|
|
Earlier today I transfered c 150 files, 1.5gb from Vista to a usb2
drive and it took an hour
When I then transfered those same files from the usb stick to xp it
took 2 mins
Why is Vista so incredibly slow at file transfers?
using 2gb mem and 2 ghz on vista business laptop
and 1 gb mem 1 ghz on xp
|
|
weewillie;922928 Wrote:
> Earlier today I transfered c 150 files, 1.5gb from Vista to a usb2
> drive and it took an hour
> When I then transfered those same files from the usb stick to xp it
> took 2 mins
> Why is Vista so incredibly slow at file transfers?
>
> using 2gb mem and 2 ghz on vista business laptop
> and 1 gb mem 1 ghz on xp
weewillie, when you find out, let me know. SP2 was supposed to fix
this, but I haven't noticed a huge improvement since installing the
beta. I do know it is because Vista handles files differently than XP,
but what is different, I don't know
Norm
--
NormCameron
|
|
weewillie[ at ]anon.com wrote in news:i5igl4ld6lb1prj4goh4a1833kqj5h05dm[ at ]
4ax.com:
[Quoted Text] > Earlier today I transfered c 150 files, 1.5gb from Vista to a usb2
> drive and it took an hour
> When I then transfered those same files from the usb stick to xp it
> took 2 mins
> Why is Vista so incredibly slow at file transfers?
>
> using 2gb mem and 2 ghz on vista business laptop
> and 1 gb mem 1 ghz on xp
>
Some have solved the slow network problem by disabling the on-board NIC and
replacing it with an inexpensive Vista-compatible PCI NIC....for a desktop.
|
|
"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t[ at ]r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in message
news:Xns9B835121A2F10thisnthatroadrunnern[ at ]85.214.105.209...
[Quoted Text] > weewillie[ at ]anon.com wrote in news:i5igl4ld6lb1prj4goh4a1833kqj5h05dm[ at ]
> 4ax.com:
>
>> Earlier today I transfered c 150 files, 1.5gb from Vista to a usb2
>> drive and it took an hour
>> When I then transfered those same files from the usb stick to xp it
>> took 2 mins
>> Why is Vista so incredibly slow at file transfers?
>>
>> using 2gb mem and 2 ghz on vista business laptop
>> and 1 gb mem 1 ghz on xp
>>
>
> Some have solved the slow network problem by disabling the on-board NIC
> and
> replacing it with an inexpensive Vista-compatible PCI NIC....for a
> desktop.
that assumes the problem is with a piece of hardware.
it isn't, the problem is Vista...
|
|
"john" <john[ at ]msn.com> wrote in news:eluplnbaJHA.5488
[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:
[Quoted Text] > "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t[ at ]r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B835121A2F10thisnthatroadrunnern[ at ]85.214.105.209...
>> weewillie[ at ]anon.com wrote in news:i5igl4ld6lb1prj4goh4a1833kqj5h05dm[ at ]
>> 4ax.com:
>>
>>> Earlier today I transfered c 150 files, 1.5gb from Vista to a usb2
>>> drive and it took an hour
>>> When I then transfered those same files from the usb stick to xp it
>>> took 2 mins
>>> Why is Vista so incredibly slow at file transfers?
>>>
>>> using 2gb mem and 2 ghz on vista business laptop
>>> and 1 gb mem 1 ghz on xp
>>>
>>
>> Some have solved the slow network problem by disabling the on-board
NIC
>> and
>> replacing it with an inexpensive Vista-compatible PCI NIC....for a
>> desktop.
>
> that assumes the problem is with a piece of hardware.
No, it doesn't.
> it isn't, the problem is Vista...
Yes, an interaction between Vista and a piece of hardware. Dumping the
on-board NIC results in a totally different NIC, connected in a different
fashion, and with different drivers.
|
|
"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t[ at ]r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in message
news:Xns9B835A72723F4thisnthatroadrunnern[ at ]85.214.105.209...
[Quoted Text] > "john" <john[ at ]msn.com> wrote in news:eluplnbaJHA.5488
> [ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:
>
>> "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t[ at ]r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9B835121A2F10thisnthatroadrunnern[ at ]85.214.105.209...
>>> weewillie[ at ]anon.com wrote in news:i5igl4ld6lb1prj4goh4a1833kqj5h05dm[ at ]
>>> 4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> Earlier today I transfered c 150 files, 1.5gb from Vista to a usb2
>>>> drive and it took an hour
>>>> When I then transfered those same files from the usb stick to xp it
>>>> took 2 mins
>>>> Why is Vista so incredibly slow at file transfers?
>>>>
>>>> using 2gb mem and 2 ghz on vista business laptop
>>>> and 1 gb mem 1 ghz on xp
>>>>
>>>
>>> Some have solved the slow network problem by disabling the on-board
> NIC
>>> and
>>> replacing it with an inexpensive Vista-compatible PCI NIC....for a
>>> desktop.
