If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
How to set "Verify On" at XP startup ?
teebo wrote in newsp.ulutr4z4br8ivg@300pl:
"Tells Windows whether to verify that your files are written correctly to a disk." So it's a DOS command that instructs Windows. similar to environment variables that also can be set from a dos command but used by windows I wonder why there is 6 -posts here (and a small spam inbetween) but no starting post that they would be grouped under.... I suppose the original post is only to "24hoursupport.helpdesk" (someone that can tell me what that is?) and only have followup set to here? (sounds very strange to me) You're blocking Google groups perhaps? Here's the original post: Message-ID: (back to the original posters question now, if he is reading In Win98, an "verify on" entry inside the autoexec.bat batch file ensures that each and every copy operation is being done by bit-by-bit verification. the phrase "bit-by-bit" is perhaps a bit ;-) strange, you don't say "bit-by-bit copying" when you copy a file do you? Turn of the phrase. It copies the buffer (64KB for xcopy) and then checks each byte. Same difference. You check 8 data bits and the checksum on the harddrive (usually 2 bits and completely transparent) at the same time. If you don't trust your harddisk then I would trash it and buy a new one. besides, the read-back verifications is probably only reporting back what the harddisks internal cache have in memory and isn't at all read from the disk. That's making assumptions on how MS wrote the code. They also wrote the code for disk writing, so it's a pretty big assumption. IMHO the only real use for verify on is with floppys, and well... you don't write important things to floppy today I hope? (yes I did backups to floppys too ones.... but that was before the cd existed) But wait... http://support.microsoft.com/kb/126457 That KB articles says it only applies to MS-DOS 3.1 - 6.22 but if I understand it right VERIFY ON is/was even more useless than I thought since it doesn't do a compare - only a quick badsector-check :-( My link states that it works for *any* version of MS OS (the applicable "D" left out to stop confusion). Including the NT family. It's commonly used in MSDOS. After 6.22 MS didn't call it that any more. Even though it still technically *is* a DOS. Understand, that none of the above was knocking you, just clarifying for the OP. -- (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) ) |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
How to set "Verify On" at XP startup ?
"John John (MVP)" wrote:
And does Xcopy /v (as verified with Process Monitor) show it as verifying the copy operation? No? So why then, based on your Process Monitor test, would you claim that Explorer doesn't verify its copy operations yet insist that Xcopy does, when in fact Process Monitor shows it as doing the same thing as Explorer? I'm not saying Xcopy /v verifies the operation. I'm just saying Xcopy /v checks the final file size. It does something, however trivial, and Xcopy behaves slightly differently from Xcopy /v. That's it. I don't really have the patience to test if Explorer is doing the same sort of file size verification. It might be, or it might not, a Process Monitor log isn't enough to check that out. Call me incredulous, but what you are asking me to believe is that *all* the documentation provided by Microsoft on this subject, up to and including Server 2003 documentation, is wrong and that you are right. Then how do you explain that "Xcopy /v" does something, and returns an error when "Xcopy" without the /v switch does? The documentation that you're referencing clearly states it doesn't do anything, when it clearly does. I'm not saying it actually verifies the contents, but it does in fact, at least in the scenarios I've tested, verify the file size after the copy is done, and does something with the results of that test. -- --------- Scott Seligman scott at firstname and michelle dot net --------- The most difficult thing in the world is to know how to do a thing and to watch someone else do it wrong without comment. -- Theodore H. White |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
How to set "Verify On" at XP startup ?
Scott Seligman wrote:
"John John (MVP)" wrote: And does Xcopy /v (as verified with Process Monitor) show it as verifying the copy operation? No? So why then, based on your Process Monitor test, would you claim that Explorer doesn't verify its copy operations yet insist that Xcopy does, when in fact Process Monitor shows it as doing the same thing as Explorer? I'm not saying Xcopy /v verifies the operation. I'm just saying Xcopy /v checks the final file size. It does something, however trivial, and Xcopy behaves slightly differently from Xcopy /v. That's it. I don't really have the patience to test if Explorer is doing the same sort of file size verification. It might be, or it might not, a Process Monitor log isn't enough to check that out. Call me incredulous, but what you are asking me to believe is that *all* the documentation provided by Microsoft on this subject, up to and including Server 2003 documentation, is wrong and that you are right. Then how do you explain that "Xcopy /v" does something, and returns an error when "Xcopy" without the /v switch does? The documentation that you're referencing clearly states it doesn't do anything, when it clearly does. You are the one who said that Xcopy does thing differently with the /v switch than it does without, not me. All I am telling you is that the /v switch is only accepted for compatibility with MS-DOS and that if it "appears" to be doing things differently it is only a "smoke show" to fool MS-DOS applications into believing that the switch actually does something. All of the Microsoft documentation on this switch clearly states that the switch is ignored (does nothing) and that what the switch is supposed to do is already inherent to the operating system, that Xcopy does this automatically with or without the switch. John |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
How to set "Verify On" at XP startup ?
