Windows Vista SP1 outperforms Windows XP SP2 in file copy.

"Its interesting that people seem to think that Vista under performs in every area of the system which is quite an incorrect perception. In this demo I show how Vista outperforms Windows XP and I show the under the covers process traces of just how it achieves it."

"Demo environment consists of two images. One Vista SP1 and the other Windows XP SP2 both on the same HDD IO and communicating across my home wireless network to a Windows Server 2008 box on my main LAN. Once the two images get going latency gets introduced and things start to slow down....except Vista doesnt slow down." Watch and see at Edge TechNet.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Neowin Giveaway - 31 days of the dragon - Entries closed!

Next Story

Microsoft To Showcase TagSpace at TechEd

27 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Those "reputable magazines" some user above talked about were the ones that started this file-copying-time-is-THE-standard to compare OS's. Namely, PC World and one that i read the other day but i can't remember the name.

I don't inderstand why publications like that can even introduce and "open letter" to microsoft claiming that it comes out of their forums and bashes Vista but it is only signed by two users (if i recall properly).

On the other hand, i've talked to people that works in IT and are in the computer business that really has no clue as to why Vista is worst than XP, and they did try it!.

I'm not bashing XP, it is great. But i do think that Vista is much better in many things.

In my experience, Vista SP1 is a little behind XP SP3 in file copying, but i don't care because the time gap is really close and i prefer to have more stability and resource management, among other things, than speed in file copying.

What is hurting Vista a lot is the pile of crap that laptop manufacturers are bundling. I've tried many new laptops and boy, they are really slow and bloated. Performing a clean install with only the program the owner want turns them in nice computers. Same with new XP laptops.

You gotta be kidding me, I copy TV shows between my XP computer at work and my Archos device within a few seconds then transfer them to my Vista machine at home and it takes a few minutes

Vista SP1 is 'faster' that XP SP2 at file copying... I just love these headlines that are, well.. economical with the truth. It's like the advert for kitchen detergent that says there are more bacteria on your chopping board than there are on your toilet seat! Technically they are correct if we are talking about numbers, but what they fail to mention is that there are more harmful bacteria on your toilet seat than there are on your chopping board.

Ok, so what about this Vista headline. Well yes, Vista SP1 IS faster at file copying than XP SP2 ... IF ... you are copying data to/from a Windows 2008 Server. Windows 2008 has been specifically written using network algorithms designed to compliment Vista. As Microsoft puts it "Windows 2008 Server and Vista are the dream couple". Who told me this? One of the Microsoft advocates for Windows 2008 Server in Australia when I was discussing Vista 'issues' with him (many of which he accepted). In the real world where this scenario frequently isn't the case, then this headline would not be accurate.

For the record, I'm not a Vista 'hater' or anything else. Some people get along fine with Vista, some don't. To each his own.

Eh, I still like my copy of Vista. Looking forward to the improvements down the road (service packs, and windows7.)


Eh, I still like my copy of Vista. Looking forward to the improvements down the road (service packs, and windows7.)


Sigh ! Just today, my Vista SP1 showed me in the Copying dialog box ... About 5 days and 22 days remaining ! After a long time though

What an absolute crock.

In fact, I just did a copy last night - copying XPSP3 installation exe to a laptop using a Vista pc to a XP machine, took TWO goes, and the second time it was guessing numbers all over the place (finally did it - 5-10 mins!!)

WHY .. why is this on the front page? And wth is this doing on Technet?

Inaccurate as hell as the comparison isn't fair. Vista and Windows Server 2008 uses SMB2 protocol and XP can't.
Sure this is a big plus for Vista and it really speeds up file transfers/connections however you can't compare it with XP like this.

You have to laugh really that the overall perception of Vista is so bad that they have to take to these case studies to PROVE to people that it's quicker, or whatever..

Ugh. Enough already.

People have their reasons for disliking Vista - and 'proof' that it copies files quickly aren't going to make up for the countless other inadequacies with the product.

(Chicane-UK said @ #2.2)
Ugh. Enough already.

People have their reasons for disliking Vista - and 'proof' that it copies files quickly aren't going to make up for the countless other inadequacies with the product.

Well....? Other than just saying "nah nah nah - I still don't like it even if it's faster", would you care to shed some light as to what these other "countless other inadequacies" are that are making "people" dislike it??

