Why does Vista File transfer take about 15-20 sec's to transfer a 2-3MB file?

DumNDuMMerDumNDuMMer New
edited October 2011 in Science & Tech
Why do Vista File transfer take about 15-20 sec's to transfer a 2-3MB file, which should only take about 1 sec (like in XP) ? I've researched everywhere, followed a couple of instructions here and there but nothing, file transfers that are quick and simple in XP are really slow in Vista.
Is there anything that I can do? I already tried typing some commands but that didn't work, anything else? Suggestions? help?
:confused:
It's frustrating, so any help would GREATLY be appreciated.
I feel like a middle school p.e. teacher yelling at the chubby kid in the back of the line to hurry up :mean:
but then I just sigh, and start to loose hope because I come to a conclusion that he will always be chubby, he won't actually hurry up at all, and he'll just slow down more and more.

Comments

  • AlexDeGruvenAlexDeGruven Wut? Meechigan Icrontian
    edited October 2011
    It's one of the primary complaints about Vista. There really isn't any help for it, nor is there likely to be any help for it, since Vista's a full rev back.

    The same problem is not present in 7 so far as I've seen.
  • DumNDuMMerDumNDuMMer New
    edited October 2011
    Bill: Hey XP, how's it going?
    XP: Great, I'm up to par on just about everything
    Bill: Well that's great, you've done an awesome job over the years and I want to thank you for all the wonderful years of service you've given me and the world
    XP: Gee, Thanks!
    Bill: And in appreciation to your years of service, I'm going to cut you some slack by introducing you to you little brother Vista, who will be helping you in every way possible.
    XP: No worries dad, I can always handle everything. You know good help is always hard to find.
    XP: But hey, doesn't he look a little chubby? I don't think he's going to be able to keep up with me in that shape.
    Bill: That's non-sense, it's just baby fat and it will go away eventually. You just wait and see. You will be so proud of your little brother Vista.

    A year later...

    XP: Hey dad, Vista doesn't seem to be loosing any of that baby fat.
    Bill: *Sigh*. That's because your little brother Vista was born big boned.
    XP: So he's fat?
    Bill: No, just big boned, we still love him.
    XP: *Giggles*
    Bill: Well anyhow, to cut you some slack this time for sure, I'm introducing you to your new little brother
    7
    XP: Isn't that what George Costanza wanted to name his kid?
    Bill: *awkward silence*...
    Bill: Never mind the name, wait until you see what he can do...

    to be continued...
  • AlexDeGruvenAlexDeGruven Wut? Meechigan Icrontian
    edited October 2011
    Cute, but not entirely accurate. Vista was out almost a full 3 years before the launch of 7 (which many will argue is an updated relaunch of Vista, I won't argue too strongly against that, even if it's not 100% accurate).
  • grey_areagrey_area Switzerland Member
    I thought the issue was that Vista had a whole new system for determining remaining time to transfer files that checked the potential transfer speeds of all files based on size and throughput (or something like that). The idea being that people were complaining about the Microsoft Minute remaining time to copy which changed constantly depending on phases of the moon, time of day, karma, and what you ate for dinner three nights ago. And then they didn't build in any smarts to say if the file is less than a certain size don't bother with the calc, just transfer the stupid thing. This means that no matter what size the file is, it will always try to determine the transfer time by holding up the copying process and doing sums for a while. There is a cure, but it's called Windows 7.
  • DumNDuMMerDumNDuMMer New
    edited August 2012
    There is a cure, but it's called Windows 7.
    I'm sorry but it's not a cure. It's been a while since I posted this, I upgraded to Windows 7 Ultimate but the file transfer is slower than in Vista. Windows 7 seems to try and figure out the size of each file individually and the time each individual file transfer will take, versus Vista just trying to figure out the group size of files being copied or moved, thus making Windows 7 file transfers slower than Vista, and even slower than XP. The computer I'm using is a Gateway GT5692 triple core, 4gb of ram so I don't think it's the PC.

    Maybe Windows 8?
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying that your experience contradicts pretty much everyone else's. Maybe you have slow hard drives, maybe you performed an upgrade install... Either way, it's very evident that something about your configuration is not correct, and it's not Windows.
  • mertesnmertesn I am Bobby Miller Yukon, OK Icrontian
    What are the source and destination for the files you're copying? For example, are you copying files from one location on your internal hard drive to another location on the same drive? Are you copying them to or from a USB hard drive?

    I'm in agreement with Thrax that it's likely not Windows. I have several hard drives in numerous systems and while file copies take significantly longer on a hard drive than an SSD, I haven't experienced the slow copies you're describing unless there was a more serious problem with the system.
  • ardichokeardichoke Icrontian
    There's a reason that Windows 7 is the cure for slow copy times... in Windows Vista, the copy time dialog reporting was changed to report the actual time it took to write the file to the disk (not just commit the data to cache) thus the reason it "took longer". So many people complained that they changed it back to reporting the copy as complete once the file is in the disk cache (as opposed to actually being written to the disk).

    Ergo, if you're getting slower copy times in Windows 7 than Vista, there's some other factor besides the OS coming in to play.
Sign In or Register to comment.