If you searched your registry and didn't find any references to MS-DOS
short filenames, you might want to take another look. No standard Win9x
system is free of them. Two quick examples are the ever-popular Program
Files directory, which is always changed to Progra~1, and the great
frequency in which Microsoft uses their company name in each of their
products, resulting in short filenames that all look similar (except for
the last character, i.e., Micros~1, Micros~2, Micros~3, etc.). Each of
these are subject to corruption during an xcopy clone job.

Below, you refer to shortcuts, but shortcuts have nothing at all to do
with this problem. It's strictly limited to the pairing of a file's or
folder's long name and it's corresponding short name.

Obviously, I stand by my "unsafe" label for using xcopy to clone a
drive. I don't see how "Knowing that it may change a truncated shortcut
means just checking to see if it did after the process" gets you
anywhere. Perhaps I'm just too lazy to check each and every source
short/long filename pair against those same pairs on the destination.
It's much easier, and yes, safer, to use a tool that simply doesn't have
this problem.

Jeff Delzer



"Twin*.*Star" wrote:
>
> Safety is a relative term. Nothing is safe 100% even safe sex <G>.
>
> The site you mention does have a valid point. It says that there is
> a~possibility~when using xcopy(32) from inside of Win9x via a DOS
> window (very important to do this way and not from booting to DOS),
> that it would change truncated LFN shortcuts. ~And~if this shortcut is
> mentioned in either the reg files and or sys.ini and/or win.ini, that,
> ~if~changed~ during the xcopy(32) process, an error would occur.
>
> Well, after you sent this to me the first time, I searched both my reg
> files and sys.ini and win.ini for any truncated LFN and there were none
> in my system. Therefor, even if the process~did~change any truncated
> shortcuts, it would not effect my system. And of course if it~did~not~,
> then again, no matter, it would not effect my system.
>
> The only reason I have experienced this phenomenon, was in writing DOS
> batch files which need to use the truncated names for folders and
> files. But knowing how and why xcopy does what it does prevents any
> errors/problems occurring after doing the xcopy.
>
> The site has a valid point of what~may~happen but to say it is unsafe I
> believe is an exaggeration. I believe it is a very cheap (comes with
> the OS), fast, accurate and efficient way to load a new hard drive.
> Knowing that it may change a truncated shortcut means just checking to
> see if it did after the process if it is a factor. If not, install new
> hard drive and keep on booting <G>.
>
> Daniel Wysocki

        PCBUILD only works if you contribute. Send your messages
             to be posted to: [log in to unmask]