I think this is Impossible

[casey.o]

I think this is Impossible. (Dual backups)

I want to copy a folder to TWO separate external HDDs. Each is plugged
into a USB port. Is it possible to copy that folder (or a file) to BOTH
drives at the same time?

For example: COPY C:\PHOTOS to K: and L:

OR

COPY C:\PHOTOS\dog.jpg to K:\PHOTOS and L:\PHOTOS

Just thought I'd ask. I dont think it's possible, but I'll never know
till I ask....

This involves using XP (but could be for other MS OSs too).

 

[Paul]

I think this is Impossible. (Dual backups)

I want to copy a folder to TWO separate external HDDs. Each is plugged
into a USB port. Is it possible to copy that folder (or a file) to BOTH
drives at the same time?

For example: COPY C:\PHOTOS to K: and L:

OR

COPY C:\PHOTOS\dog.jpg to K:\PHOTOS and L:\PHOTOS

Just thought I'd ask. I dont think it's possible, but I'll never know
till I ask....

This involves using XP (but could be for other MS OSs too).

In the most general terms, the commands run separately.

Certain things on computers are simplified, to make
them easier to understand. This includes novel ideas,
such as copying files directly from one disk controller
to another, without ever leaving a copy in memory. Ideas
like this are generally disallowed on desktops (when this
was brought up in a joking manner to our boss at work
in the hardware design department, he just walked away - that
tells you the idea is just terrible If he
argued with you, then the idea had merit.)

We could look at more specialized techniques, with
no guarantee that they actually do anything useful for
you. They just meet the need of "winning a bar bet".

Ways to achieve two copies include:

1) Use a RAID 1 mirror setup of two disks. I get two
physical copies, using only one "copy" command.
That doesn't mean the result is "extra useful".
I can only "win a bar bet" doing this.

2) Use automatic synchronizing software, to copy
C:\Downloads changes to your NAS, and from there
to C:\Downloads on your other home computers. As a means
to keep the "view" of files the same on all machines.
This offers no protection against accidental deletion
(as all drives try to comply with the deletion and no
copies are left). But under some circumstances, it would
mean that multiple hard drives have the same file, and
it cost the user "zero brain power" to do it. If one
of the other computers dies, I presume the sync doesn't
go about deleting stuff.

There are softwares with terms like "Time Machine" in their
name, which take most of the pain out of backing up. We had
a wonderful product at work, where you could dial back
the time machine in one hour increments, and find any older
version of file you'd deleted. And it was totally automated.
The IT guy just threw tapes in the autoloader at the end of the
day, and the tapes kept snapshots for future emergencies. It's
the most seamless product I've ever seen, and I don't even
know the name of it This is what happens when you don't
stick your nose into every install at work You don't
learn the names. That concept is a little more common now,
than it was when we were using it. We probably paid a fortune
for that package, whatever it was.

HTH,
Paul

 

[casey.o]

In the most general terms, the commands run separately.

Certain things on computers are simplified, to make
them easier to understand. This includes novel ideas,
such as copying files directly from one disk controller
to another, without ever leaving a copy in memory. Ideas
like this are generally disallowed on desktops (when this
was brought up in a joking manner to our boss at work
in the hardware design department, he just walked away - that
tells you the idea is just terrible If he
argued with you, then the idea had merit.)

We could look at more specialized techniques, with
no guarantee that they actually do anything useful for
you. They just meet the need of "winning a bar bet".

Ways to achieve two copies include:

1) Use a RAID 1 mirror setup of two disks. I get two
physical copies, using only one "copy" command.
That doesn't mean the result is "extra useful".
I can only "win a bar bet" doing this.

2) Use automatic synchronizing software, to copy
C:\Downloads changes to your NAS, and from there
to C:\Downloads on your other home computers. As a means
to keep the "view" of files the same on all machines.
This offers no protection against accidental deletion
(as all drives try to comply with the deletion and no
copies are left). But under some circumstances, it would
mean that multiple hard drives have the same file, and
it cost the user "zero brain power" to do it. If one
of the other computers dies, I presume the sync doesn't
go about deleting stuff.

