What is the benefit of copy over xcopy on the command line?
I know that xcopy has more options however are there any benefits to using copy rather than xcopy?
windows command-line file-transfer robocopy xcopy
add a comment |
I know that xcopy has more options however are there any benefits to using copy rather than xcopy?
windows command-line file-transfer robocopy xcopy
1
Which copy? This one? This one?
– JdeBP
Feb 9 '12 at 12:12
add a comment |
I know that xcopy has more options however are there any benefits to using copy rather than xcopy?
windows command-line file-transfer robocopy xcopy
I know that xcopy has more options however are there any benefits to using copy rather than xcopy?
windows command-line file-transfer robocopy xcopy
windows command-line file-transfer robocopy xcopy
edited Mar 7 '15 at 17:03
Flyk
1,36211928
1,36211928
asked Feb 9 '12 at 10:26
Phil HannentPhil Hannent
8501714
8501714
1
Which copy? This one? This one?
– JdeBP
Feb 9 '12 at 12:12
add a comment |
1
Which copy? This one? This one?
– JdeBP
Feb 9 '12 at 12:12
1
1
Which copy? This one? This one?
– JdeBP
Feb 9 '12 at 12:12
Which copy? This one? This one?
– JdeBP
Feb 9 '12 at 12:12
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
xcopy is an external program, while copy is part of the interpreter (cmd.exe, command.com). This means that xcopy might not be present on another machine or a rescue disk.
Since we have Windows and rescue CDs, that isn't really an issue anymore.
copy can concatenate files.
copy file1 + file2 file3
creates a file (file3) which contains file1's and file2's contents.
copy can copy more than just files.
For example,
copy con file
lets you write directly from the keyboard (console) to file.
Likewise, you can print a file using
copy file prn
copy file \computerprinter
where the latter is for shared printers.
You can even combine the above: The command
copy con prn
lets you write directly to the printer.
5
Also, it's one less character to type when invoking it. :)
– Orangutech
May 31 '12 at 21:33
Wow, thanks for info regarding files concatenation. I've just found out it and understood why my result file was so big. You've made my day.
– Johnny_D
Oct 10 '13 at 13:57
add a comment |
I think the main difference is (or was) that xcopy
is able to copy folder hierarchies and copy
was intended to work on files only.
That being said, I don't think there is anything to gain (functionality- or performance-wise) from using copy
.
Please note, even xcopy
is outdated by today's standards. Robocopy is the new copy utility of choice on modern Windows platforms.
Also note that all the mentioned copy utilities have Wikipedia articles that could contain further information:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_(command)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xcopy
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robocopy
add a comment |
If you consider Powershell a "command line" then there is another "copy" command available. The Powershell "copy" apparently maps to a cmdlet.
One thing not mentioned by the other answers is that since Powershell expands a deeply embedded wildcard at the shell level, this command will work (only from PS not from DOS):
% copy G:gitonesource*morePathSomePattern*.dll destDir
while xcopy claims "file not found" since it accepts a single source.
add a comment |
Anyone remember DOS on dual floppy PCs? Xcopy minimises the number of read seeks by loading multiple files into memory on a single read to speed up the copy. Probably still makes a trivial speed improvement with HDDs.
1
At the risk of splitting hairs, this is not, strictly speaking, an answer to the question, since it asks for benefit(s) ofcopy
overxcopy
. But, IMO, this is a valid contribution to the discussion.
– Scott
Jan 10 at 1:03
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "3"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f387859%2fwhat-is-the-benefit-of-copy-over-xcopy-on-the-command-line%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
xcopy is an external program, while copy is part of the interpreter (cmd.exe, command.com). This means that xcopy might not be present on another machine or a rescue disk.
Since we have Windows and rescue CDs, that isn't really an issue anymore.
copy can concatenate files.
copy file1 + file2 file3
creates a file (file3) which contains file1's and file2's contents.
copy can copy more than just files.
For example,
copy con file
lets you write directly from the keyboard (console) to file.
Likewise, you can print a file using
copy file prn
copy file \computerprinter
where the latter is for shared printers.
You can even combine the above: The command
copy con prn
lets you write directly to the printer.
5
Also, it's one less character to type when invoking it. :)
– Orangutech
May 31 '12 at 21:33
Wow, thanks for info regarding files concatenation. I've just found out it and understood why my result file was so big. You've made my day.
– Johnny_D
Oct 10 '13 at 13:57
add a comment |
xcopy is an external program, while copy is part of the interpreter (cmd.exe, command.com). This means that xcopy might not be present on another machine or a rescue disk.