>>
>> that assumes the problem is with a piece of hardware.
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
>> it isn't, the problem is Vista...
>
> Yes, an interaction between Vista and a piece of hardware. Dumping the
> on-board NIC results in a totally different NIC, connected in a different
> fashion, and with different drivers.
How is replacing a network card going to change the speed of file transfer
over a USB connection? It won't. The network card is not being used. This
isn't a network problem. It is a Vista problem.
|
|
<weewillie[ at ]anon.com> wrote in message
news:i5igl4ld6lb1prj4goh4a1833kqj5h05dm[ at ]4ax.com...
[Quoted Text] > Earlier today I transfered c 150 files, 1.5gb from Vista to a usb2
> drive and it took an hour
> When I then transfered those same files from the usb stick to xp it
> took 2 mins
> Why is Vista so incredibly slow at file transfers?
>
> using 2gb mem and 2 ghz on vista business laptop
> and 1 gb mem 1 ghz on xp
>
Probably because you are *writing* to the USB in Vista, then just *reading*
from it in XP. Flash RAM is slower at writing than reading. Try it the
other direction and see what happens.
|
|
"Bob Campbell" <bob[ at ]bob.bob> wrote in message
news:dOSdnUp25Zk0lMTUnZ2dnUVZ_qPinZ2d[ at ]supernews.com...
[Quoted Text] >
> Probably because you are *writing* to the USB in Vista, then just
> *reading* from it in XP. Flash RAM is slower at writing than reading.
> Try it the other direction and see what happens.
>
That's not the reason, it is Vista. This is one of the things covered in the
book Vista Annoyances , but I don't feel like digging the book out to see
how they explained it. You see it when you use any kind of removable media
to move stuff. Even with my MP3 players my XP machines are WAY faster than
this Vista one. It's just one of the things I have learned to live with till
the next OS comes out.
--
"Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites.
Moderation is for monks."
[Lazarus Long]
|
|
"+Bob+" <nomailplease[ at ]example.com> wrote in message
news:7rbil4lvn6p23tkfqr15nakvqm6ivere2m[ at ]4ax.com...
[Quoted Text] > On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:39:26 -0800, "Alex Clayton" > <alexx1400[ at ]yahoo.com> wrote: > >>That's not the reason, it is Vista. This is one of the things covered in >>the >>book Vista Annoyances , but I don't feel like digging the book out to see >>how they explained it. You see it when you use any kind of removable media >>to move stuff. Even with my MP3 players my XP machines are WAY faster than >>this Vista one. It's just one of the things I have learned to live with >>till >>the next OS comes out. > > No, no, no, it CAN'T be Vista! Vista has no problems! Just ask the fan > boys around here.
You don't seem to understand, Vista moves the files more thoroughly....which
takes longer! :)
|
|
"+Bob+" <nomailplease[ at ]example.com> wrote in message
news:7rbil4lvn6p23tkfqr15nakvqm6ivere2m[ at ]4ax.com...
[Quoted Text] > On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:39:26 -0800, "Alex Clayton" > <alexx1400[ at ]yahoo.com> wrote: > >>That's not the reason, it is Vista. This is one of the things covered in >>the >>book Vista Annoyances , but I don't feel like digging the book out to see >>how they explained it. You see it when you use any kind of removable media >>to move stuff. Even with my MP3 players my XP machines are WAY faster than >>this Vista one. It's just one of the things I have learned to live with >>till >>the next OS comes out. > > No, no, no, it CAN'T be Vista! Vista has no problems! Just ask the fan > boys around here.
Keep taking those drugs. They are good for your system.
|
|
"Alex Clayton" <alexx1400[ at ]yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:AbGdnRdF_sPwusTUnZ2dnUVZ_sninZ2d[ at ]nventure.com...
[Quoted Text] > "Bob Campbell" <bob[ at ]bob.bob> wrote in message
> news:dOSdnUp25Zk0lMTUnZ2dnUVZ_qPinZ2d[ at ]supernews.com...
>>
>> Probably because you are *writing* to the USB in Vista, then just
>> *reading* from it in XP. Flash RAM is slower at writing than reading.
>> Try it the other direction and see what happens.
>>
> That's not the reason, it is Vista. This is one of the things covered in
> the book Vista Annoyances , but I don't feel like digging the book out to
> see how they explained it. You see it when you use any kind of removable
> media to move stuff. Even with my MP3 players my XP machines are WAY
> faster than this Vista one. It's just one of the things I have learned to
> live with till the next OS comes out.
No, it is not a "Vista issue". It is your USB drive. I just copied 425
megs (77 files) to my USB flash drive. Took 2 minutes and 10 seconds to
write to the drive. Copying back from the USB took less than 30 seconds.
