The Plus D Corner (Part 2)
Hello folks! Now I'm sitting here trying to overcome my laziness. But once you've started something—meaning the Plus D Corner—you should keep it going. I think the following lines will also be of interest to users of other disk systems. So feel free to read on.
Anyone who has a disk system at home and often needs to copy files can hardly get by without good copy programs. Especially when you only want to copy individual files from a full disk. Relying on DOS alone can be very tedious. But backing up a full disk can also be time-consuming. Over time, quite a few copying tools have crossed my desk. At some point, I had the idea to do a benchmark comparison regarding copy speeds. Originally just out of curiosity for myself. But why shouldn't I share my experiences here in the Plus D Corner?
So what did I do? First, I set up two test disks. On the first one (SOURCE), there were 28 test files, totaling 114 KB. I only used CODE and BASIC files. I didn't use SNAPS because they aren't copied by standard G+DOS. The second disk (TARGET) was formatted with G+DOS, so it was empty. If the target disk is formatted with BetaDos, copying is usually (or always?) faster (approx. 10 time saving).
Incidentally, I didn't include the "FORMAT d TO 2" command in my test because this method of disk copying simply takes far too long. Be careful with this command! Before copying, the disk in drive 1 is formatted. Yes, that is not a typo: drive 1 is formatted! After that, it copies from drive to 1. I'm pointing this out explicitly because the SYNTAX of the command looks more like drive 2 would be formatted and then copied from drive 1 to 2. So be careful! Together with the formatting time, G+DOS takes about 16 minutes to copy a 3 1/2" disk. However, this command has the advantage of creating an identical copy of the SOURCE disk. At least that's what the +D manual says. Maybe there is a sensible use case for "cloned" disks. I, for one, don't have one. For normal "everyday use" of the +D, this command is superfluous. Isn't it?
As for hardware, I used a Spectrum 128 (the old toastrack model) and two 3 1/2" drives. I used two drives because swapping disks manually when copying with a single drive naturally takes time and would distort the results. Besides, I probably would have worn my fingers out swapping disks.
I ran the test with standard G+DOS as well as with Beta-DOS. Both without any "patches". There's a reason for that! As I found out, for example, sector copying with the G+DOS patch by Miles Kinloch is slower. Beta-DOS behaves the same way, by the way. I won't go into detail here about why that is. You could easily fill an entire page on that subject. Anyone who wants to know the exact details should look at the patch and its accompanying text file.
Oh, you don't know what a patch is? Well, my English dictionary says a patch is a mend or piece of cloth. You can probably guess that this doesn't mean the patch on your trousers. In computing, a patch is basically a subsequent correction to existing software. For instance, to remove a bug or add an improvement. All clear?
Now, back to the topic: when copying disks, one must fundamentally distinguish between two methods: Sector-Copy and File-Copy. With Sector-Copy, the disk is copied sector by sector. This creates an exact copy of the source disk. The target disk is erased in the process. So watch out! Some tools or operating systems only copy allocated sectors. If there are unallocated sectors on the SOURCE, it naturally goes faster. Phew, not that easy to explain. I hope it makes sense.
I surely don't need to explain File-Copy in detail. With File-Copy, single or multiple files are copied from the disk catalog. Logical, right? Which method is faster when you want to copy an entire disk depends on the number of files on the SOURCE disk. With a full or nearly full disk, a good sector copier is certainly faster than a file copy. If you only want to copy individual files, the question of which type of copy program to use doesn't even arise. Also logical, isn't it?