Since we have Windows and rescue CDs, that isn't really an issue anymore.
copy can concatenate files.
copy file1 + file2 file3
creates a file (file3) which contains file1's and file2's contents.
copy can copy more than just files.
For example,
copy con file
lets you write directly from the keyboard (console) to file.
Likewise, you can print a file using
copy file prn
copy file \computerprinter
where the latter is for shared printers.
You can even combine the above: The command
copy con prn
lets you write directly to the printer.
5
Also, it's one less character to type when invoking it. :)
– Orangutech
May 31 '12 at 21:33
Wow, thanks for info regarding files concatenation. I've just found out it and understood why my result file was so big. You've made my day.
– Johnny_D
Oct 10 '13 at 13:57
add a comment |
xcopy is an external program, while copy is part of the interpreter (cmd.exe, command.com). This means that xcopy might not be present on another machine or a rescue disk.
Since we have Windows and rescue CDs, that isn't really an issue anymore.
copy can concatenate files.
copy file1 + file2 file3
creates a file (file3) which contains file1's and file2's contents.
copy can copy more than just files.
For example,
copy con file
lets you write directly from the keyboard (console) to file.
Likewise, you can print a file using
copy file prn
copy file \computerprinter
where the latter is for shared printers.
You can even combine the above: The command
copy con prn
lets you write directly to the printer.
xcopy is an external program, while copy is part of the interpreter (cmd.exe, command.com). This means that xcopy might not be present on another machine or a rescue disk.
Since we have Windows and rescue CDs, that isn't really an issue anymore.
copy can concatenate files.
copy file1 + file2 file3
creates a file (file3) which contains file1's and file2's contents.
copy can copy more than just files.
For example,
copy con file
lets you write directly from the keyboard (console) to file.
Likewise, you can print a file using
copy file prn
copy file \computerprinter
where the latter is for shared printers.
You can even combine the above: The command
copy con prn
lets you write directly to the printer.
edited Oct 10 '13 at 21:29
answered Feb 9 '12 at 12:14
DennisDennis
40.6k6101136
40.6k6101136
5
Also, it's one less character to type when invoking it. :)
– Orangutech
May 31 '12 at 21:33
Wow, thanks for info regarding files concatenation. I've just found out it and understood why my result file was so big. You've made my day.
– Johnny_D
Oct 10 '13 at 13:57
add a comment |
5
Also, it's one less character to type when invoking it. :)
– Orangutech
May 31 '12 at 21:33
Wow, thanks for info regarding files concatenation. I've just found out it and understood why my result file was so big. You've made my day.
– Johnny_D
Oct 10 '13 at 13:57
5
5
Also, it's one less character to type when invoking it. :)
– Orangutech
May 31 '12 at 21:33
Also, it's one less character to type when invoking it. :)
– Orangutech
May 31 '12 at 21:33
Wow, thanks for info regarding files concatenation. I've just found out it and understood why my result file was so big. You've made my day.
– Johnny_D
Oct 10 '13 at 13:57
Wow, thanks for info regarding files concatenation. I've just found out it and understood why my result file was so big. You've made my day.
– Johnny_D
Oct 10 '13 at 13:57
add a comment |
I think the main difference is (or was) that xcopy
is able to copy folder hierarchies and copy
was intended to work on files only.
That being said, I don't think there is anything to gain (functionality- or performance-wise) from using copy
.
Please note, even xcopy
is outdated by today's standards. Robocopy is the new copy utility of choice on modern Windows platforms.
Also note that all the mentioned copy utilities have Wikipedia articles that could contain further information:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_(command)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xcopy
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robocopy
add a comment |
I think the main difference is (or was) that xcopy
is able to copy folder hierarchies and copy
was intended to work on files only.
That being said, I don't think there is anything to gain (functionality- or performance-wise) from using copy
.
Please note, even xcopy
is outdated by today's standards. Robocopy is the new copy utility of choice on modern Windows platforms.
Also note that all the mentioned copy utilities have Wikipedia articles that could contain further information:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_(command)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xcopy
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robocopy
add a comment |
I think the main difference is (or was) that xcopy
is able to copy folder hierarchies and copy
was intended to work on files only.
That being said, I don't think there is anything to gain (functionality- or performance-wise) from using copy
.
Please note, even xcopy
is outdated by today's standards. Robocopy is the new copy utility of choice on modern Windows platforms.
Also note that all the mentioned copy utilities have Wikipedia articles that could contain further information:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_(command)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xcopy
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robocopy
I think the main difference is (or was) that xcopy
is able to copy folder hierarchies and copy
was intended to work on files only.
That being said, I don't think there is anything to gain (functionality- or performance-wise) from using copy
.
Please note, even xcopy
is outdated by today's standards. Robocopy is the new copy utility of choice on modern Windows platforms.
Also note that all the mentioned copy utilities have Wikipedia articles that could contain further information:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_(command)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xcopy
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robocopy
edited Feb 9 '12 at 12:23
DMA57361
16.9k66195
16.9k66195
answered Feb 9 '12 at 12:08
Der HochstaplerDer Hochstapler
67.6k49230284
67.6k49230284
add a comment |
add a comment |
If you consider Powershell a "command line" then there is another "copy" command available. The Powershell "copy" apparently maps to a cmdlet.
One thing not mentioned by the other answers is that since Powershell expands a deeply embedded wildcard at the shell level, this command will work (only from PS not from DOS):
% copy G:gitonesource*morePathSomePattern*.dll destDir
while xcopy claims "file not found" since it accepts a single source.
add a comment |
If you consider Powershell a "command line" then there is another "copy" command available. The Powershell "copy" apparently maps to a cmdlet.
One thing not mentioned by the other answers is that since Powershell expands a deeply embedded wildcard at the shell level, this command will work (only from PS not from DOS):
% copy G:gitonesource*morePathSomePattern*.dll destDir
while xcopy claims "file not found" since it accepts a single source.
add a comment |
If you consider Powershell a "command line" then there is another "copy" command available. The Powershell "copy" apparently maps to a cmdlet.
One thing not mentioned by the other answers is that since Powershell expands a deeply embedded wildcard at the shell level, this command will work (only from PS not from DOS):
% copy G:gitonesource*morePathSomePattern*.dll destDir
while xcopy claims "file not found" since it accepts a single source.
If you consider Powershell a "command line" then there is another "copy" command available. The Powershell "copy" apparently maps to a cmdlet.
One thing not mentioned by the other answers is that since Powershell expands a deeply embedded wildcard at the shell level, this command will work (only from PS not from DOS):
% copy G:gitonesource*morePathSomePattern*.dll destDir
while xcopy claims "file not found" since it accepts a single source.
edited Jan 3 '18 at 3:04
answered Jan 3 '18 at 2:39
crokusekcrokusek
3981411
3981411
add a comment |
add a comment |
Anyone remember DOS on dual floppy PCs? Xcopy minimises the number of read seeks by loading multiple files into memory on a single read to speed up the copy. Probably still makes a trivial speed improvement with HDDs.
1
At the risk of splitting hairs, this is not, strictly speaking, an answer to the question, since it asks for benefit(s) ofcopy
overxcopy
. But, IMO, this is a valid contribution to the discussion.
– Scott
Jan 10 at 1:03
add a comment |
Anyone remember DOS on dual floppy PCs? Xcopy minimises the number of read seeks by loading multiple files into memory on a single read to speed up the copy. Probably still makes a trivial speed improvement with HDDs.
1
At the risk of splitting hairs, this is not, strictly speaking, an answer to the question, since it asks for benefit(s) ofcopy
overxcopy
. But, IMO, this is a valid contribution to the discussion.
– Scott
Jan 10 at 1:03
add a comment |
Anyone remember DOS on dual floppy PCs? Xcopy minimises the number of read seeks by loading multiple files into memory on a single read to speed up the copy. Probably still makes a trivial speed improvement with HDDs.
Anyone remember DOS on dual floppy PCs? Xcopy minimises the number of read seeks by loading multiple files into memory on a single read to speed up the copy. Probably still makes a trivial speed improvement with HDDs.
answered Jan 10 at 0:48
BillBill
1
1
1
At the risk of splitting hairs, this is not, strictly speaking, an answer to the question, since it asks for benefit(s) ofcopy
overxcopy
. But, IMO, this is a valid contribution to the discussion.
– Scott
Jan 10 at 1:03
add a comment |
1
At the risk of splitting hairs, this is not, strictly speaking, an answer to the question, since it asks for benefit(s) ofcopy
overxcopy
. But, IMO, this is a valid contribution to the discussion.
– Scott
Jan 10 at 1:03
1
1
At the risk of splitting hairs, this is not, strictly speaking, an answer to the question, since it asks for benefit(s) of
copy
over xcopy
. But, IMO, this is a valid contribution to the discussion.– Scott
Jan 10 at 1:03
At the risk of splitting hairs, this is not, strictly speaking, an answer to the question, since it asks for benefit(s) of
copy
over xcopy
. But, IMO, this is a valid contribution to the discussion.– Scott
Jan 10 at 1:03
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f387859%2fwhat-is-the-benefit-of-copy-over-xcopy-on-the-command-line%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Which copy? This one? This one?
– JdeBP
Feb 9 '12 at 12:12