I have nothing else unfortunately, I would expect the Vista to be faster. Still almost half as slow as XP. I noticed substantially slower copying to and from my Win server when I had vista on my client vs XP. It sucked. My netowrk behaves as if there is a physical cap at 69Mbps. It gets right there and then flat line for the entier transfer. I'd imagine these are mostly driver issues, but perhaps not. I even tried a reboot after changing the setting. I noticed your file transfer in the link you posted ran at around I haven't fully tested where the cut-off is, but files smaller than installed ram seem to transfer 2x as fast as large files.
I'm having a simlar expereince with ALL copying in Vista. Copying from one partition to another takes a long time, more than XP.
Going from one drive to another same. Again in layman's English please? You want your hard drives to work in DMA mode. This allows these devices to transfer from disk to memory without the help of the cpu. There is more to it than this but google if you want that. That is not the issue - this is a one week old laptop with factory-insalled Vista.
In any case I checked those setting and DMA is enabled, as you would expect. SO that's not it. The "Vista experience tool" says the hard drive performance has a score of 4. I no longer have that pre-RC1 build around, but I have a dual-boot with a Vista Business that I'd be happy to run the tests against with a file that does not fit inside RAM.
There is a hotfix from MS if you ask nicely. Yeah, I saw that hotfix but I didn't think it applied. I'm having this problem too. Over a megabit link, Vista reports 1. How are you doing name resolution? What are the security settings both file and share? Have you looked into your TCP settings? Are you encrypting transfers? Have you tried a different transfer protocol?
I have the exact same results on my setup. Win2k3 file server. I backed up our old laptop. Music files, docs and such. Joined a new core2 duo laptop Vista Home Premium. Re-copied the files back and got the same result. Slow as shit 1. Doesn't matter if it's one large file or a whole bunch of small ones the result is the same. In fact my progress bar will sit for up to 30 seconds with no movement. Then suddenly jump a few percentages.
I ended up canceling and using my USB key instead. Independently they are running fine so it's not likely HDD issues or the like. Certainly would like to figure this one out. I've experienced the same thing on my vista box when copying from a win 2k server.
I get really really really slow transfer times if I try to over-write an exisiting folder i. With their version 18 release, Condusiv Diskeeper finally solves one of the product's only historical annoyances--reboot dependency. The user Not too long ago, systems administrators had no way to optimize their servers' SSDs. In this review, you'll learn Storage Replica is a new feature in Windows Server that allows us to do storage-agnostic block-level replication of We started with VSAN 3 nodes, then We are coming to the end of our article series on Azure Storage Services.
In this section, we are And now, face it, Vista is slower, and will ever be. Two years from now, it will be bearable, but now? No thanks. Indeed, while technically you may be right to say that it is not fair to compare a one year old OS with a more than 5 years old one, what people are interested in is sheer performance.
I'm consider myself happy when I go on people's PCs and see that they have 1GB of ram and the point is that they simply won't upgrade their PCs just to run Vista Also, the problem is that the added features simply do not explain the added overhead in performance which is sometimes massive The number and purpose of the new features simply do not justify the added overhead While I can be OK with boot time, why do we see so much difference in files copy performance?
The problem is that customers are not going to buy the "It is OK for it to be slower, because it is brand new and have added features" excuse. Granted, the same was true with 98 and XP many users, especially home users, didn't get through the Win phase , but it was a whole different kernel and the gap in requirements wasn't as massive as from XP to Vista.
While you are right that better hardware is required for better I would prefer to say "newer" software to run, it is something that software use and abuse with the hope of this to cover their occassional sloppy programming.
I think it is clear that today, the focus is not on performance but on features and looks, and who cares how bloated it is becoming : it is why people have the feeling they need to renew their PC to do barely the same thing as before.
If programmers had performance more in mind when writing programs, our PCs would run much faster today than they did in the last years. Unfortunately, I am not feeling that my PC that I renew almost every year has been much faster than a few years ago in day-to-day tasks and I can't help but be sad when I realize that the added performance from the new hardware i have been buying has been sucked away from me to make up for software bloat and occasionnal sloppy programming I'm not only speaking of Vista here but almost any software vendor today.