In addition to several copy programs, I also tried the SAVE d TO d2 command (G+DOS and Beta-DOS). I erased the TARGET disk with ERASE after each run. Here are the results:
NAME TIME DOS METHOD TEST DRIVES REMARKS
MODE MIN.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAVE d TO d2 2.53 G+DOS File-Copy 48K 2 (2.20)
SAVE d TO d2 2.15 Beta File-Copy 48K 2 (2.07)
The Copier v1.1 3.09 G+DOS File-Copy 48K 1 or 2 by Shimon Young
Discmate 2.30 G+DOS File-Copy 128K 1 or 2 2 Swaps, Betterbytes 1990
Transit 1.22 G+DOS Sector 48K & 2 FORMAT MTW 3.93
128K TYPE: AUTO
FAST-COPY 4.44 G+DOS Sector 48K 2 (BASIC!) BY LCD, FREEWARE
FAST-COPY 9.07 Beta Sector 48K 2 BY LCD, FREEWARE
(NB: Never intended for Beta Dos!)
Beta-DOS Backup 0.29 Beta Sector 48K 1 or 2 5 Swaps
Beta-DOS Backup 0.43 Beta Sector 48K 1 or 2 3 Swaps
Sectcopy 1.29 Beta Sector 48K & 2 PD by M. Kinloch
128K for Beta-DOS"DRIVES MIN." in the table indicates how many drives you need at least to use the respective copy program or DOS command. As mentioned, I always used two during testing.
"SWAPS" indicates how many times disks had to be swapped between the two drives. This is particularly interesting for those who only own one drive. You can see how often I would have had to manually swap the SOURCE and TARGET disks. From this, one can deduce which copying method is more practical when copying with only one drive.
You will surely notice that I did not test every single combination regarding the DOS used and the Spectrum mode. That wasn't necessary either, as it was expected that the tested program would take the same amount of time regardless of whether G+DOS or Beta DOS was used, and regardless of 48K or 128K mode.
Based on the measured copy times from my test, one cannot simply declare which program is the best. It's not that simple! We have to delve a bit deeper into the matter. With a different test disk (e.g. a completely full one or one with only a few files), the results would have looked completely different. So the table only contains sample times to give a rough idea of what the programs can do. I will explain this in more detail later.
The most astonishing thing for me during testing was the fact that using the RAM DISK on the 128K Spectrum only makes sense if you only have one drive! Apparently, SAVING and LOADING from the Spectrum's RAM takes longer than alternating back and forth between the physical drives. Among the tested programs, this applies to "DISCMATE FILE COPY" and the BetaDOS "BACKUP" utility. Both programs support the RAM DISK of the 128K Spectrum. "BACKUP" only copies allocated sectors. That's why it was so fast in the test; after all, my SOURCE test disk wasn't particularly full. "THE COPIER" does not support the RAM DISK and switches drives for every single file being copied.
The values in parentheses in the table for the SAVE d TO d2 method are the times achieved when the target disk was previously formatted with Beta Dos. I tested this at the very end. With the SAVE d TO d method as well as with "The Copier", it doesn't matter which Spectrum mode (48K or 128K) you use. I have already written a bit about that further above.
So which copy program is the best or fastest? Choosing the right program depends on the following points:
- Which Spectrum is being used? 128K or just 48K?
- How many drives are available?
- Which DOS is being used?
- Number of files to copy
- Names of the files (is wildcard usage possible?)
- Do individual Snaps need to be copied?
- How user-friendly is the program?
- how long does it take to load the copy program?
- how long does it take to read the CAT (for File-Copy)?
and so on.
- What role does money play?
- what is the maximum the program may cost?
- should it be PD / Freeware?
As you can see, you can't simply give a blanket answer to the question "Which is the best copy program?". Too many factors play a role. As a little decision aid, here is my opinion on the programs to wrap things up:
SAVE d TO d2
Not really a copy program, but a DOS command. What can I tell you about this? Everyone who owns a +D knows this command. It's always good when you just want to quickly copy one or two (maybe three) files. If you can use the wildcards "*" and "?", it can also handle more files. After all, loading a copy program (especially if you have to search for and insert the appropriate program disk first) and selecting the files to copy also takes some time. As mentioned, it always depends on the specific case.