Other than the obvious press bashing with every Windows release, there is very little. Outside of your little self-constructed Vista-Hating world online, in reality people are generally pleased with Vista. They're not jumping up and down screaming it's the best OS ever, but I can't think of an OS where people have.

If your going to reply to someones comment at least put something constructive. I love picking apart fan-boy arguments and viewpoints where possible, so please - enlighten us all as to what is actually wrong with Vista.... I'd love for you to actually put some meat on the bones with real reason. (I'm rather hungry)

Troll feeding complete.

How can I be a troll when I express an opinion based on pretty much 18 months and countless attempts to establish just what it was I was "missing" or failing to understand about just what is good with the product - its not like i've never used it, or am some complete newbie. I have access to Vista Enterprise through the volume licensing scheme at work and have tried Vista (32bit and 64bit) on a variety of platforms - an Apple Mac Mini, an Athlon X2 3800+, and my work PC - an Intel E6600 with 3GB of RAM.

My "little" Vista hating world isn't small, nor is it a world in which I am the sole inhabitant - if it was such a wonderful product, why would there be these discussions coming up in reputable magazines on such a frequent basis?

I'm willing to accept that, as a product, it just doesn't work for me when it might just work brilliantly for many people. But for me it just feels like a step backwards in the life cycle of Windows, and frankly doesn't feel anything like the evolutionary leap that it is hyped up to be.

I'm reluctant to sit here and write a laundry list of what I dislike about the product as these are simply MY feelings about the product. Obviously as you don't feel the same way about it, you won't agree with me - this will just become a long ranging and unproductive difference of opinion... but for what its worth:

My biggest beef really is with the general lardiness of the product - I still feel that Vista was a tremendous step backwards in this respect. It just feels like XP in a fat suit, and no amount of case studies or 'frothing at the mouth' fanboyistic enthusiasm for the product will change my feelings in that respect. Stuff seems to take longer to do - file copying, loading applications, etc etc. And I just don't feel that things like SuperFetch are the way work around this - it's not a particularly elegant or smart solution to the problem? Just load the applications up and cache them in the background? I'd rather keep the RAM free and optimise the filesystem or make some other improvements in that area.. I flat out just don't understand what i'm missing when people tell me that Vista is faster than XP. In my experience on every machine i've used it, programs are slower to load, files take longer to open, and the whole experience in general is far less impressive than it is on XP.

I'm not 'old fashioned' in that I expect to be able to run an OS in 13MB of memory, on a 500MHz CPU but given the demands of Vista to make it run well - I earn more than enough to kit out my home machine with as many toys as I like, but I just don't see that much of a leap in the look/performance/functionality for the investment in megahertz of clock speed and gigabytes of RAM - and I think that is a feeling shared by many people like me, who don't buy into Vista as being this incredible product.

Troll feeding complete.

And please - don't write stuff like that. This smug attitude of those who seek to depose the so called Vista haters REALLY gets my back up.

(Chicane-UK said @ #2.4)
How can I be a troll when I express an opinion based on pretty much 18 months and countless attempts to establish just what it was I was "missing" or failing to understand about just what is good with the product - its not like i've never used it, or am some complete newbie. I have access to Vista Enterprise through the volume licensing scheme at work and have tried Vista (32bit and 64bit) on a variety of platforms - an Apple Mac Mini, an Athlon X2 3800+, and my work PC - an Intel E6600 with 3GB of RAM.

My "little" Vista hating world isn't small, nor is it a world in which I am the sole inhabitant - if it was such a wonderful product, why would there be these discussions coming up in reputable magazines on such a frequent basis?

I'm willing to accept that, as a product, it just doesn't work for me when it might just work brilliantly for many people. But for me it just feels like a step backwards in the life cycle of Windows, and frankly doesn't feel anything like the evolutionary leap that it is hyped up to be.