"John John (MVP)" wrote:
You are the one who said that Xcopy does thing differently with the /v switch than it does without, not me. All I am telling you is that the /v switch is only accepted for compatibility with MS-DOS and that if it "appears" to be doing things differently it is only a "smoke show" to fool MS-DOS applications into believing that the switch actually does something. It does something different, even if it's trivial. It can in fact cause Xcopy to return an error as it checks the file size. If you refuse to believe me and refuse to see for yourself, then I can't help you. The switch is clearly not ignored. I've proven that to you, and you ignored the evidence, and the offer to see the Detours test that shows the error Xcopy can raise only with the /V switch. Once again, I've shown you a different set of APIs that Xcopy calls when you give it the /V switch. Do you think I'm making up test results? All of the Microsoft documentation on this switch clearly states that the switch is ignored (does nothing) and that what the switch is supposed to do is already inherent to the operating system, that Xcopy does this automatically with or without the switch. The documentation is wrong, then (or Xcopy has a bug, pick one, I don't care). Maybe NT does do some sort of verify when it writes, though I've never seen this documented in WriteFile() and friends, and I just missing it in the API documentation? -- --------- Scott Seligman scott at firstname and michelle dot net --------- Never do today what you can put off till tomorrow. Delay may give clearer light as to what is best to be done. -- Aaron Burr |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
How to set "Verify On" at XP startup ?
Scott Seligman wrote:
"John John (MVP)" wrote: You are the one who said that Xcopy does thing differently with the /v switch than it does without, not me. All I am telling you is that the /v switch is only accepted for compatibility with MS-DOS and that if it "appears" to be doing things differently it is only a "smoke show" to fool MS-DOS applications into believing that the switch actually does something. It does something different, even if it's trivial. It can in fact cause Xcopy to return an error as it checks the file size. If you refuse to believe me and refuse to see for yourself, then I can't help you. The switch is clearly not ignored. I've proven that to you, and you ignored the evidence, and the offer to see the Detours test that shows the error Xcopy can raise only with the /V switch. Once again, I've shown you a different set of APIs that Xcopy calls when you give it the /V switch. Do you think I'm making up test results? All of the Microsoft documentation on this switch clearly states that the switch is ignored (does nothing) and that what the switch is supposed to do is already inherent to the operating system, that Xcopy does this automatically with or without the switch. The documentation is wrong, then (or Xcopy has a bug, pick one, I don't care). Maybe NT does do some sort of verify when it writes, though I've never seen this documented in WriteFile() and friends, and I just missing it in the API documentation? If you think that there is a bug in Xcopy then submit your bug to Microsoft. The API's might be documented but what the operating system does with the API calls after it receives them is mostly a closely guarded secret, how files are really copied and verified deep down inside the operating system is probably not something that programmers need to know so unless you want to sign a Non Disclosure Agreement Microsoft will probably not tell you what goes on after the API call is made. The Xcopy /v switch information has been consistent for more than 10 years now, from at least NT 4.0 up to and including Server 2003 *all* the documentation has stated the same thing about the switch's usage. If you think that Microsoft has been wrong about this all along then here again I submit that you should contact them and ask them to correct the errors in their documentation, they may ignore requests to correct documentation about old Windows versions but I am sure that they would certainly correct Server 2003 documentation. Until they correct their documentation I will continue to believe what they say about the switch's use. John |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
How to set "Verify On" at XP startup ?
"John John (MVP)" wrote:
The Xcopy /v switch information has been consistent for more than 10 years now, from at least NT 4.0 up to and including Server 2003 *all* the documentation has stated the same thing about the switch's usage. Not all. Xcopy /? doesn't agree with the documentation you've referenced. Why is one more correct than the other? -- --------- Scott Seligman scott at firstname and michelle dot net --------- A free society is a place where it's safe to be unpopular. -- Adlai Stevenson |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
How to set "Verify On" at XP startup ?