There are softwares with terms like "Time Machine" in their
name, which take most of the pain out of backing up. We had
a wonderful product at work, where you could dial back
the time machine in one hour increments, and find any older
version of file you'd deleted. And it was totally automated.
The IT guy just threw tapes in the autoloader at the end of the
day, and the tapes kept snapshots for future emergencies. It's
the most seamless product I've ever seen, and I don't even
know the name of it This is what happens when you don't
stick your nose into every install at work You don't
learn the names. That concept is a little more common now,
than it was when we were using it. We probably paid a fortune
for that package, whatever it was.

HTH,
Paul

Then I guess it is possible, but not feasible. I guess it's actually
possible to do a batch file too, and just repeat tje same commands twice
except to change the destrination on the second pass. Not that it will
copy at the same moment, but it will accomplish the same result.

I like that time machine concept. I always keep old install files in
case I want to go back, but I have to manuallty do it, and often that
means removing a file first. I;ve done this numberous times with
Firefox, when the newer ver dont work on my older OS.

What bugs me with newer windows, is that they turn everything ON, and
much of this stuff is difficult to turn off. It should be the other way
around. It comes from the package with the EXTRA stuff turned OFF. But
the user can choose to turn stuff on, as they choose. I'm not sure how
to word this, but MS seems to have some opposition to going to the ROOT
of things. As I was just saying, to install the BASIC OS, then let
users turn on what they want, rhather than force us to have to shut off
all the crap. And one thing I never understood (and a real annoyance
for me) is why does everything default to the "My Documents" folder when
I install programs or do damn near anything. Every time I have to add a
few steps to go to the ROOT (C:\). Then proceed to do whatever......

For example, I'm unzipping a file. I click "browse". It SHOULD start
at C:\, but instead it does to "My documents". Using the back arrow,
takes me to "Desktop". I sure dont want it there either. So, then I
have to click on "My Computer" then on Drive C:. That's FOUR wasted
steps. It SHOULD go to the ROOT, and from there you work upward. Byt
MS seems to drop you in some middle place (My Documents). Even the name
of it does not suggest a place to unzip a file.....

I've always felt that the thinking processes used at MS are idiotic. If
I am going to build a house, I start with a foundation, on the ground
(root level). If I'm gonna plant a tree, I start with the roots. If I
built a house using MS thinking, I'd have to build the walls first,
which woyuld be suspended in mid air. Or I'd cook dinner by heating the
frying pan, BEFORE going grocery shopping. I just find it real
difficult to think like MS does. In real life, everything starts at
ground or root level, and works upward.

But not as MS.

 

[Paul]

Then I guess it is possible, but not feasible. I guess it's actually
possible to do a batch file too, and just repeat tje same commands twice
except to change the destrination on the second pass. Not that it will
copy at the same moment, but it will accomplish the same result.

I like that time machine concept. I always keep old install files in
case I want to go back, but I have to manuallty do it, and often that
means removing a file first. I;ve done this numberous times with
Firefox, when the newer ver dont work on my older OS.

What bugs me with newer windows, is that they turn everything ON, and
much of this stuff is difficult to turn off. It should be the other way
around. It comes from the package with the EXTRA stuff turned OFF. But
the user can choose to turn stuff on, as they choose. I'm not sure how
to word this, but MS seems to have some opposition to going to the ROOT
of things. As I was just saying, to install the BASIC OS, then let
users turn on what they want, rhather than force us to have to shut off
all the crap. And one thing I never understood (and a real annoyance
for me) is why does everything default to the "My Documents" folder when
I install programs or do damn near anything. Every time I have to add a
few steps to go to the ROOT (C:\). Then proceed to do whatever......

