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

    • All these CEOs got the biggest boners thinking about firing employees for AI. Turned out it was just a wet dream.
    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. All immigrants are seeking a better life too. It's literally the only reason they would risk everything and leave their homes, families, and homeland. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is one of the key things of the EU and a mark of a civilization. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists around the world said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!