If this was a Vista problem then everyone would be seeing it.
|
|
"Fritz" <k2orion2[ at ]anon.net> wrote in
news:OvAI1lcaJHA.4068[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:
[Quoted Text] > "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t[ at ]r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B835A72723F4thisnthatroadrunnern[ at ]85.214.105.209...
>> "john" <john[ at ]msn.com> wrote in news:eluplnbaJHA.5488
>> [ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:
>>
>>> "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t[ at ]r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in
>>> message news:Xns9B835121A2F10thisnthatroadrunnern[ at ]85.214.105.209...
>>>> weewillie[ at ]anon.com wrote in
>>>> news:i5igl4ld6lb1prj4goh4a1833kqj5h05dm[ at ] 4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Earlier today I transfered c 150 files, 1.5gb from Vista to a usb2
>>>>> drive and it took an hour
>>>>> When I then transfered those same files from the usb stick to xp
>>>>> it took 2 mins
>>>>> Why is Vista so incredibly slow at file transfers?
>>>>>
>>>>> using 2gb mem and 2 ghz on vista business laptop
>>>>> and 1 gb mem 1 ghz on xp
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some have solved the slow network problem by disabling the on-board
>> NIC
>>>> and
>>>> replacing it with an inexpensive Vista-compatible PCI NIC....for a
>>>> desktop.
>>>
>>> that assumes the problem is with a piece of hardware.
>>
>> No, it doesn't.
>>
>>> it isn't, the problem is Vista...
>>
>> Yes, an interaction between Vista and a piece of hardware. Dumping
>> the on-board NIC results in a totally different NIC, connected in a
>> different fashion, and with different drivers.
>
> How is replacing a network card going to change the speed of file
> transfer over a USB connection? It won't. The network card is not
> being used. This isn't a network problem. It is a Vista problem.
DOH! I totally glanced over the USB thing.
(The above still applies to slow network transfers though.)
|
|
"Bob Campbell" <bob[ at ]bob.bob> wrote in message
news:T5KdnZrPoNgJ-MTUnZ2dnUVZ_tfinZ2d[ at ]supernews.com...
[Quoted Text] > No, it is not a "Vista issue". It is your USB drive. I just copied 425
> megs (77 files) to my USB flash drive. Took 2 minutes and 10 seconds to
> write to the drive. Copying back from the USB took less than 30
> seconds.
>
> If this was a Vista problem then everyone would be seeing it.
For comparison, I just copied the same files to/from the drive using XP.
Copying to the drive took about 1 minute 20 seconds, copying from took less
than 20 seconds.
So XP is clearly faster, but not "30 times faster"! If I spent all of my
time copying files back and forth, I might care about this. But Vista has
so many other advantages over XP that this is way down on the list of things
to whine about.
I then rebooted the XP machine into Server 2008, which is what it normally
runs. Same files took less than 15 seconds to copy from, about 40 seconds
to copy to.
Drive is a Kingston DataTraveler 4GB.
Should I start a topic titled "why is XP 30 times slower than Server 2008 in
File Transferring"?
|
|
weewillie[ at ]anon.com wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Earlier today I transfered c 150 files, 1.5gb from Vista to a usb2
> drive and it took an hour
> When I then transfered those same files from the usb stick to xp it
> took 2 mins
> Why is Vista so incredibly slow at file transfers?
>
> using 2gb mem and 2 ghz on vista business laptop
> and 1 gb mem 1 ghz on xp
>
I just copied 1.88gbs folder 133 files in the folder from the HD on my
laptop to a USB HD, and it took all of about 1.5 minutes, maybe less
with Vista Ultimate.
Then I took the same folder and copied it to my USB 4gb stick, and it
took about the same amount of time to copy when I copied the folder to
my USB HD.
2gb ram and 1.73 ghz
|
|
Homer Schwartz wrote:
[Quoted Text] > "+Bob+" <nomailplease[ at ]example.com> wrote in message > news:7rbil4lvn6p23tkfqr15nakvqm6ivere2m[ at ]4ax.com... >> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:39:26 -0800, "Alex Clayton" >> <alexx1400[ at ]yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> That's not the reason, it is Vista. This is one of the things covered in >>> the >>> book Vista Annoyances , but I don't feel like digging the book out to see >>> how they explained it. You see it when you use any kind of removable media >>> to move stuff. Even with my MP3 players my XP machines are WAY faster than >>> this Vista one. It's just one of the things I have learned to live with >>> till >>> the next OS comes out. >> No, no, no, it CAN'T be Vista! Vista has no problems! Just ask the fan >> boys around here. > > Keep taking those drugs. They are good for your system. > > >
LOL, he is high on something. You got that right.
|
|
Assuming everyone is telling the truth, it implies the OS is unstable and
inconsistent which is the worst case scenario for a software product because
no one really knows where are the problems may reside needless to say how to
solve it.