For example, I'm unzipping a file. I click "browse". It SHOULD start
at C:\, but instead it does to "My documents". Using the back arrow,
takes me to "Desktop". I sure dont want it there either. So, then I
have to click on "My Computer" then on Drive C:. That's FOUR wasted
steps. It SHOULD go to the ROOT, and from there you work upward. Byt
MS seems to drop you in some middle place (My Documents). Even the name
of it does not suggest a place to unzip a file.....

I've always felt that the thinking processes used at MS are idiotic. If
I am going to build a house, I start with a foundation, on the ground
(root level). If I'm gonna plant a tree, I start with the roots. If I
built a house using MS thinking, I'd have to build the walls first,
which woyuld be suspended in mid air. Or I'd cook dinner by heating the
frying pan, BEFORE going grocery shopping. I just find it real
difficult to think like MS does. In real life, everything starts at
ground or root level, and works upward.

But not as MS.

It's a carrot and stick design. If you refuse
to use "My Documents" like a good boy, you'll suffer.
If you have other ideas where the universe begins
or ends, then you'll have some extra steps to do.

It does make me wonder though, about their usability testing.
Maybe they just ignore the test results. Lots of things
could use different "recently accessed" behaviors. And the file
dialog that won't accept a preferred column setting, so you
have to set it over and over and over again. That's just
a bit annoying. Every time I go to upload a picture to
Tinypic, I have to do that one over again. Hundreds of times
so far (if I include the uploads to Imageshack).

Paul

 

[casey.o]

It's a carrot and stick design. If you refuse
to use "My Documents" like a good boy, you'll suffer.
If you have other ideas where the universe begins
or ends, then you'll have some extra steps to do.

It does make me wonder though, about their usability testing.
Maybe they just ignore the test results. Lots of things
could use different "recently accessed" behaviors. And the file
dialog that won't accept a preferred column setting, so you
have to set it over and over and over again. That's just
a bit annoying. Every time I go to upload a picture to
Tinypic, I have to do that one over again. Hundreds of times
so far (if I include the uploads to Imageshack).

Paul

Exactly..... Most software allows a person to choose things and set
them the way they want them. For example, I have Firefox set to put
downloads in a folder C:\downloads and it does just that. When I use
DownloadHelper to save videos, they go in C:\downloads\vids, and that
works. But MS has no such settings. They pretty much force a person to
use My Documents, or go thru a big hassle EVERY TIME. This is not just
XP. Win98 and 2K did the same, but to a lesser degree. I actually
found a hack to avoid some of that in Win98, but not all the time, and
also renamed My Documents to "SAVE" (so when I'm in Dos, I dont have to
fuss with those truncated filenames. Win98 STILL insists on having a
folder called My Documents, but most of the stuff goes to my "SAVE"
folder. I dont think this can be hacked in XP. (I never tried in
Win2000, because I dont use it that much).

I have to agree with the usability testing. I would have thought this
sort of thing would have pissed off enough people to make MS fix it. It
cant be that hard to put in a setting to default to the ROOT, or any
other folder a user chooses, just like Firefox and other programs.

 

[JJ]

I think this is Impossible. (Dual backups)

I want to copy a folder to TWO separate external HDDs. Each is plugged
into a USB port. Is it possible to copy that folder (or a file) to BOTH
drives at the same time?

For example: COPY C:\PHOTOS to K: and L:

OR

COPY C:\PHOTOS\dog.jpg to K:\PHOTOS and L:\PHOTOS

Just thought I'd ask. I dont think it's possible, but I'll never know
till I ask....

This involves using XP (but could be for other MS OSs too).

No. COPY can't use multiple source or destination paths.
CMD.EXE's command interpreter is single-threaded, after all.
But you can use a batch file that launch multiple CMD sessions where each
copies one source path to different destination paths.
Like this...

