Just in case you’re wondering…
The reason ExactFile hasn’t had an update in such a long time is that it does everything I need it to do. There are some more things I’d like to do with it, but other projects (that pay) always win out. I don’t see this changing any time soon. Enjoy it “as it is” for the time being. 🙂
My previous blog post indicated future development “soon.” I take it back. Future development “when I have time” is more like it. 🙂
Well … it works, there are some small issues…
i would like to be able to hide checksum files..
when i deliver something like a usb stick with content i don’t want to bother people with checksums but i want to help them to easy check the content is ok.
some options would be nice on this
and if it works and is ok.. make it a 1.0 release 🙂
keep up the goof work.
If you’re not going to do much with it any time soon, is there any chance of you open sourcing it?
I use ExactFile and the TestFiles applet to monitor integrity on some drives that grow slowly.
If I want to update the checksum file on the drive root I either have to hand merge in another checksum file or re-hash the entire disk.
If ExactFile were open source I’d modify either the main app or the TestFiles applet to include a “hash new files / delete hashes for files that don’t exist / ignore existing hashes” mode (to quickly update a checksum file).
As it stands now I’m thinking of writing a Perl or Python script to do that instead.
No, and I don’t think it’s necessary. There are already lots of open source solutions for hashing available which could be modified to suit your needs.
First, thanks for the program. It’s my favorite from several I’ve tried. I’m not software/program expert, but I can uses this.
If you’re not going to develop it further, I would also request that you consider open source (or perhaps letting someone work with you), but at least make it an “official”/non beta version. I think many more people would use the program if it wasn’t “beta”
First of all, thank you so very much for this application. It’s proved to be extremely useful and I’m very grateful for all the work you’ve put into it.
Also, thank you too, for taking the time to update us all on the status of the project. Even if there are no immediate developments planned, it’s good to know what’s going on.
There is one question I have, however – and it basically pertains to the only thing I haven’t known how to do with your application. I don’t know if the functionality simply isn’t there, or if this is something that you accomplish by less obvious means.
Basically, if I have a collection of checksum files, is it possible to test them all in a batch? Or sequence them, so that when one check has concluded, it will proceed to test the next checksum file? Hopefully my question makes some sense!
I understand what you mean. There is no way to do that currently, sorry.
Firstly, thank you for producing such a tool which takes the complexities of file listings, hashes and comparisons and makes it easy and intuititive to get results.
Is there any chance of an Apple Mac version of this program? The digest files are great and it would be really useful to have a multi-platform tool that can compare file/data sets recovered natively on differing OS using a simple interface with a directly interchangable digest file.
Exactfile is a a great utility. Thanks for making this available!
Two bugs/feature requests to discuss:
1. When using “Test Digest”, if the “Base Folder for Files In Digest”
is the root of a drive, (e.g. H:\ or P:\) the dialog will not allow
you to select it; you have to type it in manually.
2. Add a checkbox option to suppress “File Does Not Exist” entry
outputs, as in certain cases they may be irrelevant. This occurs
when you are testing a subset of the files represented in a
“master” checksums.md5 digest.
Again, this is a great utility. I would certainly be willing to
pay a reasonable price for this application if developed further.
Thank you for writing such a great application that is far better than anything else I have run across. It is working great, I have one really easy feature request ~ Could you add a “Pause” button to use especially in situations where a large folder is being scanned?
Can you add the matching function? Like is the original hash match with the generated hash? Hard to compare 1 char by 1 char..
WxChecksums (http://wxchecksums.sourceforge.net/mainpage_en.html) is a nice tool that IS Open Sourced but not updated in a while. I would love to see it updated. If you combine the features from ExactFile with the ones from WxChecksums, I think you’d have a real killer tool.
From ExactFile I miss the option to start with command options. I want to pass it a folder and see it started on the “Create” screen instead of “Test”.
great tool, I verified all the others, ExactFile is the best!
Unfortunately I regularly hit on “File does not exist:”
OK MD5 Schulfotos Céline\Klasse1\Hasen Sophia Opa\P1010027.JPG
File does not exist: Schulfotos C��line\Klasse1\Hasen Sophia Opa\P1010028.JPG
OK MD5 Schulfotos Céline\Klasse1\Hasen Sophia Opa\P1010029.JPG
Since I have dozens of files in the same folder only differing in the name(-number).
“Create Digest” is always OK. “Test Digest” always fails. When I do the same with a folder deeper down the tree everything is ok.
Is there some kind of log I can activate to provide a hint for you?
P.S. One function I painfully miss is that the tool ignores newer files. An option to update the digest-file would be great.
Brilliant little tool i use to compare my downloads from my virtual pc to the copied ones on a usb drive.
Keep up the good work !!
Maybe you could in sparetime make it a gold release and not a beta, as more people would use it.
One issue is that Unicode normalization may mean real file names get mangled. This will require some testing. Not sure what to do about that yet.
Hi Brandon ,
That’s sad. ExactFile is the coolest of all those free check summing applications, I use it because I enjoy using it, even if there are other alternatives which could do the same.
However, it has at least one annoying problem with non-ASCII characters (creating a (MD5) checksum file and immediately testing it gives spurious errors, all related to non-ASCII characters, where the very same characters used in other file’s paths don’t have that problem), which is somewhat annoying. I think this is what Jürgen encounters, too. Having this fixed would be great.
Also, there’s a number of small possible improvements, which certainly belong to the “nice to have, but not necessary” category – which I’d nonetheless love to see.
If I understand you right, nothing of this is going to happen soon. I appreciate you spend your time on other projects, since you’re satisfied with the current version – but open-sourcing the app, or in some other way getting more developers, would probably make ExactFile even cooler.
With regard to non-ascii characters — that’s a Unicode normalization issue. Since everything is converted to UTF8 for the checksum file, there is no guarantee that it will go back to the same exact code points in UTF16 when it’s loaded. The solution is to provide a UTF-16 file format option which would not be compatible with other checksum tools. That may happen.
As for open sourcing — Nobody who has asked me to do this has told me that they: Use a current version of Delphi and also happen to have the various licensed third-party components used in ExactFile. That, and the fact that opening the source would require me to clean up stuff, means it’s not viable.
I absoutly LOVE this product.
I hope you never tire of hearing this.
I was wondering …………
Is there a way to use symbolic references in the .md5 file ?
I should very much like to user “ProgramFiles% (Cuz on 32 bit machines my objects live in “Program Files\XXX” and on 64 bit machines they live in “Program Files (x86)\XXX”.
Other objects of mine, live in Windows\System32.
But, sometime, the Windows folder structure in on a drive other than “C”.
So it would be very helpful indeed to be able to use “%WinDir%\System32” or “%SystemRoot%\System32” to identify, to Exf, where my objects can be found.
are you considering adding a return code (0- no error, 1-errors found) to exf?
This will enable this gr8 tool be even gr8er, by enabling using it from other tools or programs.
There is a bug in ExactFile 220.127.116.11 – it can’t handle subdirectories with leading round bracket (f.i., “(c)Test”), so verifying SHA1 checksums for files in such subdirectories produces errors (FAIL).