"Jack the Ripper" <Jack[ at ]Ripper.com> wrote in message
news:ugl6f9jaJHA.1532[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > weewillie[ at ]anon.com wrote:
>> Earlier today I transfered c 150 files, 1.5gb from Vista to a usb2
>> drive and it took an hour
>> When I then transfered those same files from the usb stick to xp it
>> took 2 mins
>> Why is Vista so incredibly slow at file transfers?
>>
>> using 2gb mem and 2 ghz on vista business laptop
>> and 1 gb mem 1 ghz on xp
>
> I just copied 1.88gbs folder 133 files in the folder from the HD on my
> laptop to a USB HD, and it took all of about 1.5 minutes, maybe less with
> Vista Ultimate.
>
> Then I took the same folder and copied it to my USB 4gb stick, and it took
> about the same amount of time to copy when I copied the folder to my USB
> HD.
>
> 2gb ram and 1.73 ghz
>
|
|
xfile wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Assuming everyone is telling the truth, it implies the OS is unstable and
> inconsistent which is the worst case scenario for a software product because
> no one really knows where are the problems may reside needless to say how to
> solve it.
>
>
> "Jack the Ripper" <Jack[ at ]Ripper.com> wrote in message
> news:ugl6f9jaJHA.1532[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> weewillie[ at ]anon.com wrote:
>>> Earlier today I transfered c 150 files, 1.5gb from Vista to a usb2
>>> drive and it took an hour
>>> When I then transfered those same files from the usb stick to xp it
>>> took 2 mins
>>> Why is Vista so incredibly slow at file transfers?
>>>
>>> using 2gb mem and 2 ghz on vista business laptop
>>> and 1 gb mem 1 ghz on xp
>> I just copied 1.88gbs folder 133 files in the folder from the HD on my
>> laptop to a USB HD, and it took all of about 1.5 minutes, maybe less with
>> Vista Ultimate.
>>
>> Then I took the same folder and copied it to my USB 4gb stick, and it took
>> about the same amount of time to copy when I copied the folder to my USB
>> HD.
>>
>> 2gb ram and 1.73 ghz
>>
>
>
I would have to disagree. The base code for the O/S should be the same
for all versions of the Vista NT based O/S. It was that way for NT 4.0,
and Win 2k workstation and server O/S(s). It was the same for XP Home
and Pro. That is the based code was the same.
I don't know what the guy's problem is about. But I think if I had Vista
Business on this notebook, I wouldn't have any problems with file copy.
Maybe, the guy has not applied any updates or the SP to Vista. Who
knows, as he really has not given any details.
|
|
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:05:43 -0500, Jack the Ripper <Jack[ at ]Ripper.com>
wrote:
[Quoted Text] >xfile wrote:
>> Assuming everyone is telling the truth, it implies the OS is unstable and
>> inconsistent which is the worst case scenario for a software product because
>> no one really knows where are the problems may reside needless to say how to
>> solve it.
>>
>>
>> "Jack the Ripper" <Jack[ at ]Ripper.com> wrote in message
>> news:ugl6f9jaJHA.1532[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> weewillie[ at ]anon.com wrote:
>>>> Earlier today I transfered c 150 files, 1.5gb from Vista to a usb2
>>>> drive and it took an hour
>>>> When I then transfered those same files from the usb stick to xp it
>>>> took 2 mins
>>>> Why is Vista so incredibly slow at file transfers?
>>>>
>>>> using 2gb mem and 2 ghz on vista business laptop
>>>> and 1 gb mem 1 ghz on xp
>>> I just copied 1.88gbs folder 133 files in the folder from the HD on my
>>> laptop to a USB HD, and it took all of about 1.5 minutes, maybe less with
>>> Vista Ultimate.
>>>
>>> Then I took the same folder and copied it to my USB 4gb stick, and it took
>>> about the same amount of time to copy when I copied the folder to my USB
>>> HD.
>>>
>>> 2gb ram and 1.73 ghz
>>>
>>
>>
>
>I would have to disagree. The base code for the O/S should be the same
>for all versions of the Vista NT based O/S. It was that way for NT 4.0,
> and Win 2k workstation and server O/S(s). It was the same for XP Home
>and Pro. That is the based code was the same.
>
>I don't know what the guy's problem is about. But I think if I had Vista
>Business on this notebook, I wouldn't have any problems with file copy.
>Maybe, the guy has not applied any updates or the SP to Vista. Who
>knows, as he really has not given any details.
I said in my original post, I'm using vista business sp1, with 2gb
memory and 2 ghz processor
What I didn't originally say but now add, the recipient xp m/c had a
3.6ghz processor with 1 gb of memory
The files being transferred were in 10 seperate directories
|
|
|