Jump to content



Photo

15 Free File Copy Tools Tested, poor Windows 8 performance


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#16 billyea

billyea

    Your Two Cents

  • 2,050 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 06
  • Location: Noitacol

Posted 03 January 2013 - 01:51

Oh goodness. I would never use a third party file copy utility for any claimed improvement on speed. I might use one for features (I use TeraCopy when copying large files to my external, since I can make it do checksum verification).

File copying is a simple operation bottlenecked by hardware. I don't know how you could make it any simpler or faster without compromising some integrity check.


#17 medhunter

medhunter

    Muslim Emergency physician

  • 506 posts
  • Joined: 19-June 11
  • Location: Egypt
  • OS: Win 7 SP1 Home Premium , Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, Xubuntu 13.04
  • Phone: Sony Sola

Posted 03 January 2013 - 01:56

Fast Copy is a my choice, because I copy a lot through network

#18 Xoligy

Xoligy

    Neowinian

  • 999 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 03 January 2013 - 02:32

Before this turns into a debate on why anyone would need a third party app fo copying i prefer terracopy have been using it for a few years now always seems to copy faster imo and has more options than the default windows copy which for me is a win win situation.

#19 Javik

Javik

    Beware the tyrrany of those that wield power

  • 5,918 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 03 January 2013 - 02:39

Look Windows 8 has it's issues, but performance and stability is not one of them. It works fine for most people and it will be more hardware dependant than anything. A few seconds different isn't going to make much difference.


Not the case. Initially Vista's poor performance in movement of data, both on local disk drives and across a network was one of it's most heavily publicised failings, and despite the fact that it was largely fixed in service packs, the image of Vista never truly recovered from that. Performance does matter to people and if 8 is slower for no good reason people will pick up on it. Personally, having had to go back to 7 because of blue screens on 8 I didn't get enough time to truly test it but the general image that I got was that 8 just feels like it has some polish missing.

#20 srbeen

srbeen

    Neowinian

  • 1,014 posts
  • Joined: 30-November 11

Posted 03 January 2013 - 02:55

The only reason I would use a 3rd party app is if I needed a log of successful/unsuccessful transfers, which explorer don't do. I find FTP to be very efficient in this regard, and also great at resuming.

As for the article, I would like to know what hardware it was carried out on, besides a terrible WD 10k RPM drive which when I owned one had same spec as my seagate 7200RPM drive (aside from a touch better random seek).
I have a feeling that an XP-designed machine had better written drivers for the hardware than Windows 8 install did.

My real life example should you care: I upgraded from Windows 7 to windows 8, and both were installed on my SSD, it was a literal upgrade from 7, keeping everything in-tact (yay it worked seamlessly!).
In windows 7 I could transfer files from my network around 30MB/s and write around 30-35MB/s from the SSD. With windows 8 I am hitting well over 60MB/s read and 45-50MB/s write to the exact same drive on the exact same system using all the same cabling from the exact same network source... This wasn't a one-time trial, this is average out over a few years of 7 use and months of 8 use.

#21 ViperAFK

ViperAFK

    Neowinian Senior

  • 10,834 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 06
  • Location: Vermont

Posted 03 January 2013 - 12:33

There is no reason to use third party file copy utilities in windows 8, they've significantly improved the inbuilt file copy functionality so it is no longer lacking in performance/features like it was previously.

#22 Athlonite

Athlonite

    Neowinian Senior

  • 1,947 posts
  • Joined: 02-April 07
  • Location: New Zealand

Posted 04 January 2013 - 10:51

I've found teracopy to do a much better job than the win7 copy more often than not it spends an age guessing how long it'll take to copy a file before it even starts copying teracopy on the other hand has no such failings I did try extremecopy pro but found when copying large files over the network it would fail halfway through

#23 Order_66

Order_66

    Neowinian

  • 1,409 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 10
  • Location: Barberton, Ohio

Posted 04 January 2013 - 11:36

I might think windows 8 is a steaming pile but it's pretty clear that the testing is heavily flawed when they said this regarding the slower results for windows 8 "This is explained to a large degree by the Security Essentials antivirus part of Windows Defender scanning every file and slowing everything down"
If you are measuring the performance of multiple operating systems to do the same operation you would naturally want them to be operating as similar to one another as possible, if there's no anti-virus running on 7 and XP then defender should have been disabled for 8.

#24 StrikedOut

StrikedOut

    Outside the box

  • 857 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 08
  • Location: Southampton

Posted 04 January 2013 - 11:48

For me cut/copy and paste is fine. If I am doing large file moves then RoboCopy is perfect.

#25 Wakers

Wakers

    Neowinian Senior

  • 1,865 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 07

Posted 04 January 2013 - 12:18

Windows 8 is faster when copying and pasting files for me than Windows 7 or teracopy ever was.

It's especially faster when copying multiple large files. And you can pause in Windows 8 now too. No need for third party software and certainly no need to read some half-assed test that is fundamentally flawed.

#26 n_K

n_K

    Neowinian Senior

  • 5,366 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 06
  • Location: here.
  • OS: FreeDOS
  • Phone: Nokia 3315

Posted 04 January 2013 - 12:53

There is no reason to use third party file copy utilities in windows 8, they've significantly improved the inbuilt file copy functionality so it is no longer lacking in performance/features like it was previously.

Can you pause/resume at a later date or do file verification or resume a failed transfer?
NO.
Hence why it's still greatly lacking in performance and features. If, however, they had some sort of 'plugin' system whereby you could load file copy plugins to enable the extra features and for more to be added - I'd happily agree with you.

#27 Eric

Eric

    Neowinian Senior

  • 12,738 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 06
  • Location: Greenville, SC

Posted 04 January 2013 - 13:05

Can you pause/resume at a later date or do file verification or resume a failed transfer?
NO.
Hence why it's still greatly lacking in performance and features. If, however, they had some sort of 'plugin' system whereby you could load file copy plugins to enable the extra features and for more to be added - I'd happily agree with you.


They do. It's called the Windows API. No file copy utilities have had their own disk access systems since DOS.

#28 Rickkins

Rickkins

    Neowinian

  • 632 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 07
  • OS: Windows 8, Desktop Mode
  • Phone: Galaxy S3

Posted 04 January 2013 - 13:15

So I tried "Fast Copy", and the difference was considerable. I moved a 2.5 gb video file from one hd to another. When I went to checked the progress, expecting maybe 25%, the damn thing was already finished.

True, just one test with one file, but...

#29 ViperAFK

ViperAFK

    Neowinian Senior

  • 10,834 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 06
  • Location: Vermont

Posted 04 January 2013 - 13:38

Can you pause/resume at a later date or do file verification or resume a failed transfer?
NO.
Hence why it's still greatly lacking in performance and features. If, however, they had some sort of 'plugin' system whereby you could load file copy plugins to enable the extra features and for more to be added - I'd happily agree with you.


You can pause/resume with windows 8's file copy...

#30 typu

typu

    Neowinian

  • 377 posts
  • Joined: 12-November 10

Posted 04 January 2013 - 13:49

file transfer has very much impressed me in windows 8.
i plugged an external drive to a usb hub and started the transfer. speed was low so i paused it and plugged the drive directly to the usb port (instead of the hub). i resumed the transfer without any problem with super speed.