Speed of managing files Windows 7 vs Vista vs XP


Speed of managin files. Windows 7 vs Vista vs XP  

90 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think Windows 7 manages files (copy, paste...) as slow than in Vista?

    • Yes. 7 and Vista manage files identically
      14
    • Yes. XP manages files faster than Vista/7
      23
    • No. 7 manages files faster than Vista
      53


Recommended Posts

I have tested Windows 7 RTM during 2 months, and I think Windows 7 manages files (copy, paste, cut...) same than in Vista. I don't see any improve in performance. Also the GUI is a bit slow compared with XP.

What do you think, 7 has improved or is like Vista?

XP sucks all system resources during the copy, so it may appear faster but it's bad from a multitasking perspective.

Vista/7 preserves the responsiveness of the whole system and also the copy process is fully transactional (Transactional-NTFS), resulting more reliable than XP's one

Edited by franzon

Windows 7 Professional x64 creates backups on my system in 15 minuters, wheras in Vista it took twice as long.

To restore, Windows 7 Pro x64 does it twice as quick.

These are all using Norton Ghost 14.

For me XP is faster not in performance, but in workflow. The biggest issue I have with managing files in Windows 7 is lack of information on free disk space in the folders. I have to go up to My Computer to see how much free space I freed up instead of looking down at the status bar. That just ****es me off more than anything.

XP sucks all system resources during the copy, so it may appear faster but it's bad from a multitasking perspective.

Vista/7 preserves the responsiveness of the whole system and also the copy process is fully transactional (Transactional-NTFS), resulting more reliable than XP's one

Vista and 7 both cause huge system instabilities when copying large amounts of data (10GB+), takes 2-3 times longer than XP, and generally will lock up if you click inside the copy window at anytime during the process.

I never had these problems on XP (SP2 / SP3)

Personally I don't even notice a difference. The one thing I hate is that Windows 7 likes to fully shut down a hdd when it hasn't been in use, so when I go to access it, it takes a while for it to warm up and spin before it accesses. Windows XP seems to have the hdd constantly going or something of that matter, so I never had a noticeable "warm up" lag.

You probably won't notice any differences between different versions of Windows, but they all suck. I still think that file management could be improved, especially by introducing queuing. For example, if I copy and paste two large files separately into another partition or usb drive, both will begin transferring at the same time. This not only takes longer, but tends to defragment the file. Plus, Windows does certain things like calculating time, which usually adds some time to the transfer. A great program that I have been using for months now is Teracopy, which basically sets itself as the default file management program.

Personally I don't even notice a difference. The one thing I hate is that Windows 7 likes to fully shut down a hdd when it hasn't been in use, so when I go to access it, it takes a while for it to warm up and spin before it accesses. Windows XP seems to have the hdd constantly going or something of that matter, so I never had a noticeable "warm up" lag.

You can change that in the Power Plan advanced settings but it parks the heads so it prolongs the life of the drive (or so I read at TechNet). It also gives it a rest and conserves power.

Vista and 7 both cause huge system instabilities when copying large amounts of data (10GB+), takes 2-3 times longer than XP, and generally will lock up if you click inside the copy window at anytime during the process.

I never had these problems on XP (SP2 / SP3)

I never had these problems on Vista. Your problems are caused by poorly-written antivirus software or 3rd-party ide/sata drivers

I don't use the recycle bin but I just copy and pasted 5 image files all at least 2MB onto my desktop and that was instant. Deleting them was also instant. No dialog. I don't have transfer issues, I can click in the copy dialog as much as I want.

This is on my Studio XPS 1340 with a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo with 4GB RAM, not a supercomputer by any means.

Vista and 7 both cause huge system instabilities when copying large amounts of data (10GB+), takes 2-3 times longer than XP, and generally will lock up if you click inside the copy window at anytime during the process.

I never had these problems on XP (SP2 / SP3)

I never had these issues on any system running Windows Vista (RTM, SP1, SP2) or Windows 7. File copies have always been quick, and responsiveness of Windows Explorer has been perfectly fine.

It is about the same for me, but then I don't use the default windows file copier. I wouldn't be - at all -surprised if explorer on 7/Vista is slower.

What is different though is that on the same specs, with *fetch features disabled (no cheating), XP manages loading applications faster than 7.

i use Directory Opus ($120 file manager, no i did not buy it) and it copies files quicker than any version of Explorer, in my experience.

i trust it to large copy jobs, as it gives more options during operations (like "Yes to rename all new files") and it never cancels halfway thru over something stupid like bad permissions or lack of disk space.

i do agree about the progress bars. deleting one file should not spawn a 2 second progress window.

XP sucks all system resources during the copy, so it may appear faster but it's bad from a multitasking perspective.

Vista/7 preserves the responsiveness of the whole system and also the copy process is fully transactional (Transactional-NTFS), resulting more reliable than XP's one.

Unfortunately your advice will fall on deaf ears - it is a lot easier to complain that diagnose problems or accept that things are done differently on Windows Vista and 7.

Someone noted instability - there are reasons for instability and 9/10 they have nothing to do with Microsoft.

1 gig copied in seconds. I don't know what you are comparing to, but if you are using a 5400RPM HDD and comparing it to a 7200RPM HDD then there is no comparison. Same goes for Laptops to desktops and old Hardware to new hardware.

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!