Vista slow at copying files


Recommended Posts

That worked for me, I am on RC2, what is remote differetial compression anyway?

More on Remote Differential Compression. http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa372948.aspx

I just breezed over the article, but I think it bascially compares files on the fly so if you are copying a file from one computer to another and a copy exists on both machines, it will then only transfer over the changes rather than the entire file. Thus saving network bandwidth by only transfering the small changes. I can see how could have an impact on transfer speed because i would assume that the comparison proccess adds to the overhead. So while it's may be transfering less, the time may take longer because it has to first compare the files for changes.

That's ReadyDrive not SuperFetch... everyone benefits from SuperFetch since all it does is load your typical apps into unused memory.

SuperFetch has plenty of problems though, real ones that I've identified by monitoring tools. (this is on RTM, of course)

For me SuperFetch (yes, it was that one; I checked the SvcHost's service list and disabled one by one) totally ruined my performance as I used eMule, and I can imagine other apps being affected too. Vista simply thought "OK, so it's evening and he probably wish to run eMule" and started prefetching -- get this -- an unfinished download of several hundred MB's. It just kept reading, reading, making the drive go wild, so I checked what was going on in the Sysinternals File Monitor and I had a lot of read for one and the same file over and over. As soon as I stoppsed the SuperFetch service, my hard drive went completely silent and my computer became far more responsive as it tried to load applications I started and ran.

I wish SuperFetch would be much more configurable and not a black box sitting doing "something it feels would be right" to improve performance. I don't really want to generalize, but it's such typical Microsoft behavior to hide important customization like this from the user in order to dumb it down enough for the masses. File and directory exclusion filters would work wonders with it. Or at least only prefetch executables and DLL's! There's absolutely no reason I'd like to prefetch an unfinished download for faster access because I'm of course not going to run it.

Keep in mind that SuperFetch is based a whole lot on guesswork and statistics.

Edited by Jugalator
More on Remote Differential Compression. http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa372948.aspx

I just breezed over the article, but I think it bascially compares files on the fly so if you are copying a file from one computer to another and a copy exists on both machines, it will then only transfer over the changes rather than the entire file. Thus saving network bandwidth by only transfering the small changes. I can see how could have an impact on transfer speed because i would assume that the comparison proccess adds to the overhead. So while it's may be transfering less, the time may take longer because it has to first compare the files for changes.

Thanks for the explain and link, I would rather choose faster file copying I think.

in synthetic benchmarks or something of the kind? cause last time i tried the retail version of Vista it was pretty slow :| might've been placebo. but damn it sure took long. either it really is slow or microsoft's research into making the user think that a process is going faster was totally bogus :p

& how did thoust get the Retail version?

Well too add my 2pence worth;

Copying to (XP) compressed Usb drive is fast, from it is slow, same drive to same drive is slow, moving files on desktop very slow, a lot of drive clashes on a 512Mb machine. Disabling this and that has little effect if any - wish I could find the magic switch and get some stability back into hd performance.

Some noticeable things I have found (and not so)

Changing the swap drive to another as in XP does not seem as effective in Vista

Moving the temp drive does make a diff (away from system drive) (user profile, my enviro variables)

Readyboost on a 512Mb Laptop (forced) worth it but give it time, same with superfetch over time it should improve things (or so MS say)

Drop the Aero interface - gives 20Mb back to system and is faster for sure.

Dissabling non used services less effective than in XP as a lot show that they are not running and take nothing from memory, the default is quite well behaved I think.

P2P programs should be away from system drive and temp/swap drives, better to have 4 drives (not partitions it still has to seek) 1 System, 1 Swap, 1 Temp, 1 P2P even better if you can add to that 1 Programs, 1 Data - would help performance defiantly.

Of course more memory the better.

Annoyances;

answers on a postcard please!

Task Bar - if you add a new toolbar it is locked to the taskbar, you don't seem to be able to move it onto the screen and use as a program launcher as in XP (yes taskbar is unlocked)

Calculating time dialog can take longer than operation Doh!

Sometime files get forgotten on a move.

'You need permission' for what, moving a data file of my own Why! - even as administrator

Slow run command !

Program compatibility - what does the compatibility service do !

...

I'm having the same problems running on Vista RC1.

None of the solutions posted in this thread have helped.

Trying to copy files accross a network on a gigabit connection. Speeds are dreadful. Maxing out at 3MB/sec.

Any solutions to this problem?

Edited by Stivort

I've tried everything suggested in this thread. Nothing so far has helped with transfering of files within Vista. Even files on the same hard drive take forever. My USB 2.0 travel drive takes forever. Zip files take forever. What's going on? Also. Windows Explorer seems to hang and eat up resources like no tomorrow when I do these things.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

3.0Ghz

2.00gb Ram

SATA 250GB WD hard drive 7200rpm

NVidia GeForce 7900GS 256mb

Thanks in advance!

Jon

Try to do hard drive defragmantion...and good luck with that...It takes hour to complete. And you can't even see the pogress...total CRAP!

Vista needs service pack..badlyyy

Defrag sucks. No time or % given. Why would windows go to sleep when you have defrag going? I do not mind it going to sleep but it should go to sleep after it finishes.

It was a false alarm but.... I've changed my network card to the one integrated with my MB (nForce2 chipset) and... it is working!!!

Previously I had the '3Com EtherLink 10/100 PCI TX NIC (3C905B-TX)' installed. I haven't got drivers for Vista (drivers for this 3com card aren't provided with Vista) and I used drivers for XP :|

It looks like that this solved my problem.

UPDATE: I think that those (3com) drivers were updated by Windows Update and nothing's changed. Everything is working properly on nForce-based card.

Regards

No1B

Edited by No1B

Slow at copying files, try the service pack 1 update to Visual Studio !

Its just taken 5 hours on Vista to complete (wow must be a record), XP 2 Hours #!#!

Thats was with NOD32 running - some over head but XP was using far slower AVG Free

Try moving 1-0 shortcuts from the desktop to a folder - takes longer to draw the dialog to infor calculating time than to do the opperation - what is with that then ??

Hey guys and gals,

I "Think" I solved the answer to the slow copying. I came across this while trying to uninstall the MS SQL sync program. This may work for you I have noticed a HUGE increase on the web and on my network with this. I use Ultimate btw.

Start >> Control Panel >> Programs and Features

Click on " Turn windows features on or off" on the left side of the panel

Takes a sec to load all the features

Uncheck "Remote Differential Compression"

I also unchecked "Print Services" (Since I don't have a printer)

Click "Ok" and you will be all set.

I then copied a 700 movie from one drive to another and it took less then 10 secs.

-+>Aaron

Let me know if it works for you.

This seemed to work for me . Give it a try. 10 times better performance.

Slow at copying files, try the service pack 1 update to Visual Studio !

Its just taken 5 hours on Vista to complete (wow must be a record), XP 2 Hours #!#!

Thats was with NOD32 running - some over head but XP was using far slower AVG Free

Try moving 1-0 shortcuts from the desktop to a folder - takes longer to draw the dialog to infor calculating time than to do the opperation - what is with that then ??

Don't know what's going on...

I just copied a previous WinVista Users/Public folder and subfolders to my login and it took about 3 minutes to transfer 12 GB of data.

Hey guys and gals,

I "Think" I solved the answer to the slow copying. I came across this while trying to uninstall the MS SQL sync program. This may work for you I have noticed a HUGE increase on the web and on my network with this. I use Ultimate btw.

Start >> Control Panel >> Programs and Features

Click on " Turn windows features on or off" on the left side of the panel

Takes a sec to load all the features

Uncheck "Remote Differential Compression"

I also unchecked "Print Services" (Since I don't have a printer)

Click "Ok" and you will be all set.

I then copied a 700 movie from one drive to another and it took less then 10 secs.

-+>Aaron

Let me know if it works for you.

