Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (
More info?)
In article <h5uug0pqjqg6k8r5u5mg0ov2nbe401jljs@4ax.com>, bclark@es.co.nz wrote:
>John Turco <jtur@concentric.net> wrote:
>>Phred wrote:
>>> In article <410DE2B9.A0DC3BAC@concentric.net>, John Turco
> <jtur@concentric.net> wrote:
>>> >Phred wrote:
>>> >> In article <OYsOc.2404$aS.251@charlie.risq.qc.ca>,
> leguerri@canr.hydro.qc.ca wrote:
>>> >> >In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>> >> >> "Pen" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>>The simple way is to just substitute your 5.25
>>> >> >>>for the 3.5 temporarily. Just let it hang out
>>> >> >>>the side of the computer. Then change the BIOS
>>> >> >>>settings for the floppy. Most modern machines
>>> >> >>>only allow one floppy at a time.
>>> >>
>>> >> Many (all?) older machines were happy to regard a single physical
>>> >> drive as both A: and B:, so you could do various copying things from
>>> >> A: to B: without problems. You were simply prompted to "insert disk
>>> >> for drive d:" as appropriate. Don't modern machines allow this?
>>> ><edited, for brevity>
>>>
>>> >My first computer was a Pionex 486DX2/66, purchased in 1995, since
>>> >"retired." It came with both 5.25" and 3.5" high density floppies (A: &
>>> >B:, respectively), installed; using the XCOPY command, in DOS, I could
>>> >copy from one drive to the other.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I've known several such machines as it was my standard config
>>> since my 386SX-16 of some years ago (1*1.2MB and 1*1.44MB). But more
>>> recent machines have tended to be just 1*1.44MB plus 1*CD-R/CD-RW; and
>>> the very latest I've met (Dell 4600) has dropped the FDD as standard,
>>> though still available as an option.
>>
>>Hello, Phred:
>>
>>I've built two better PC's, such as my PIII 600MHz main system, and never
>>bothered with a 5.25" floppy. Further, I replaced the Pionex's original
>>Chinon drives with Teac models and made the 3.5" one, the boot device.
>>(The hard-shelled 3.5" diskettes are far more rugged, than their flexible
>>5.25" counterparts, which truly are, "floppy!")
>>
>>> My original comment related to the ability of an early PC to see a
>>> single physical FDD as logically *both* A: and B: drives.
>>
>>Hmmm, wasn't aware of that.
>>
>>> Hmm... now you've got me intrigued! Hang on... Waddayano!
>>> Just tried DISKCOPY A: B: on this machine (Dell 4100, WinME, single
>>> 1.44MB FDD) and it did the job okay BUT when it came to inserting the
>>> target disk it said to insert it in A:, which was a bit confusing.
>>>
>>> So then tried XCOPY A:\filename B: and got "Invalid file
>>> specification". So tried plain old DOS COPY and things then went a
>>> bit pear shaped:
>>> 1. COPY picked up the file okay from A: and asked for a disk in B:
>>> 2. Put disk in "B:" and got screen flash as DOS went to full screen!
>>> 3. It then asked for disk in A: and checked it out.
>>> 4. After a bit more of this A:/B: stuff at full screen it actually
>>> made the copy okay, but the process was less than convincing!
>>> I don't recommend this technique as it's a bit startling! AFAICS
>>> it would be more convenient, and confidence building, to go A:/C:/A:
>>> if you really needed to do this sort of thing on a modern PC.
>>
>>Oh, I neglected to cite an important step, before. First, for everybody's
>>benefit, is an example of the XCOPY command:
>>
>> XCOPY A: B: <enter>
>>
>>After the copy is executed, type the following:
>>
>> LABEL B:XXXXXXXX_X <enter>
>>
>>[Note: Substitute the source disk's (A
"volume number," for
>>XXXXXXXX_X, above. Also, <enter> simply means to press the "Enter" key.]
>>
>>Here's a Web page, explaining XCOPY in greater detail (including various
>>"switches"):
>>
>> Commands - XCOPY
>>
http://home.earthlink.net/~rlively/MANUALS/COMMANDS/X/XCOPY.HTM#Diskcopy
>
>Is there a 32 bit version of XCopy that will copy files with long
>filenames?
G'day Brian,
The general feeling these days seems to be that XXCOPY is the bee's
knees: <http://www.xxcopy.com/>
Cheers, Phred.
--
ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram