Man - I agree!

Nothing worse than a copy aborting on the 450th file out of 460...

That sort of thing is just maddening! I can't count the number of times I have run into that situation. Maybe that says something about my memory or lack thereof when I keep using windows explorer to copy files.

Look on the bright side, at least there is one reason to upgrade to Vista!

That's worth the upgrade price by itself!

Unfortunately they still haven't figured out to tell you WHICH program is accessing the file you want to copy. Granted in many cases its obvious, but sometimes it isn't ....

Hmmm guys, if its new in Vista most of the time its because someone else already did it, and that its even better :(

Check this out (100% free):
http://ccollomb.free.fr/unlocker/

Same problem with deleting files. I always have this issue when deleting files in the temp folder. When it hits a file that is being used, it doesn't continue deleting after that file. So I sort by date and delete older files since the newer files are being used by current apps.

+1. It's about time...
But what is the big black square on the image?

It's supposed to be an icon of the file. The icon in that size is missing in the DLL in this case. I suspect that'll get fixed before it's all said and done.

How about a "NO to all" option as well?

When copying a file you can overwrite and tell it Yes, Yes to all, or no

Why not no to all?

Hold down the shift key when you click "no" = "No to All" :-)

thanks for the tip Hotoru! Just saved me a few hours of restoring a rather large directory! cheers!

Well, this is another tiny example of Microsoft finally paying a tiny bit of attention to how users actually use their product.

I only found out about the "shift" + "no to all" a few days ago. I've been cursing Redmond for years because of that.

But Vista will have to come up with a lot more than that to tempt me. I tried playing around with V the other day, and spent 15 minutes trying to figure out how to change the display resolution. I gave up. If I could turn off all the eye candy and and DRM, and make it look more like 2000, I might get friendlier.

-freddy

The shift-key "no to all" trick is neat, but it isn't a complete solution in XP.

If you are copying folders that contain nested sub-folders that contain files, there doesn't seem to be a way to say "only copy files that don't exist in the destination". If the same sub-folder exists in both places, you'll be asked if you want to replace the sub-folder in the destination. If you say "yes", then ALL the files in that sub-folder will get copied - regardless of whether you want them to or not. If you say "no", then the sub-folder (and its contents) won't be copied at all.

I've been trying to come up with a command-line way to get around this using xcopy, but there's no joy there either. And I'm dealing with a number of groups of 600+ files in 100+ folders on several machines. All I want to do is pick up anything from machines 2 to <x> that doesn't already exist on machine 1 and make sure that machine 1 gets a copy of everything (without overwriting files with the same names that are already on there). But it looks like I'm going to have to do it by hand. It'll take hours or days. (Come back unix shells, all is forgiven!)

Anyone have any ideas on this one, please let the world know!