In message , "John John (MVP)"
writes: [] switch than it does without, not me. All I am telling you is that the /v switch is only accepted for compatibility with MS-DOS and that if it "appears" to be doing things differently it is only a "smoke show" to fool MS-DOS applications into believing that the switch actually does something. All of the Microsoft documentation on this switch clearly states that the switch is ignored (does nothing) and that what the switch is supposed to do is already inherent to the operating system, that Xcopy does this automatically with or without the switch. [] Surely compatibility would only be not giving an error message if you invoke the /v switch? I find it difficult to believe they'd make the command actually _operate_ differently (as I'm satisfied he has shown), if compatibility was all they were worried about: surely they'd just make it ignore whether the switch was there or not, or at least not make it generate an error message such as "invalid switch". Whether the command in question uses completely different code to the copy/move functions intrinsic to the OS, I don't know. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously outdated thoughts on PCs. ** "Bugger," said Pooh, feeling very annoyed. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
How to set "Verify On" at XP startup ?
Scott Seligman wrote:
"John John (MVP)" wrote: The Xcopy /v switch information has been consistent for more than 10 years now, from at least NT 4.0 up to and including Server 2003 *all* the documentation has stated the same thing about the switch's usage. Not all. Xcopy /? doesn't agree with the documentation you've referenced. Why is one more correct than the other? Microsoft will tell you that when you advise them of their documentation error. Then they will have to package two different utilities, or two different help files and have Xcopy figure out which help files to dish out depending on whether the documentation is read inside the NTVDM or at the 32-bit CLI. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
How to set "Verify On" at XP startup ?
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , "John John (MVP)" writes: [] switch than it does without, not me. All I am telling you is that the /v switch is only accepted for compatibility with MS-DOS and that if it "appears" to be doing things differently it is only a "smoke show" to fool MS-DOS applications into believing that the switch actually does something. All of the Microsoft documentation on this switch clearly states that the switch is ignored (does nothing) and that what the switch is supposed to do is already inherent to the operating system, that Xcopy does this automatically with or without the switch. [] Surely compatibility would only be not giving an error message if you invoke the /v switch? I find it difficult to believe they'd make the command actually _operate_ differently (as I'm satisfied he has shown), if compatibility was all they were worried about: surely they'd just make it ignore whether the switch was there or not, or at least not make it generate an error message such as "invalid switch". Whether the command in question uses completely different code to the copy/move functions intrinsic to the OS, I don't know. I'm guessing, but if a 16-bit program asks to use the /v switch it might want to wait or follow operating system routines to make sure that the command completes successfully, as far as I'm concerned the /v switch is just doing a smoke show to convince programs running inside the NTVDM that the switch is doing something and to prevent the 16-bit programs from choking. If you think its doing something else then use the switch and be happy or join in with others and submit your findings to Microsoft. All I know is that Microsoft has been telling us for about 15 years that the switch does nothing on NT versions up to Server 2003, (and according to http://support.microsoft.com/kb/128756 it also doesn't do anything on the legacy W9x systems), I'm having a hard time believing that this information is wrong and has gone on uncorrected for that long. On Vista and Server 2008 Microsoft simply tells us the utility is deprecated. John |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
How to set "Verify On" at XP startup ?
On 8 Dec 2008 07:29:33 -0800, "Scott Seligman"
wrote: "John John (MVP)" wrote: Though, even with that wording it behaves the same was in XP as it does in Vista. No, it doesn't! You can quote help files all day. I'm telling you what it does, where it calls a function to verify the length, on XP and Vista, only if the /V option is specified. Without that option, XCopy does not call the function. Furthermore, I just verified it really does something with the results of that function. I used Detours to modify the behavior of the function it's using to find the file size to return the wrong file size. Without /V, nothing happened, since it never called the function. With /V, xcopy reported "File verification failed.". Well, that's not good. This was the behavior on both XP and Vista. In other words, /V does in fact verify the file size (but not the file contents) on both XP and Vista. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Shutting off Keyboard Language Icon "EN" in systray "Internat.exe" | Dr. Dos | Disk Drives | 2 | July 11th 08 05:44 PM |
Networking Card 3Com "3C905B-TX": File "el90xbc5.sys" not found | MB[_2_] | Internet | 11 | August 10th 07 06:18 PM |
"Himem.sys fehlt", "Steuerung der A20-Leitung nicht möglich!!" - und dann nichts gewesen? | Alex Wenzel | General | 7 | March 8th 06 07:01 PM |
"Initial" Track on CD Rom Disk (Physical Stop or "Seek") | Brad | Disk Drives | 1 | February 28th 06 06:27 PM |
PDF File "NOT Valid win32 Application" for" My Documents" Double C | Dr. H.Mak | General | 12 | October 26th 05 07:50 PM |