Speed of managing files Windows 7 vs Vista vs XP

[Borimol]

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?

[Salty Wagyu]

Yep, does feel slower in 7 for compared to XP. Deleted 5 small files for example and it wanted to show a progress bar of moving it to the bin. On XP it was instant.

[franzon]

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 November 6, 2009 by franzon

[Nikv]

I guess it also depends on your system specs.

Although I must agree, the overall GUI of vista + 7 compared to xp does seem a tad slower. Doesnt bother me though

[leesmithg]

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.

[MagicAndre1981]

Win7 handles copy the same like Vista Sp1 (you can use Process Monitor to look at it)

[Dance.]

About the same.. although I still think W7 is a bit better than Vista.

[libertas83]

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.

[neudera]

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)

[splur]

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.

[BetaAddict]

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.

[Gary2MBz]

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.

[franzon]

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

[mrp04]

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.

[null_]

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.

[Fraud OS 11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_featu...n_Windows_Vista

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_featu...ed_in_Windows_7

File management is the most painful act in these OSes which force me back to XP.

[aussiefloyd_fan]

computer

transferring 50GB of data.... a few 8GB files and a lot of small files....

xp

63 megabytes a second

7

80 megabytes a second the same set of files same computer...

[Udedenkz]

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.

[Madoshi]

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.

[aussiefloyd_fan]

, no i did not buy it)

so you stole it??

[rawr_boy81]

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.

[danisflying527]

Erm. I doubt the original windows XP was faster than win 7

Relax and let some service packs come out for win 7 and then we can

see what is really faster

[Leo Natan]

Same.

[jonhapimp]

copying on the same computer on 7 is slow as hell over 3gb takes an hour

[jesseinsf]

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.