Fast Copy - file copier

Submit portable freeware that you find here. It helps if you include information like description, extraction instruction, Unicode support, whether it writes to the registry, and so on.
Message
Author
billon
Posts: 598
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:28 pm

Re: Fast Copy - file copier

#46 Post by billon » Wed Jul 25, 2018 10:32 am

@shirouzu:

Why did you removed local download?
Image

shirouzu
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2015 1:08 am

Re: Fast Copy - file copier

#47 Post by shirouzu » Wed Jul 25, 2018 4:00 pm

Midas wrote:
Wed Jul 25, 2018 3:33 am
I also happen to think the answer to that last question is a negative -- but then an express mention of it will be added to the database entry extraction instructions. After all, that's what TPFC is for.

Many thanks fly off to shirouzu for his work and generosity towards the Internet at large. :mrgreen:
My English is poor, I couldn't understand what you say.

This extract option was added for automation for core users.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=ja# ... -MUfwcPRxA

User avatar
smaragdus
Posts: 2068
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2013 3:24 am
Location: Aeaea

Re: FastCopy

#48 Post by smaragdus » Sun Aug 12, 2018 2:18 pm

shirouzu wrote:
Tue Jul 24, 2018 6:12 am
I decided to offer only the installer for the following reason.

Files that are unzipped by Explorer are given the Internet zone attribute in ADS.
This not only gives warnings in the EXE file, but also causes strange bugs that are displayed only in the table of contents in the CHM file.

I add /SILENT and /EXTRACT option to the installer.
You can confirm it with /h option.
For me this is strange logic- to punish the advanced users with an installer because there are idiots who do not have or do not use archivers. I have been using FastCopy since version 1.99r2 from 2009. I have been generally contented with the program so I will keep FastCopy version 3.41 but I cannot update it any longer- I have tried several tools but all of them have failed to extract the installer. As a result I switched to Copy Handler- it rarely gets updates but it works just fine for me.

shirouzu
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2015 1:08 am

Re: Fast Copy - file copier

#49 Post by shirouzu » Sun Aug 12, 2018 3:21 pm

This problem was fixed in v3.54.
https://fastcopy.jp/en/
shirouzu wrote:
Tue Jul 24, 2018 6:04 am
zorro wrote:
Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:37 am
The newly introduced installer writes to the registry when choosing "extract only" (key: HKCU\Software\HSTools)
Oh, it is my mistake.
I will fix it in the next version.

shirouzu
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2015 1:08 am

Re: FastCopy

#50 Post by shirouzu » Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:55 pm

Every human being has freedom :-)
It is no problem.

But I could not find to know the logical reasons why the archive version is preferable than the installer.
It seems only one logical reason is the problem that creation of the unintended registry key(HKCU\Software\HSTools).
But it is a bug, and it was fixed in v3.54.
(The installer doesn't require admin privilege, and it has an extract button.)

To prepare the archive version, is not so much cost, but I want to know logical reasons.
smaragdus wrote:
Sun Aug 12, 2018 2:18 pm
shirouzu wrote:
Tue Jul 24, 2018 6:12 am
I decided to offer only the installer for the following reason.

Files that are unzipped by Explorer are given the Internet zone attribute in ADS.
This not only gives warnings in the EXE file, but also causes strange bugs that are displayed only in the table of contents in the CHM file.

I add /SILENT and /EXTRACT option to the installer.
You can confirm it with /h option.
For me this is strange logic- to punish the advanced users with an installer because there are idiots who do not have or do not use archivers. I have been using FastCopy since version 1.99r2 from 2009. I have been generally contented with the program so I will keep FastCopy version 3.41 but I cannot update it any longer- I have tried several tools but all of them have failed to extract the installer. As a result I switched to Copy Handler- it rarely gets updates but it works just fine for me.

JudyGarland
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:31 am

Re: Fast Copy - file copier

#51 Post by JudyGarland » Thu Sep 06, 2018 7:38 am

lowacc.jpg

3.54 does not share this behaviour with previous versions
denying access does not prevent FC to work properly, though
any clue?