I'm reluctant to sit here and write a laundry list of what I dislike about the product as these are simply MY feelings about the product. Obviously as you don't feel the same way about it, you won't agree with me - this will just become a long ranging and unproductive difference of opinion... but for what its worth:

My biggest beef really is with the general lardiness of the product - I still feel that Vista was a tremendous step backwards in this respect. It just feels like XP in a fat suit, and no amount of case studies or 'frothing at the mouth' fanboyistic enthusiasm for the product will change my feelings in that respect. Stuff seems to take longer to do - file copying, loading applications, etc etc. And I just don't feel that things like SuperFetch are the way work around this - it's not a particularly elegant or smart solution to the problem? Just load the applications up and cache them in the background? I'd rather keep the RAM free and optimise the filesystem or make some other improvements in that area.. I flat out just don't understand what i'm missing when people tell me that Vista is faster than XP. In my experience on every machine i've used it, programs are slower to load, files take longer to open, and the whole experience in general is far less impressive than it is on XP.

I'm not 'old fashioned' in that I expect to be able to run an OS in 13MB of memory, on a 500MHz CPU but given the demands of Vista to make it run well - I earn more than enough to kit out my home machine with as many toys as I like, but I just don't see that much of a leap in the look/performance/functionality for the investment in megahertz of clock speed and gigabytes of RAM - and I think that is a feeling shared by many people like me, who don't buy into Vista as being this incredible product.

And please - don't write stuff like that. This smug attitude of those who seek to depose the so called Vista haters REALLY gets my back up.

You have to expect this from them since they feel that they must stamp out any and all heresy against Microsoft, the one true god, and its most perfect product Vista.

I too have much experience in computers as well and agree with you. I used Vista for 6 months before finally dumping the POS. I had wanted it to work right.

(Chicane-UK said @ #2.4)
How can I be a troll when I express an opinion based on pretty much 18 months and countless attempts to establish just what it was I was "missing" or failing to understand about just what is good with the product - its not like i've never used it, or am some complete newbie. I have access to Vista Enterprise through the volume licensing scheme at work and have tried Vista (32bit and 64bit) on a variety of platforms - an Apple Mac Mini, an Athlon X2 3800+, and my work PC - an Intel E6600 with 3GB of RAM.

My "little" Vista hating world isn't small, nor is it a world in which I am the sole inhabitant - if it was such a wonderful product, why would there be these discussions coming up in reputable magazines on such a frequent basis?

I'm willing to accept that, as a product, it just doesn't work for me when it might just work brilliantly for many people. But for me it just feels like a step backwards in the life cycle of Windows, and frankly doesn't feel anything like the evolutionary leap that it is hyped up to be.

I'm reluctant to sit here and write a laundry list of what I dislike about the product as these are simply MY feelings about the product. Obviously as you don't feel the same way about it, you won't agree with me - this will just become a long ranging and unproductive difference of opinion... but for what its worth:

My biggest beef really is with the general lardiness of the product - I still feel that Vista was a tremendous step backwards in this respect. It just feels like XP in a fat suit, and no amount of case studies or 'frothing at the mouth' fanboyistic enthusiasm for the product will change my feelings in that respect. Stuff seems to take longer to do - file copying, loading applications, etc etc. And I just don't feel that things like SuperFetch are the way work around this - it's not a particularly elegant or smart solution to the problem? Just load the applications up and cache them in the background? I'd rather keep the RAM free and optimise the filesystem or make some other improvements in that area.. I flat out just don't understand what i'm missing when people tell me that Vista is faster than XP. In my experience on every machine i've used it, programs are slower to load, files take longer to open, and the whole experience in general is far less impressive than it is on XP.

I'm not 'old fashioned' in that I expect to be able to run an OS in 13MB of memory, on a 500MHz CPU but given the demands of Vista to make it run well - I earn more than enough to kit out my home machine with as many toys as I like, but I just don't see that much of a leap in the look/performance/functionality for the investment in megahertz of clock speed and gigabytes of RAM - and I think that is a feeling shared by many people like me, who don't buy into Vista as being this incredible product.

And please - don't write stuff like that. This smug attitude of those who seek to depose the so called Vista haters REALLY gets my back up.


Sorry if I offended you Chicane - it wasn't intentional and I appreciate the mature response back to me.

If things like SuperFetch aren't useful to you per se, then fair enough. Personally, I find it very useful and find that the Vista machine post lunch break / first thing in the morning is more responsive than the XP machine I use for secondary purposes. (Testing etc.) If it doesn't float your boat then fair enough.
I do disagree that it's not a very efficient way to get around a speed issue. Unused RAM is like empty space in your fuel tank whilst carrying a fuel can in the boot too (the HD). What's the point - surely the having a full tank is better than half in the tank and half in a can?
RAM is the same as a HD in that it's purpose is to house data. However as RAM is faster than a HD, it makes sense to store as much in it as possible to ensure that your system is as fast as it can be. That is the premise that Vista's memory management is running under - and without inviting a flame-fest I haven't seen a convincing argument against that premise. It seems to make sense and generally in the real world people seem to agree that the system seems more responsive post lunch-break.

