15 Free File Copy Tools Tested, poor Windows 8 performance


Recommended Posts

15 Free File Copy Tools Tested for the Fastest Transfer Speeds

Most of us know that it is possible to copy or move files and folders in Windows by either using your mouse to copy and paste, drag and drop or by using the keyboard. Obviously the single biggest factor affecting the speed of any transfer is what you?re copying from or to such as hard drives, SSD?s, USB sticks, network etc. Another factor is how Windows itself deals with these operations, and all versions of Windows have never been quite as efficient at it as they could be.

With this in mind, it is entirely possible to shorten the duration of any copying or moving of files if you use a piece of third party software to take over operations instead of relying on the Windows built-in function. Not only can this help the speed of transfers, but you can also get other benefits like better information, queuing copies, pausing, skipping, and dealing with problem files far better than what Windows does.

We were curious to find out just how fast some of these programs actually are when copying and moving files around in Windows, so have gathered together 15 freeware tools to have a closer look. A few simple tests were carried out to try and determine which file copying tools are the fastest at performing file transfers in a few different real world scenarios. To try and cover some common file copy operations, 3 tests were conducted;

Test 1: Copies a number of small to medium files from one HDD to another.

4GB totaling 24,185 files / 6193 folders with sizes of a few bytes to 320MB.

Test 2: Copy 2 large files using the same source and destination as test 1.

2x Windows 8 ISO?s (x86 and x64) totaling 5.8GB.

Test 3: Copy over a 10/100 LAN network to the same destination as tests 1 and 2.

450MB totaling 5665 files / 723 folders with sizes of a few bytes to 320MB.

The source drive was a 10,000 RPM WD Raptor and the destination was a standard 7200 RPM SATA drive, both defragged. All the 3rd party software was run using their default transfer settings on Windows 7 64-bit. Each test was run twice and an average of the times was taken.

Full test:

http://www.raymond.cc/blog/12-file-copy-software-tested-for-fastest-transfer-speed/

Interesting and useful article, with one surprising result concerning Windows 8.

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.

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.

That doesn't mean their isn't value in looking into alternatives. Explorer has never been the fastest method of copying files.

windows 8 beats windows 7 hands down in transfeers, its much much faster

And the ability to pause different transfers, something I loved about Ubuntu, is pretty neat.

  • Like 2

Wouldn't use a third party app to transfer files in amillion years. Seems rather redundant, to me. Even if one was much faster than another, a few seconds out of my life isn't going to kill me. I would see a third party program as just another reason to cause an issue, more than anything else.

I'm quite happy with Windows 7 transfer speed. I move stuff around constantly, usually fairly big downloads, on a regular basis..

Mere seconds to throw half a dozen CDs or more from one drive to another, which I do many times a day,

or half a minute or so for around 25 gigs of vids, so I can't complain.

Wouldn't use a third party app to transfer files in amillion years. Seems rather redundant, to me. Even if one was much faster than another, a few seconds out of my life isn't going to kill me. I would see a third party program as just another reason to cause an issue, more than anything else.

Oh good grief....

Wouldn't use a third party app to transfer files in amillion years. Seems rather redundant, to me. Even if one was much faster than another, a few seconds out of my life isn't going to kill me. I would see a third party program as just another reason to cause an issue, more than anything else.

For me it's for resuming and pausing transfers. What happens when you run out of space with Windows? It just fails, and you have no idea where it left off.

For me it's for resuming and pausing transfers. What happens when you run out of space with Windows? It just fails, and you have no idea where it left off.

That's why I check before starting any file transfers.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • You've tried DuckDuckGo and Brave Search, now get serious with SearXNG by Paul Hill Over the last decade, it has become quite trendy to dump Google Search in favor of privacy-preserving alternatives such as DuckDuckGo, Startpage, and Brave Search. These search engines have done a very good job at highlighting dodgy practices by Google, such as adjusting search results based on what it thinks you’ll like (filter bubble) and stalking you around the web to advertise to you. While these search engines are good starting points when compared to non-private services like Google, there are still quite a few issues with them. For example, both DuckDuckGo and Brave Search require running non-free JavaScript in your web browser, which is comparable to running proprietary software on your computer, meaning you can be sure about what it’s actually doing in the background. Another issue is that these search engines are hosted on the respective companies’ servers, and you are using a service that you don’t control. Finally, DuckDuckGo, while offering privacy features, relies heavily on Microsoft’s infrastructure for its results and, in the past, has permitted Microsoft tracking scripts. If you are looking for a more private search solution than DuckDuckGo, Brave Search, and Startpage, then I recommend taking a look at SearXNG. It is a privacy-respecting metasearch engine that can be used via different public instances, which is useful for mobile users, or you can install it on your computer or server and run it locally with maximum control. Unlike Google, Bing, or Brave Search, which crawl the web and have their own search indexes, SearXNG is a metasearch engine, meaning it taps other search engines, stripping your identifying data, such as IP address, user agent, and cookies, in the process. Your search query is sent to the other search engines you enable before aggregating the results. SearXNG has deployment flexibility. If you are a casual user or a mobile user and don’t want to run SearXNG locally, you can use a public instance that is hosted by someone else. The main problem with this is that you are putting trust in the maintainer of the instance regarding stuff like logs that they may keep; good hosts should have a privacy policy explaining their policies. If you are trying to use SearXNG, you can also install the software on your device and then head to 127.0.0.1:8080 in your browser and search from there. While you don’t have to worry about a third-party admin like the public instances, search engines could ultimately block your IP address if they frown on you pulling in their search results locally. If you want to run it locally, it’s a good idea to use proxies or VPNs to hide your actual IP. You don’t have to worry about this with a public instance, as search engines never see your IP address. The main privacy benefit of using SearXNG is that it isolates your identity from the underlying engines that it’s capable of searching, such as Google and Bing. These search engines will only see requests coming from a generic server, so they can’t profile you and create a bubble filter that influences what results you see. This also ensures that your search engine doesn’t turn into an echo chamber that prevents you from reading alternative points of view. As a free software project, you are allowed to inspect SearXNG to make sure there are no negative features bundled inside. This sets it apart from the privacy search engines mentioned earlier because you can’t check their source code. As a meta search engine, you are not restricted to getting results from one source. Due to the fact that it scrapes content from other websites, your SearXNG instance will periodically get blocked from different providers, so it’s good to select a range of sources as a backup. While enabling all of the services will give you great results, this can make searching slower. I am personally happy with slower searches for the best results, but you can always check which providers are slowing down your search from the search results page and disable them to speed things up. If you want decent results quickly, enable the main search providers such as Google, Brave, DuckDuckGo, Qwant, Bing, and Yahoo. This way, you get wide coverage without the latency. On the Engines tab in Preferences, do note that there are different tabs, such as General, Images, and Videos, with their own providers that can be toggled and are not covered by "Enable all" while on the General tab, so be sure to dig into each. Just a note, if you want to enable everything, press "Enable all" in one tab, then hit save at the bottom of the page, then do the next tab, and so on. If you press "Enable all", then do that in each tab, and then save, nothing will stick. When I had just some of the search engines enabled, I searched “define nefarious” and results came back with the definition of “define” - obviously that was a sucky result. However, when I had everything enabled, it found dictionary pages for the word “nefarious” and even had an inline definition on the sidebar, which is quite nice too - that was delivered by WolframAlpha for anyone wondering! Probably the worst thing about this meta search engine is that the engines you select are saved with a cookie, so you must enable them on every new device you use SearXNG on, including if you decide to go into incognito mode with your web browser. Honestly, I would say this is the most annoying aspect, and perhaps if your browser lets you choose a separate private browsing search engine, then it would be best to use DuckDuckGo for this portion of your browsing. Another weakness of SearXNG is the random blocking of it by search providers. When you are on the results page, expand the “Response time” box, and it will show things like “Suspended: too many requests” or “access denied”. This is why it is good to enable several providers so that there is always a fallback to get results from. I won’t pretend SearXNG will be for everyone, however, if you enable all of the providers and put up with the slower response time, the results can be really amazing. Even if you don’t want to use it as your daily driver, keeping a bookmark handy that links to it is a good idea if you ever feel like doing a deep dive into a niche topic where other search engines are just failing to bring up any good result, due to the amount of sources it looks on. If you’re interested in radical user control over the software you use, installing SearXNG locally can also be a good idea, but be prepared to be temporarily blocked from sites if you trigger bot sensors without a VPN. Personally, I’ve opted to use a public instance, rather than install it myself. If you want to use it via a public instance, head over to searx.space to find a provider. Let us know in the comments if you have used SearXNG or its predecessor, Searx. What do you think about the quality of the results?
    • Dear Neowin, If it is not too much trouble, can you start using the new-ish designations for Insider Preview? "Experimental" is different than "former Dev" as it can apply to different models, eg 26H1 or 26H2 etc, right? No need to seed confusion IMHO. And, please "finally" update your graphics. OK?
    • Did you see their FAQ, its quite good. Have a look in the Advanced section. https://delta.chat/en/help
    • Just install Linux Mint that is a real blessing and many times cheaper because you can continue using your old Windows computer/laptop with the latest Linux updates.
    • Interesting share -- however it does not make sense: Email messages get stored somewhere, so how is Delta Chat "based on email" and decentralized without actually storing anything? By Web3 standard practices, the various Relays would require dedicated storage to make messages available to the recipients (like a large series of message queue channels, akin to racks of traditional post office boxes)... and Contacts must be two-way confirmed in order for encryption keys to be exchanged (ostensibly every key-pair is uniquely bound between sender and recipient) and the Relays would preserve the public keys in order to facilitate message carriage... or every device stores all sorts of keys and contact info. All of this to say, decentralized messaging is like running Bluesky nodes except instead of discovering/browsing public feeds by various posters (at the given node) these Delta Chats would be relaying encrypted messages (via Relays) that only trusted recipients would have the appropriate decryption key (their own private key) to read it. But this doesn't solve the "it's like email" sales pitch. The only way it's like email is that there's encrypted binary stuff being transported from your app into the federated ether of Delta Chat Relays for others to decrypt (hopefully only the intended recipient)... but outside of this federated relays framework, it is absolutely nothing like email.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Woland13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      tuben earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      226
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      158
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!