@echo off
:: SpreadCopy.cmd
:: note: this batch will return to command prompt immediately.
setlocal
if "%~2" == "" (
echo Usage: SpreadCopy {source} {dest_path} [dest_path ...]
echo.
echo Source can be a file or a folder.
goto :eof
)
if not exist "%~1" (
echo %1 source not found.
goto :eof
)
set src=%1
set src_=%~1
shift
:spawn_copy
if "%~1" == "" goto :eof
if not exist "%~1\nul" (
md %1
if errorlevel 1 (
echo Failed on creating destination folder %1. Skipped.
shift
goto spawn_copy
)
)
start "%src_% => %~1" cmd /c echo copy %src% %1
shift
goto spawn_copy

 

[Ken Springer]

Exactly..... Most software allows a person to choose things and set
them the way they want them. For example, I have Firefox set to put
downloads in a folder C:\downloads and it does just that. When I use
DownloadHelper to save videos, they go in C:\downloads\vids, and that
works. But MS has no such settings.

Based on observations, I doubt MS ever intended to "force" you to put
files in My Documents, etc., that's just the default. And they had to
have a default. Every Windows software I've used lately allows you to
set a default location for documents for that software location by one
means or another. So you do have the kind of customization you want,
just not the way you want to do it. It appears to me that if the
software package does not offer that customization, then the fault, as
such, lies with the software you're using, not MS.

And MS does allow you to put the My Documents folders somewhere else if
you wish. So there is some customization on the OS level.

They pretty much force a person to
use My Documents, or go thru a big hassle EVERY TIME. This is not just
XP. Win98 and 2K did the same, but to a lesser degree. I actually
found a hack to avoid some of that in Win98, but not all the time, and
also renamed My Documents to "SAVE" (so when I'm in Dos, I dont have to
fuss with those truncated filenames. Win98 STILL insists on having a
folder called My Documents, but most of the stuff goes to my "SAVE"
folder. I dont think this can be hacked in XP. (I never tried in
Win2000, because I dont use it that much).

Think about this, for a moment... Suppose you did change My Documents
in XP to Save. What do you think is going to happen when you install a
new program and, by default, it wants to save to My Documents?

I have to agree with the usability testing. I would have thought this
sort of thing would have pissed off enough people to make MS fix it. It
cant be that hard to put in a setting to default to the ROOT, or any
other folder a user chooses, just like Firefox and other programs.

I doubt there's much wrong with their usability testing. It's just that
the results don't agree with what you, Paul, or I might want. And what
we might want is NOT what the vast, vast, majority of other users want.
They will never do what we want, it's not in their best interest from
a business perspective.

Get over it. LOL Do what you can within the limits MS has designed,
or follow through on your idea of using Linus. If the vast majority of
users wanted to do it your way, maximum options of any and all kinds for
the user, Linux would probably be ruling the world. Obviously, that is
not the case.

Most people do not want to tinker with the computer the way you like to
do. I used to, but no more. I want to use the computer to accomplish a
task, but I don't want to rebuild and redesign the way it works. Rather
makes me the perfect Mac user these days, the thing just works, very few
updates, and I get something done with my time.

It doesn't mean I haven't installed a couple utilities to tweak a bit to
make it easier for me, but I don't do massive changes like you wish.
For my Win8 install, which is becoming a dedicated machine for a couple
of projects, not my general use, I am customizing by installing a
replacement Start Menu, file management utilities, etc. But I'm not
whining about some set of files being in one group of folders on a drive
rather than another set of folders on another drive. It's simply not
worth my time and effort.

And I'd bet at least 98% of other Windows users could care less, and
that is the marketplace MS has to address, not the marketplace we (you,
Paul, and me) represent.

As I said earlier, get over it, or go to Linux. <G>



--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.3.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>,

I think this is Impossible. (Dual backups)

I want to copy a folder to TWO separate external HDDs. Each is plugged
into a USB port. Is it possible to copy that folder (or a file) to BOTH
drives at the same time?