I can't see how hardware is a problem. For £400 you can get a Dell machine with 2Gb RAM and a Athlon Dual Core @ 2.6Ghz and a 320Gb HD with a 128Mb Radeon GPU. Seriously - that will run Vista like a dream. How can people STLL be saying that the minimum requirements are too high? You can hardly buy a new PC today that doesn't meet the RECOMMENDED spec's from MS.
A single core P4 @ 2.8Ghz with a gig of RAM will do - I normally have two accounts logged on as well as using it as a Media Centre for my main living room and it works smooth as anything. The hardware requirements have really been made a scapegoat and to be honest if the cheapest Dell will run Vista fine then I can't see how there is room to complain.

To be honest Chicane - I can't think of an OS that I "upgraded" to that has been faster than the predecesor. 95 was slower than 3.11, ME was slower than a fresh install of 98, XP was slower than ME and Vista is slower than XP on the same hardware. Just the way things are. A linux build from 1997 is a damn sight faster than the latest Ubuntu, and the same with the Mac. Just the way things go. You spent £800 on a PC say in 2003 and run XP on it and it was pretty quick right? You spend £800 and and put Vista on it and I'll run just as quick - probably quicker with SuperFetch enabled.

However your main point isn't really what's particularly bad about Vista, just that you can't see that there is anything very good about it worthy of upgrading - which is a fair point. IMHO, it depends entirely what you are using it for. For end-users I wouldn't bother upgrading for the sake of it. If you are using XP and running as a normal user with FF and NoScript and a reasonable AV with all the patches then stick with it until you buy a new PC. There's lots of nice little changes, but if you need to upgrade your hardware to run Vista then simply don't bother your ass. If you have a reasonably new system that will run Vista then it's probably JUST about with the £99 upgrade - but only just.

Business use is different. From a IT POV, if you have an enterprise agreement with MS that entitles you to free upgrades then go with it. Vista's security architecture and administrative improvements are worth the hassle of upgrading. UAC, GPO's, ImageX, IE7+ (protected mode), BitLocker, Diagnostics and out-of-the-box drivers are superb improvements that are well worth it. If you don't have software assurance then don't bother going out and buying more licences for the sake of it though - just replace as part of your usual hardware cycle.

Essentially, Vista is an evolutionary OS (MCE, DirectX, backup, IE7+, new version of calendar, photo gallery, mail etc.) with a couple of revolutionary features (in regards to Windows) such as UAC, integrated desktop search, SuperFetch, localalised volume shadow copies, ReadyBoost etc.

Is it worth upgrading regardless? Nope
Is it worth ugprading if you are due for a new machine or have software assurance? Yep.

There is nothing wrong with Vista, it's just that it's not so amazing that everyone should ditch their old machines and spend £500 in getting it. Great OS - nothing wrong, but nothing super amazing either. If you're due to upgrade your hardware and your a home user then go for it (or spend £99 on upgrading if you want MCE and the interface with better security). If your a business with software assurance and your hardware is up to scratch (At least a single core @ 2.8Ghz with 1Gb RAM) then again - plan carefully, do some testing and go for it.

(stevehoot said @ #2.7)
Sorry if I offended you Chicane - it wasn't intentional and I appreciate the mature response back to me.

Likewise. Think this has been the quickest and most civil discussion of an opinion on Neowin in some time ;)

If things like SuperFetch aren't useful to you per se, then fair enough. Personally, I find it very useful and find that the Vista machine post lunch break / first thing in the morning is more responsive than the XP machine I use for secondary purposes. (Testing etc.) If it doesn't float your boat then fair enough.

I totally see the reasoning and method behind it.. but I just think its not a solution to the problem, if you can see what I mean. I really REALLY dislike the overhead it puts on the system at login especially. And I know a lot of people swear blind that it only uses 'idle' disk resource but if you compare performance back to back with SuperFetch running and SuperFetch not running when you login, you'll see it strangles it quite noticeably. Certainly in my experiences it became more of an irritation than a feature I liked.

