Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)
After all these versions of Windows, I would have expected better than the
worst possible response to a file copying error in an Explorer. Let's say
you want to copy a very large directory to another computer on a LAN, and
let's say that it's going to take twenty minutes or more to complete. After
15 minutes the Explorer tries to copy a file that's in use somewhere. What
does it do? It displays an error message and then _abandons_ the remainder
of the copy without giving the user the opportunity to object. Since the
subirectories and files appear to be copied in an arbitrary order, what you
end up with on the destination machine at the time of the error could be
anything, which is almost always going to be useless to the user. I might
not care if the particular file that caused the error is copied, or if I do
care I can take note of it and copy it later, _after_ all the other files
are copied. As it is, I have no option but to start again and waste another
15 minutes, and hope there isn't another file further along that will cause
another error. It really is pathetic that such a basic function still hasn't
been thought through properly after 20 years of Windows, or perhaps we are
expected to go to a DOS box and use XCOPY for such an "advanced" feature as
responding appropriately to an error?
David
After all these versions of Windows, I would have expected better than the
worst possible response to a file copying error in an Explorer. Let's say
you want to copy a very large directory to another computer on a LAN, and
let's say that it's going to take twenty minutes or more to complete. After
15 minutes the Explorer tries to copy a file that's in use somewhere. What
does it do? It displays an error message and then _abandons_ the remainder
of the copy without giving the user the opportunity to object. Since the
subirectories and files appear to be copied in an arbitrary order, what you
end up with on the destination machine at the time of the error could be
anything, which is almost always going to be useless to the user. I might
not care if the particular file that caused the error is copied, or if I do
care I can take note of it and copy it later, _after_ all the other files
are copied. As it is, I have no option but to start again and waste another
15 minutes, and hope there isn't another file further along that will cause
another error. It really is pathetic that such a basic function still hasn't
been thought through properly after 20 years of Windows, or perhaps we are
expected to go to a DOS box and use XCOPY for such an "advanced" feature as
responding appropriately to an error?
David
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram