option you
can turn on and off. There are other utilities that will do almost the same
thing but any names elude me at the moment. Sorry no help.

Twayne`
 
In message <[email protected]>, Twayne
There is no need to "replace" explorer with PD. It's simply an option you
can turn on and off. There are other utilities that will do almost the same
thing but any names elude me at the moment. Sorry no help.

Twayne`
Click to expand...
Thanks for that.
 
Back
Top