I do disagree that it's not a very efficient way to get around a speed issue. Unused RAM is like empty space in your fuel tank whilst carrying a fuel can in the boot too (the HD). What's the point - surely the having a full tank is better than half in the tank and half in a can?
RAM is the same as a HD in that it's purpose is to house data. However as RAM is faster than a HD, it makes sense to store as much in it as possible to ensure that your system is as fast as it can be. That is the premise that Vista's memory management is running under - and without inviting a flame-fest I haven't seen a convincing argument against that premise. It seems to make sense and generally in the real world people seem to agree that the system seems more responsive post lunch-break.

Again I can see the reasoning behind this, but then you could put an alternative spin on it with another analogy - why do people have cars with however many hundreds of horsepower, if all they do is dawdle to work and back every day? I guess the answer would be that you have the capacity to use it when required - so using that analogy, the thought of overhead being wasted on applications I might not use any more simply on the premise that I might use them is an annoyance. The hit on RAM utilization is very very noticeable even on a machine with 2GB or 3GB of RAM.. and frankly i'm just not that bothered about Word loading 1 second quicker because its cached in RAM :)

I can't see how hardware is a problem. For £400 you can get a Dell machine with 2Gb RAM and a Athlon Dual Core @ 2.6Ghz and a 320Gb HD with a 128Mb Radeon GPU. Seriously - that will run Vista like a dream. How can people STLL be saying that the minimum requirements are too high? You can hardly buy a new PC today that doesn't meet the RECOMMENDED spec's from MS.

No - that is a very fair point well argued. I suppose I still struggle to appreciate just what sort of horsepower is now deemed 'standard' in home computers.

A single core P4 @ 2.8Ghz with a gig of RAM will do - I normally have two accounts logged on as well as using it as a Media Centre for my main living room and it works smooth as anything. The hardware requirements have really been made a scapegoat and to be honest if the cheapest Dell will run Vista fine then I can't see how there is room to complain.

Thing is it will do but it is a compromise. And in that situation I would just prefer to run Windows XP as the overhead of Vista on an older machine, vs what it offers for that overhead just doesn't add up for me.

To be honest Chicane - I can't think of an OS that I "upgraded" to that has been faster than the predecesor. 95 was slower than 3.11, ME was slower than a fresh install of 98, XP was slower than ME and Vista is slower than XP on the same hardware. Just the way things are. A linux build from 1997 is a damn sight faster than the latest Ubuntu, and the same with the Mac. Just the way things go. You spent £800 on a PC say in 2003 and run XP on it and it was pretty quick right? You spend £800 and and put Vista on it and I'll run just as quick - probably quicker with SuperFetch enabled.

Fair enough - but using the Mac as an example, going from Tiger on my Mac Mini up to Leopard FELT like an upgrade worth doing, and it didn't hit the machine with a performance overhead to do the same tasks. I appreciate that I might have been in the minority with that as a few folks experienced problems with Leopard - and similarly a few folks had an easy ride with Vista when it came out.. I guess I can only base my opinion on my experiences, and in my experience Vista was a really frustrating experience in the first few months it came out - I was genuinely disappointed.

However your main point isn't really what's particularly bad about Vista, just that you can't see that there is anything very good about it worthy of upgrading - which is a fair point. IMHO, it depends entirely what you are using it for. For end-users I wouldn't bother upgrading for the sake of it. If you are using XP and running as a normal user with FF and NoScript and a reasonable AV with all the patches then stick with it until you buy a new PC. There's lots of nice little changes, but if you need to upgrade your hardware to run Vista then simply don't bother your ass. If you have a reasonably new system that will run Vista then it's probably JUST about with the £99 upgrade - but only just.

Quite true. Microsoft have ironed out a lot of the initial problems and Vista is far more mature as a product already than it was 18'ish months ago. To that end I would just blindly slate it - I just wouldn't see any benefit over Windows XP and that has been my biggest beef all along. I just think they could have achieved so much more with it - it was hyped to death, and I just don't think MS delivered.

Business use is different. From a IT POV, if you have an enterprise agreement with MS that entitles you to free upgrades then go with it. Vista's security architecture and administrative improvements are worth the hassle of upgrading. UAC, GPO's, ImageX, IE7+ (protected mode), BitLocker, Diagnostics and out-of-the-box drivers are superb improvements that are well worth it. If you don't have software assurance then don't bother going out and buying more licences for the sake of it though - just replace as part of your usual hardware cycle.

