__/ [Victor Roberts] on Sunday 16 October 2005 16:54 \__
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 05:48:45 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>__/ [Stan Gosnell] on Sunday 16 October 2005 00:06 \__
>>
>>> Sandy <sjmurraymd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>>> news:6hv1l1tvt8bm5m9dbof9o52ja5vi2rl6j7@xxxxxxx:
>>>
>>>> Thank, Roy - worked like a charm.
>>
>>
>>Happy to hear that, Sandy.
>>
>>*Turns to Gosnell, confused*
>>
>>
>>> It's actually easier than that. Connect the reader, insert the card,
>>> open
>>> Windows Explorer (My Computer), and highlight the drive. Tell Windows
>>> to copy the drive (several ways to do this - right-click, click on copy
>>> in the left pane, etc), ...
>>
>>
>>Okay, so now the Win32 clipboard will contain the location of the drive,
>>but not physically obtain a copy of data therein...
>>
>>
>>> ...then remove the card, insert the new card, and then
>>> paste. You copy the card just like you copied floppy disks, it's
>>> identical, just another drive with removable media.
>>
>>
>>I assume that something is happening 'behind the scenes' if Windows does
>>that. That's probably the reason for my confusion. *smile*
>>
>>Then again, what if the user wants to 'paste' the card onto his/her
>>hard-drive. Will the lag take place at the stage of copying? It's not
>>natural to the user's mind and seems somewhat of an opaque, hidden
>>feature.
>>
>>This behaviour may have been inherited from the floppy disk, which is
>>1.44MB at most (excluding the exceptions). Some cards are 4 GB in volume.
>>Will Windows hold that volume in RAM? Will it put it temporarily in cache?
>>What if no space is available? All are questions to ponder...
>
> Windows uses the swap file on the hard drive when there is
> no more RAM left. If the disk is full, then it will do the
> copy and paste operation in multiple steps.
So I guess that confirms that indeed it does the copying in the background.
Good to know... *smile*
Roy
|
|
