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)

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> 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.

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).

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 <iin1rg$8te$(E-Mail Removed)>, VanguardLH <(E-Mail Removed)>
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.
[]
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. 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)

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> In message <iin1rg$8te$(E-Mail Removed)>, VanguardLH <(E-Mail Removed)>
> 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.
> []
> 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.

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[s]
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 [/S] (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)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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)

Sorry, should also have included ; the "Unlocker" program [free] can be
obtained by following the link below :

http://www.brothersoft.com/d.php?sof...ocker1.9.0.exe

==

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

In message <iip4l5$7sa$(E-Mail Removed)>, Tim Meddick
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
[]
>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[s] 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])

In news:btL5uAQQRHUNFw$(E-Mail Removed),
J. P. Gilliver (John) <(E-Mail Removed)> typed:
:: In message <iip4l5$7sa$(E-Mail Removed)>, Tim Meddick
:: <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
:: []
::: 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[s] 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 <ij3unp$n5s$(E-Mail Removed)>, Twayne
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
[]
>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

In news:$(E-Mail Removed),
J. P. Gilliver (John) <(E-Mail Removed)> typed:
:: In message <ij3unp$n5s$(E-Mail Removed)>,
:: Twayne <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
:: []
::: 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`