Works for me Too

Running Vista business +10

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • I have never been a huge fan of libre, it feels really good but exactly when you need an advance feature for data wrangling it falls short every time or has bugs. I am all for euro office if they can deliver a good and usable alternative to MS office with backing of govt function.
    • Go on, I'll bite. How does windows (nice comment on an 'article' which doesn't actually involve it ) lock users out of their data then? Been using it since 3.1 back in 92 and not once have I been locked out of my data? Perhaps you mean Bitlocker? In which case the average user (who doesn't mess about) will have been forced to use a MSA, and in which case the recovery key would have been saved to said account..... If the user did happen to bodge around and not use an MSA then Bitlocker wouldn't have become live (as it cannot without a safe place to store the key) I want to point out Bitlocker and MSA are not connected and you can of course force it on without a safe place to store the key, but you do that with your eyes open. So your standard consumer who knows no better sets up an MSA, gets bitlocker and a recovery key stored off box, with a route to reset their password. All of this notwithstanding the fact, if your data is important, you back it up, no ifs, no buts, no-ones responsibility other than your own. Important data lives in at least two locations, one of which is offline and recovery is tested, otherwise that data wasn't really that important. Disks, fail, laptops get lost, phones end up down the toilet, tablets get stolen, if your only copy of data is on a single device you're doing it wrong.
    • Clearly that feature isn't for us. It's for the ad spam marketers so they can more directly target us about going to places we might want to go again...but without understanding context clues. Like for the flight someone took for a friend's funeral. We want to be reminded of that every time we open an app, a browser, or email, right? Right, Siri?
    • Is your Apple Watch supported? Check the watchOS 27 compatibility list by Aditya Tiwari Apple kicked off WWDC 2026 with a ton of announcements, mostly centered around Apple Intelligence improvements, the Siri AI, and Liquid Glass updates. However, there is a lot of other stuff that couldn't catch the limelight. Let's talk about watchOS 27 and which models are supported by the newest operating system. According to the Cupertino giant, watchOS 27 will be supported on the following Apple Watch models when it arrives later this year: Apple Watch Ultra 3 Apple Watch Series 11 Apple Watch SE 3 Apple Watch Series 10 Apple Watch Ultra 2 It's a stark contrast with last year's watchOS 26 update, which had almost a dozen Apple Watch models in its list of supported devices. Apple supported models all the way back to Apple Watch Series 6. That said, if you own one of the five models, you'll need an iPhone 11 (or later) with iOS 27 to install the latest update. Yes, Apple has shown some extra love to the iPhone 11, and it old horse supports the iOS 27 update. watchOS 27 beta 1 is now available for developers and interested power users through the Apple Developer Program. So, if you're among those who like to play with fire, you can download it to your supported Apple Watch. Otherwise, the public beta for watchOS 27 will be available next month. The freshly baked Apple Watch update comes with Siri AI - an advanced, fully conversational version of Siri powered by Apple Intelligence due for later this year. A new dynamic app grid features icons for five Siri-suggested apps. You can use a new tap gesture to open a widget in the Smart Stack, and a new Find My app finally clears the mess of Find Devices, Find Items, and Find People on Apple Watch. Workout Buddy can run without an iPhone nearby and offers new insights based on data, including your progress for pace, distance, and workout duration. Apple improved its motion tracking algorithms to measure the distance of indoor treadmill runs and walks more precisely. Speaking of other changes, the music playback on watchOS 27 starts faster and you can create custom passes for any membership or card that uses a QR code or barcode, then easily access them in the Wallet app or pin in the Smart Stack.
    • "and pull old flight details from your email during back-and-forth conversations" The Siri I've become to know and trust. I've always wanted to pull info on old flights. /s
  • Recent Achievements

    • Very Popular
      Captain_Eric earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • One Month Later
      amusc earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Proficient
      Eric Biran went up a rank
      Proficient
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      498
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      228
    3. 3
      ATLien_0
      85
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      76
    5. 5
      +Edouard
      75
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!