My view of Vista is that it has wanted to do too much at once : new user-interface very confusing and breaking years of user-experience and habits, ending up in huge training costs and productivity loss , new security features while they are certainly good, some seem overkill over the loss of compatibility and it is why most admins think that XP is "secure enough" and insane hardware requirements compared to what most people or companies are equipped with. Not saying that things shouldn't move, but Microsoft tried to do too much at once, resulting in a lot of rejection from its user worst point for me over all I said is user-interface : it is why I am not planning to deploy it yet in my organization.
I hope Microsoft can get back to its sense with Windows I am not as tech savvy as i would like to think but i will give it a shot. Especially when the numbers show Vista faster at single, less memory draining procedures. Mike -edit if not : - is right on the money when he says the test should be conducted on pc's with the hardware available at the time of Introduction. The test is obviously skewed in favor of XP.
I will shortly be drooling all over Vista when i go x64 with 8gb or maybe try for 16gb. Remember, XP needed a mb machine to run relatively good, in a time when mb was the default Come on ppl, move on. In organizations having little to do with IT as their business let's say a clothes factory , executives sees IT costs as a something they have to pay for employees to work, but they may not want to invest more for little benefits.
IT Managers have to have a great deal of good reasons to tell the executives they want to order new PCs in the organization in most of the case, the rest of the PC like the CPU or Hard drive is too old as well to run Vista decently, so a simple memory upgrade won't do. Now, it is quite unfair to compare 98 with XP since they were different kernels types, but as I said, it is true that reactions were more or less same.
However, with XP, you got huge improvements over 9x : stability is several orders of magnitudes better, you could join it to domains, etc Vista has some extra-features most of these can be obtained through third party program running on XP anyway , but not enough to justify the upgrades for most people.
You rarely work on the server directly, unless it is a terminal server, so the user interface doesn't bothers as much as on a workstation OS. It is also easier to justify hardware upgrades on some servers than for lots of clients. Same with Security : you obviously need even more security on the server than on the clients, so having to solve some either software or hardware incompatibilites is worth the security gain here. As soon as companies will renew their computer fleets, they will either keep the preinstalled Vista or deploy their own once most of the fleet will meet hardware requirements with dignity, but before, it seems hard to justify.
From what I've read disabling the background search process will improve performance quite a bit. Victor, thanks. I was thinking that I was bashing MS too hard recently. It seems that is not the case then. You know what? Windows 7 will be even slower. I absolutely count on that. JC, I think 4GB is not really high-end anymore. Memory has become quite cheap lately. I still have my old XP machine at home. When I bought it, it was absolutely high-end and I think it was only 2 years old when XP came out.
This machine is definitely slower than my Vista laptop now which I bought short before Vista came out. Andy, I think we still have to wait if Server will get the same critics as Vista. C'mon Micheal. Just re-visit what you have said here. Microsoft are asking soon it will be forcing when the drop XP supprt me to upgrade my organisations OS to Vista. In the process I will need to spends thousands buying new kit, re-training staff, and updating applications. And you are defending them?!
Think if they were selling a product in any other market - cars, TVs, holidays IT needs to join the rest of the sane business world and drop the notion that money doesn't matter. Your comments re 4GB of RAM clearly illustrate that you speak for yourself only and not for any business or organisation of more than 1. For my company, XP does everything I need it to - and seems to do it relatively well. Please give me a real business reason why I should upgrade. What will I get for my money?
As we say - What is the ROI? Ian, Vista runs fine on a 2GB machine. It is just that when we buy new PCs they now always have 4GB. Memory is quite cheap now. If you are sure that XP does everything you need, you certainly should not move to Vista.
Yeah, I have seen this mentioned in a couple of other blogs as well. I might try it in the future when I need to copy extensive amount of data. This program hangs and crashes constantly when used with large numbers of files.
Also drops files from queues or falsely reports files copied when they have not been copied. Has crashed mid operation and wiped out entire directories at least twice.
Things are improving, but Teracopy still needs a LOT of work before it can be trusted to handle important data. The interface is very basic and not a lot in the way of instructions or help file contents. Your email address will not be published. Copy files faster and easily in windows vista or XP with Teracopy TeraCopy is a freeware utility for home users, to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed in windows vista or XP.
Related Posts Teracopy — Free, fast file copy software. Excel viewer to open, print and copy data in xls files.
0コメント