HTTrack Website Copier
Free software offline browser - FORUM
Subject: Re: WGET vs Winhttrack
Author: William Roeder
Date: 10/12/2008 16:32
> I tried ths for about 30 mins on Vist - could not
> get ANYWHERE with it. Then I looked at the help for
> WGET which I already had (but used only for single
> files) and it worked immediately from the command
> line wget -m url. No muss no fuss - im deleteing

You didn't say what site was, what version you were using, what the problem
was, what the log said, or what you tried, so no help for you on httrack.

As for WGET, your going to have to do more than just that.

The links need to be converted to relative paths -k (--convert-links) so you
can use a browser to see the page properly. But if you do that then timestamps
wont work for an update, so you need -K (--backup-converted) and when you do
that the size of your mirror has now doubled. Got enough disk space?
If the site uses cookies then you need to save and restore them for updates. 
Add --save-cookies cookies.txt --load-cookies cookies.txt

The default is to keep the site structure.  If that's what you want fine.  The
alternative is to keep everything in one directory (-nd) but by my reading of
the manual, conflicts are stored index.html.1 index.html.2 which means you
can't click on a file and have it open.  No other possible storage options
like jpg's to one directory wmv's to another which is what I always use.

If you want to limit a mirror to a forum thread such as post?thread=123... it
can't be done with wget: it's filters only work on the filename proper not the

I didn't read anything in the manual about it processing javascript or finding
links embedded in there like httrack. 
Reply Create subthread

All articles

Subject Author Date
WGET vs Winhttrack

10/12/2008 13:25
Re: WGET vs Winhttrack

10/12/2008 16:32
Re: WGET vs Winhttrack

10/12/2008 17:04
Re: WGET vs Winhttrack

08/22/2023 11:49


Created with FORUM 2.0.11