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 4384
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: Fast Copy - file copier

#52 Post by Midas » Thu Sep 06, 2018 7:54 am

If you asked me, Fast Copy is a copying utility so disk access is no surprise.

And what exactly is meant by "Low Level"?

I haven't tested my theory in any way but just by looking at the screen grab you posted, I surmise FC is trying to directly access the hardware, bypassing the OS filesystem API, something which might or not be wholly designed -- it wasn't in past versions, as you said, so it could be somewhat of an oversight resulting from ongoing development.

As the author's English is kind of weak, I guess you can either try to break it down in very easy terms or just stick with a previous version until the behavior goes away... :|

shirouzu
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2015 1:08 am

Re: Fast Copy - file copier

#53 Post by shirouzu » Thu Sep 06, 2018 8:05 pm

JudyGarland wrote:
Thu Sep 06, 2018 7:38 am
3.54 does not share this behaviour with previous versions
denying access does not prevent FC to work properly, though
any clue?
It is only used for detecting SSD or HDD for improving speed control estimation.
(Of cause, it is read only access. it doesn't need admin privilege)

You can confirm the source code in the github.
https://github.com/shirouzu/FastCopy/bl ... y.cpp#L479
https://github.com/shirouzu/FastCopy/bl ... y.cpp#L381

shirouzu
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2015 1:08 am

Re: Fast Copy - file copier

#54 Post by shirouzu » Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:52 pm

FastCopy official forum is here.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/fastcopy-bb-eng

Good bye! :-)

User avatar
smaragdus
Posts: 2068
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2013 3:24 am
Location: Aeaea

Re: FastCopy

#55 Post by smaragdus » Thu Nov 08, 2018 9:36 am

@shirouzu
shirouzu wrote:
Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:55 pm
Every human being has freedom :-)
It is no problem.

But I could not find to know the logical reasons why the archive version is preferable than the installer.
It seems only one logical reason is the problem that creation of the unintended registry key(HKCU\Software\HSTools).
But it is a bug, and it was fixed in v3.54.
(The installer doesn't require admin privilege, and it has an extract button.)

To prepare the archive version, is not so much cost, but I want to know logical reasons.
smaragdus wrote:
Sun Aug 12, 2018 2:18 pm
shirouzu wrote:
Tue Jul 24, 2018 6:12 am
I decided to offer only the installer for the following reason.

Files that are unzipped by Explorer are given the Internet zone attribute in ADS.
This not only gives warnings in the EXE file, but also causes strange bugs that are displayed only in the table of contents in the CHM file.

I add /SILENT and /EXTRACT option to the installer.
You can confirm it with /h option.
For me this is strange logic- to punish the advanced users with an installer because there are idiots who do not have or do not use archivers. I have been using FastCopy since version 1.99r2 from 2009. I have been generally contented with the program so I will keep FastCopy version 3.41 but I cannot update it any longer- I have tried several tools but all of them have failed to extract the installer. As a result I switched to Copy Handler- it rarely gets updates but it works just fine for me.
I do not claim whether it is logical reason or not, it is just my reason- when one extracts an archive no bugs can result in writing to Windows registry. When one uses such installers which offer extraction there is always a risk something to go wrong and to write to Windows registry so with time Windows registry begins to teem with empty registry keys. Here is an example (see this and this) where a user erroneously supposed that HSTools registry key was created by another program. I do not have time to police the Windows registry all the time for installers which claim to offer extraction beside installation. I do not get what is the problem to offer the program both as installer and as archive- thus the users would have freedom of choice (and you may get some statistics which one is the preferred download- the archive or the installer). If you want to save bandwidth you may choose to host the downloads at GitHub (releases page is currently empty)- if GitHub is used for hosting the users would be able to find previous versions of the program, for example I suppose that it would be very hard to find FastCopy version 3.41 which I am using and which I do not plan to update.

Post Reply