For example: COPY C:\PHOTOS to K: and L:

OR

COPY C:\PHOTOS\dog.jpg to K:\PHOTOS and L:\PHOTOS

Just thought I'd ask. I dont think it's possible, but I'll never know
till I ask....

This involves using XP (but could be for other MS OSs too).

I don't think you can give two destination parameters.

In the GUI, I can't see any reason* why you can't open two explorer
windows, and do a drag-and drop [or shift-drop as appropriate] (to
different destinations.

At the command line, or rather in a batch file, I can't see why you
can't have two lines

START COPY ...
COPY ...

* in both these cases, if there are enough files (or it's a big enough
file) that the second copy appears to start before the first one's
finished, it wouldn't surprise me if an awful lot of head movement
occurs, possibly taking more time than two copies done separately, but
you never know unless you try!

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>,

What bugs me with newer windows, is that they turn everything ON, and
much of this stuff is difficult to turn off. It should be the other way
around. It comes from the package with the EXTRA stuff turned OFF. But
the user can choose to turn stuff on, as they choose. I'm not sure how
to word this, but MS seems to have some opposition to going to the ROOT
of things. As I was just saying, to install the BASIC OS, then let

I guess they'd say that they have their own idea what the average user
wants turned on in what you call the basic OS, and that differs from
your (and my!) idea of same.

users turn on what they want, rhather than force us to have to shut off

Have a look at XPlite (sorry, I'm offline ATM, but I posted URLs within
the last week or so); that looks as if it'll give you the fine control
(of what's on and off) that you want. Try out TweakUI first, though -
that's free. (There's a free version of XPlite too, but I think it's
more limited than the free version of 98lite was - though I haven't
tried it; might still suit you.)

all the crap. And one thing I never understood (and a real annoyance
for me) is why does everything default to the "My Documents" folder when
I install programs or do damn near anything. Every time I have to add a

As Ken said, you _can_ relocate "My Documents" (right-click the Desktop
"shortcut", Properties, type in a new location, click Move. Or something
like that). [You can rename the "shortcut" too - mine doesn't have "My"
in it.]

few steps to go to the ROOT (C:\). Then proceed to do whatever......

I'd never put anything in the root (-:! [Certainly not of C: I have all
my user data, including scratch space, on D:, and I leave C: to Windows
and software only. I keep quite a small C:.]

For example, I'm unzipping a file. I click "browse". It SHOULD start
at C:\, but instead it does to "My documents". Using the back arrow,
takes me to "Desktop". I sure dont want it there either. So, then I
have to click on "My Computer" then on Drive C:. That's FOUR wasted
steps. It SHOULD go to the ROOT, and from there you work upward. Byt

Try the downarrow next to the folder name box, rather than the up
button; still not ideal, but might avoid _some_ steps.

MS seems to drop you in some middle place (My Documents). Even the name
of it does not suggest a place to unzip a file.....

Agreed (-:
[]

 

[Bob Willard]

In message <[email protected]>,

I think this is Impossible. (Dual backups)

I want to copy a folder to TWO separate external HDDs. Each is plugged
into a USB port. Is it possible to copy that folder (or a file) to BOTH
drives at the same time?

For example: COPY C:\PHOTOS to K: and L:

OR

COPY C:\PHOTOS\dog.jpg to K:\PHOTOS and L:\PHOTOS

Just thought I'd ask. I dont think it's possible, but I'll never know
till I ask....

This involves using XP (but could be for other MS OSs too).

I don't think you can give two destination parameters.

In the GUI, I can't see any reason* why you can't open two explorer
windows, and do a drag-and drop [or shift-drop as appropriate] (to
different destinations.

Yes, that works. I use it mostly under XP to copy files/folders from my
main PC to other PCs on my home LAN.

At the command line, or rather in a batch file, I can't see why you
can't have two lines

START COPY ...
COPY ...

That also works.