I'm inclined to disagree in some respects here. Enterprise wise its a nightmare unless you're a 100% Microsoft shop. If you're doing a limited deployment in a branch office, where folks login to an AD and save Office documents to a share on a Windows Server then i'd imagine your experience will be fairly painful. But if you're using a truely mixed environment then it's a pain. The features you mention are good of course, but one might argue that many of them just aren't that useful in many scenarios:

* I'm still not sold on UAC
* GPO's of course are excellent but exist in Windows XP
* ImageX is way better but the old way wasn't intolerable by any stretch of the imagination
* IE7+ - again, if you're using a limited number of web based apps and you configure your border security well enough..?
* BitLocker - useful for laptops I guess, but of limited use in an office - i'd only care about the data on the server
* Diagnostics - how useful is this? If you spend any more than an hour or two on repairing a workstation, i'd argue the time would have been better spent on re-imaging the machine and getting the user back up and running
* Drivers - yeah, saves some time but then if you've done a good job on slipstreaming drivers then you're sort of on track..

Essentially, Vista is an evolutionary OS (MCE, DirectX, backup, IE7+, new version of calendar, photo gallery, mail etc.) with a couple of revolutionary features (in regards to Windows) such as UAC, integrated desktop search, SuperFetch, localalised volume shadow copies, ReadyBoost etc.

Is it worth upgrading regardless? Nope
Is it worth ugprading if you are due for a new machine or have software assurance? Yep.

There is nothing wrong with Vista, it's just that it's not so amazing that everyone should ditch their old machines and spend £500 in getting it. Great OS - nothing wrong, but nothing super amazing either. If you're due to upgrade your hardware and your a home user then go for it (or spend £99 on upgrading if you want MCE and the interface with better security). If your a business with software assurance and your hardware is up to scratch (At least a single core @ 2.8Ghz with 1Gb RAM) then again - plan carefully, do some testing and go for it.

I have warmed to it considerably but I just hoped for so much more. I wouldn't go so far as to suggest people AVOID it like I did when it first came out.. but I still am way more optimistic for Windows 7. I don't think Vista will be looked upon fondly in years to come....

Cheers.

(abulfares said @ #2.1)
whats funnier is how the XP fanboys/Vista bashers cant see beyond their XP curtain no matter how much proof u throw out there.

There are no XP fanboys. People hate XP, but Vista with its bloat and stability problems is even worse.

I guess you also don't realize that they rigged the benchmark by using Server 2008 instead of Win2K3 which gave Vista an advantage.

(Chicane-UK said @ #2.8)
Again I can see the reasoning behind this, but then you could put an alternative spin on it with another analogy - why do people have cars with however many hundreds of horsepower, if all they do is dawdle to work and back every day? I guess the answer would be that you have the capacity to use it when required - so using that analogy, the thought of overhead being wasted on applications I might not use any more simply on the premise that I might use them is an annoyance. The hit on RAM utilization is very very noticeable even on a machine with 2GB or 3GB of RAM.. and frankly i'm just not that bothered about Word loading 1 second quicker because its cached in RAM :)
I'd just like to throw in a little tidbit of information that I'm not sure you quite got:
SuperFetch will "learn" about your commonly used programs based on what programs you use the most.
So if you use Word exclusively, then it will dedicate more and more of the RAM to loading Word files, until such time when Word loads nigh instantly.

I've seen this in action (though I do disclaim that it MAY be the Placebo effect), with Adobe Dreamweaver CS3.
If you've ever ran it, you know that it takes a fair amount of time to load up on a WinXP machine. It has to initialise a giant library of functions and whatnot, this takes its time.
Then there was a time when I was doing a lot of coding in it, and it started loading faster and faster, until finally I could no longer see the "Initialising files..." on the loading splash screen, it just flew by so fast.
Then, I took a break from coding to work on my finals, and now that summer vacation is on and I have a chance to sit down and see what's going on here on the intartubes, I can once again see the "Initialising files..." text on the splash screen.

The moral of the story is: if you want your apps to load nigh instantly, open them often!

I don't usually support "Old news." comments, but this is about the third or fourth time this news article has been on the Front Page...