THE COPIER V1.1
User-friendly program. However, reading the catalog is quite slow. Furthermore, every file is copied individually. That takes a lot of time and is pure torture when using only one drive. "THE COPIER" was slower in my test than the "SAVE d TO d2" command. However, one should not forget that this program is much more flexible than "SAVE d TO d2" when you only want to copy certain specific files. Even with "SAVE d TO d2" using wildcards "*" and "?", you are quite limited and have to type everything out tediously. Since "THE COPIER" offers a few extras in addition to copying, it is a usable program despite being somewhat slow. (Note from LCD: On the Disciple, this program can only work with one drive!).
DISCMATE FILE COPY
Very good file-copy program for the 128K Spectrum. The catalog is read very quickly. The user comfort is good, and several files are copied at once. This means the Spectrum's memory is utilized optimally. Very advantageous if you only have one drive, as you don't have to swap disks so often. The program also runs in 48K mode. However, as I only recently noticed, not all files are copied here; they don't even appear in the catalog. This applies to SNAPS and very long files. An experiment of mine showed that a file with 40,536 bytes still appears in the catalog, but one with 40,537 bytes no longer does. In 48K mode, only files up to and including 40,535 bytes can be copied. At exactly 40,536 bytes, both of my drives started
...to act up". Even a reset didn't help; the system totally crashed. But that's just an aside, it just fit well here. With DISCMATE you can do quite a bit more than just copy. For instance, deleting individual (pre-selected) files is very fast. Otherwise / see also the test report in the Proficlub issue from March 1995. But as said, Discmate is actually a 128K program (which I didn't know back then). DISCMATE is a program I can only recommend. Top class! Those who only have a 48K Spectrum should use THE COPIER.
TRANSIT
Anyone who wants to make backups of entire disks very quickly can hardly get around Transit. It runs with BetaDOS and G+DOS, is easy to use, and blazingly fast. Additionally, you can copy from tape to +D and vice versa. However, since I hardly work with cassettes anymore, I haven't tried this yet and can't say anything about it here. (LCD's note: Transit does not work with Disciple!)
FAST-COPY
Not the fastest, but the only public-domain sector-copy program (what a word!) that also runs under G+DOS that I know of. Incidentally, it's by our club member Daniel Leszek Chmielewski (LCD) from Vienna. With this program, do not use the G+DOS patch by Miles Kinloch or Beta-DOS! Otherwise, the program becomes quite slow. Anyone who constantly uses Beta-DOS should anyway (because it's faster) use the following PD program: (LCD's note: Also runs on Disciple and is faster than Quickcop 2).
SECTCOPY
This PD program is by Miles Kinloch (member of the Spectrum Profi Club) and runs only under Beta-DOS. SECTCOPY is very fast. Anyone who generally works with Beta-DOS should get this program. As said, it is Public Domain and therefore (apart from postage costs, etc.) free. Anyone who doesn't have Beta-DOS, or only uses it occasionally and would have to boot it separately every time, should better use "TRANSIT".
BETADOS BACKUP UTILITY
This program does not run under G+DOS, but is rather an integral part of Beta-DOS and therefore does not have to be bought separately. Actually a very nice program, but I occasionally run into problems with it. Specifically, the program sometimes runs into a SECTOR ERROR even though the disks are fine. At least that's what I think. At any rate, the used disks can be copied flawlessly with other programs and there are no other problems with them either. Maybe BACKUP doesn't work cleanly. I don't know. Does anyone have an explanation?
Oof, that was quite a piece of work (even if it doesn't look like it). It wasn't easy to put my experiences from this test into reasonable words. There are simply too many possibilities, meaning different operating systems, 48K or 128K mode, and so on. Still, I hope this article isn't too complicated. Whoever understood everything may call themselves a "copy pro" from now on (hee hee). And in case I talked any nonsense here, let me know. What are your experiences with copier programs? / Which programs do you use?
With these questions, I'll leave you to it. You are released! Until next time, bye, Guido from East Westphalia.
Guido Schell, Auf dem Stocke 37, D-32 584 Loehne, Tel. 05732
Share your thoughts about the article