Speed of managing files Windows 7 vs Vista vs XP

By Borimol
in Microsoft (Windows)

 Share

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

Grand Master

jonhapimp

Posted
Posted
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.

there's a difference between 1 gig and 3 gbs

Grand Master

mrp04

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

How many files are you copying? I am having a hard time believing that Windows 7 will take over an hour to copy 3GB of data unless it is not functioning correctly.

I just copied 2.25GB in 1023 files in under 2 minutes. Have you actually used 7? Did you put it on the same hardware as your comparing it to?

Grand Master

jonhapimp

Posted
Posted (edited)
How many files are you copying? I am having a hard time believing that Windows 7 will take over an hour to copy 3GB of data unless it is not functioning correctly.

I just copied 2.25GB in 1023 files in under 2 minutes. Have you actually used 7? Did you put it on the same hardware as your comparing it to?

why would i lie, i had it since beta(went from beta to rc to rtm), it's perfect when i move stuff or copy smaller files

i can't recreate it because i forgot what i was copying, but i'm not the only one having this problem if you look around on these forums

Edited by jonhapimp
Mentor

jesseinsf

Posted
Posted
there's a difference between 1 gig and 3 gbs

I just downloaded an HD movie and it took 10 seconds to make a copy and paste to another location. FYI the HD movie was 5 GB. I also copied to another HDD and it took similar time to transfer.

Maybe he is copying it to somewhere over the internet.

Grand Master

zhangm Supervisor

Posted
  • Supervisor
Posted

Copy times are fairly similar here. What I do notice is that while in XP, if you copy a file, that is the only thing you can do while the copying is in progress. Everything else becomes unresponsive.

With Vista and 7, the OS performs almost as if there is no background copying process. Everything continues to function smoothly.

Mentor

jesseinsf

Posted
Posted
why would i lie, i had it since beta(went from beta to rc to rtm), it's perfect when i move stuff or copy smaller files

i can't recreate it because i forgot what i was copying, but i'm not the only one having this problem if you look around on these forums

Did you wipe the HDD clean and did you perform a Low-Level-Format? Installing it on an extremely clean HDD will insure you have a perfect installation.

Grand Master

jonhapimp

Posted
Posted
Did you wipe the HDD clean and did you perform a Low-Level-Format? Installing it on an extremely clean HDD will insure you have a perfect installation.

yep, it was a clean/new system when i installed the rtm.

it's not that i had 7 since august, i'm not sure but i think it has to do with how many files a folder has,

since august i was only able to replicate this about 5 times, and when it happens it ****es me off

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Posts

    • Secure Boot

      By +Edouard · Posted

      I've been using MWB Premium for a number of years so that along with Windows updates and updated browser should be fine. Thanks for that.
    • 4TB TEAMGROUP MP44Q, 2TB T-Force G50, and 2TB WD My Passport SSDs drop to great prices

      By neufuse · Posted

      neither of those are great prices
    • Windows 11 is getting redesigned taskbar settings in new build

      By nekrosoft13 · Posted

      is that under beta?
    • You've tried DuckDuckGo and Brave Search, now get serious with SearXNG

      By Skyfrog · Posted

      For some reason I suddenly have the urge to go shopping at Sears.
    • You've tried DuckDuckGo and Brave Search, now get serious with SearXNG

      By Nas · Posted

      So I did a quick test based on 3+ different public instances from the litany at searx.space ... and it spins everything rather differently. It seems that SearXNG is a meta-search engine (queries multiple search indexes rather than only Google's or Bing's or Wikipedia's or Reddit's) that operates in two modes: > public instances ... each instance opens itself to outside users who piggyback on its cached search history; this instance's own identity becomes known/tracked but end-users are hidden similar to an anonymization proxy; this instance's querying of major search indexes may be API based [rated limited, blocked, etc.]). > private instances ... your private install/instance that itself queries multiple (configurable) search indexes of crawled web content; every major Search Engine associates all traffic to your private instance (so your traffic is tracked via network usages) but client-side tracking (your own browser/computer specs) is flushed because it's a "server" doing the querying rather than your browser. My test asked the same 1 question to the 3+ engines and they all returned vastly different results: some had CAPTCHA failures against Google, some had failures against Wikipedia, and the actual results were also different -- some had auto-complete enabled, others returned a wikipedia highlighted excerpt despite the Wikipedia failure (hinting at results being cached from previous keyword matching), and others just gave an Are-You-Human non-CAPTCHA loop before returning random results. So this begs the caveat: Search query results will vary based on which instance is used because every instance queries the other search indexes separate (and thus its results are influenced on that instance's aggregate search history and index-access limitations). The major distinctions for SearXNG versus DDG or Brave: > The search UI is 'untracked' since no UI trackers are baked-in which would phone home or lay cookies into your browser (for DDG/Brave usage stats), > There is no 'crawler' that canvasses the Internet to discover fresh content (it leaves that to the major search indexes), > Queries multiple search indexes ("meta-search engine") based on the configurations and usage history of the server instance, > Privacy-friendly due to its ability to shield user tracking via standing up a non-local server instance connectable to major VPN providers: queries would all appear to come from general VPN/Proxy providers rather than your private instance (whether installed locally or on your own VPS in the cloud). PS: I've previously come across specialized search engines of this nature that indexes searches across media assets like YT, OF, etc. SearXNG seems to be a good backbone...if the rate-limiting/captcha/etc. issues were resolved.

  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Woland13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done

  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      490
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      225
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      147
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      74
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      71
    Show More

  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!