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

    • 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.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
    • Compared to the 7735HS it is around 25-30% slower in multi-threaded tasks (according to Google search) I did a review of the 7735HS Beelink SER6 Max in 2023, but thinking about it, it's not comparable to the 7730U. For the example you gave about how it will be used, the 7730U is actually an excellent choice for its power and battery efficiency.
  • Recent Achievements

    • 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
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      194
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      71
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      67
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!