XYplorer Beta Club

I've been using XY's sync select a lot, I think its awesome. I get most of my sync done using this and backup.
But still, can anybody suggest a folder sync software? Preferably free and portable.
I did search a lot, but there are so many, its confusing. Please respond if you have used and tested it.

Side note: Apart from regular folder sync, I am also trying sync all my music from various locations to make one master list. If there is a dedicated sync for music (which reads mp3 tags etc to sync) please suggest.

Thanks.

i happen to try many, but didn't find free app that suited me + only sync was not really enough - i wanted a good comparison abilities too = i stoped on Beyond Compare and know no better.

serendipity wrote:But still, can anybody suggest a folder sync software? Preferably free and portable.
I did search a lot, but there are so many, its confusing. Please respond if you have used and tested it.

I've been using SyncBack Free for years -- not portable but does what I want to backup/sync with external HDD and USB drives -- think I've been using it longer than XY.

See http://www.2brightsparks.com/download-syncback.html

Thanks.
@eil: BC does look good, but I don't want to spend a lot on something which I am going to use very little, plus I have winmerge for document comparison.
@JC: will give syncback a try.

j_c_hallgren wrote:... -- not portable but ...

Seems like there is a No install version, wondering if this is the portable one.

Seems like there is a No install version, wondering if this is the portable one.

It is

<- SynbackSE user for about 5 years. If it had only delta copy *sigh*...

I've been using Create Synchronicity for the last year. Works nicely and is fully portable (but beware, requires .net).

Marco wrote:I've been using Create Synchronicity for the last year. Works nicely and is fully portable (but beware, requires .net).

Thanks. But is it really 180KB? I hope its not too light on features.
Will definitely try.

It requires .net, but is very light? Is that possible?

PeterH wrote:It requires .net, but is very light? Is that possible?

@serendipity: light in features? It all depends on what you're looking for. Before CS I used SyncBack SE. The number of available features is clearly different, however the number of feature I use is roughly the same in both.

Another vote for SyncbackSE.

PeterH wrote:It requires .net, but is very light? Is that possible?

Yes...because the non-.net code is like the head...it requires the body (aka .net) to function...so while vendor code may be light, it weighs a ton when all the .net is added to it...at least, that's been my experience with .net appl thus far.

j_c_hallgren wrote:

PeterH wrote:It requires .net, but is very light? Is that possible?

Yes...because the non-.net code is like the head...it requires the body (aka .net) to function...so while vendor code may be light, it weighs a ton when all the .net is added to it...at least, that's been my experience with .net appl thus far.

OK: you see it, as you still use W2k, don't you? But I think .net is integrated in newer windows, isn't it?
And I think it's needed more and more, as more and more applications work with it...

PeterH wrote:OK: you see it, as you still use W2k, don't you? But I think .net is integrated in newer windows, isn't it?
And I think it's needed more and more, as more and more applications work with it...

it doesn't matter if it's integrated or not(except thing that when integrated user has to deal with it ).
more correct would be to say "more and more programs/games appear requiring it"(which only makes me sad ). the picture is like this: no-net programs can have large installs but low on resources, while .net are always vise-versa(my Office 2007 has 200mb install and uses ~20mb ram, while most .net apps are ~1-5 install but use 50-300mb ram. ).

sorry for offtopic.

eil wrote:sorry for offtopic.

...but helped me a bit understanding by terms of resources and RAM-usage.

Though I don't know if that's sooo important?
Almost 40 years ago, in my first job I worked on military flight simulators. 4 helicopter cockpits with all instruments and full movement system - on one computer with 2 CPUs, with 2*64kB Storage. (OK: it had no graphics - only blind flight.)
About 35 years ago the first IBM mainframe: 8MB real storage, 16MB virtual - that was the maximum. (24 bit addresses.) Up to 1000 people working in parallel... (Hi J_C!)
The first PC (at work!) hat about 500kB RAM and 20MB disk, used for monitoring network connections. (9,6-19, later up to 64kbit/sec!)
Today my (rather new) private PC has 8 GB RAM and 2TB disk, DSL-speed 25Mbit/sec, Ethernet 1Gb/s - and sometimes one person is using it

So what we are able to do today: working on a graphical based system with pictures, sounds, and even films and TV - all this is only possible because we have an inflation of resources: what is much today will be laughed about tomorrow...
...and if it wouldn't be so we still had to work in character mode on the command line

Sorry for offtopic, too