Fix for long, long, long deleting and copying of files?

[Hope]

Will there EVER be a fix for this in Vista??? There have been complaints
since the betas about this.
I spent 2 afternoons trying to delete Opera cache files which had been
backed up to a USB drive. They totaled over 1 GB and thousands and thousands
of individual files. I had to take 18 files at a time and delete them
otherwise the computer seized up (I let it run for 45 minutes one time and so
had to resort to this method to get the job done). Next time I'll use a
suggestion I found on the 'Net....use Dos to delete or copy large files.
Since the first time I booted up Vista, I have been annoyed at how long it
takes to COPY files or DELETE files. What is going on here? This is slower
than Windows 3.1 - how is this possible??
The scuttlebutt on the internet is that each individual file is being
checked for DRM; is this true?? If so, why is Microsoft POLICEMAN of the
world?? The people interested in DRMing their wares should police this
themselves, no? Am I wrong here?
I like Vista EXCEPT for this problem, the "not responding" message which
appears when the software really IS responding, the horrible search feature
(I use a free utility called "Cathy" so that I can just take a few SECONDS to
scan my hard drives, CD's, external drives when I want to and retrieve
ANYTHING far faster than the Vista search which makes you sit there for half
an hour waiting for a green bar to fill in.) and the irritating UAC which I
got rid of within a week.
Isn't it time Microsoft fixed this?

 

[philo]

Will there EVER be a fix for this in Vista??? There have been complaints
since the betas about this.
I spent 2 afternoons trying to delete Opera cache files which had been
backed up to a USB drive. They totaled over 1 GB and thousands and thousands
of individual files. I had to take 18 files at a time and delete them
otherwise the computer seized up (I let it run for 45 minutes one time and so
had to resort to this method to get the job done). Next time I'll use a
suggestion I found on the 'Net....use Dos to delete or copy large files.
Since the first time I booted up Vista, I have been annoyed at how long it
takes to COPY files or DELETE files. What is going on here? This is slower
than Windows 3.1 - how is this possible??
The scuttlebutt on the internet is that each individual file is being
checked for DRM; is this true?? If so, why is Microsoft POLICEMAN of the
world?? The people interested in DRMing their wares should police this
themselves, no? Am I wrong here?
I like Vista EXCEPT for this problem, the "not responding" message which
appears when the software really IS responding, the horrible search feature
(I use a free utility called "Cathy" so that I can just take a few SECONDS to
scan my hard drives, CD's, external drives when I want to and retrieve
ANYTHING far faster than the Vista search which makes you sit there for half
an hour waiting for a green bar to fill in.) and the irritating UAC which I
got rid of within a week.
Isn't it time Microsoft fixed this?

It would be totally illogical for the OS to have to check DRM for a file
being *deleted*...
but of course...what does logic have to do with anything.

I think SP1 has now come out of testing...
so the problem may now be solved.

OTOH: I've seen a few posts that SP1 breaks some drivers

 

[Paul Smith]

Will there EVER be a fix for this in Vista??? There have been complaints
since the betas about this.

Disk performance is noticeably improved in SP1.

The scuttlebutt on the internet is that each individual file is being
checked for DRM; is this true??

Checked for DRM? That doesn't even make sense.

If so, why is Microsoft POLICEMAN of the
world?? The people interested in DRMing their wares should police this
themselves, no? Am I wrong here?

Irrelevant as built on a false premise.

and the irritating UAC which I got rid of within a week.

I hope for you sake you didn't. That's the one feature people like me have
been demanding since the move to NT.

--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/
http://www.windowsresource.net/

*Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*

 

[Dave]

Will there EVER be a fix for this in Vista??? There have been complaints
since the betas about this.
I spent 2 afternoons trying to delete Opera cache files which had been
backed up to a USB drive. They totaled over 1 GB and thousands and
thousands
of individual files. I had to take 18 files at a time and delete them
otherwise the computer seized up (I let it run for 45 minutes one time and
so
had to resort to this method to get the job done). Next time I'll use a
suggestion I found on the 'Net....use Dos to delete or copy large files.
Since the first time I booted up Vista, I have been annoyed at how long
it
takes to COPY files or DELETE files. What is going on here? This is
slower
than Windows 3.1 - how is this possible??
The scuttlebutt on the internet is that each individual file is being
checked for DRM; is this true?? If so, why is Microsoft POLICEMAN of
the
world?? The people interested in DRMing their wares should police this
themselves, no? Am I wrong here?
I like Vista EXCEPT for this problem, the "not responding" message which
appears when the software really IS responding, the horrible search
feature
(I use a free utility called "Cathy" so that I can just take a few SECONDS
to
scan my hard drives, CD's, external drives when I want to and retrieve
ANYTHING far faster than the Vista search which makes you sit there for
half
an hour waiting for a green bar to fill in.) and the irritating UAC which
I
got rid of within a week.
Isn't it time Microsoft fixed this?

SP1 which is due out around Mid-March addresses this issue.

 

[Hope]

"Checked for DRM? That doesn't even make sense." from Paul Smith

Then what IS Vista doing when it takes unconscionable lengths of time to
copy or delete large groups of files?

 

[R. McCarty]

If you want a detailed technical explanation of how file copy
in Vista works, see the following: http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/

 

[Hope]

Paul, take a look at this article from your own countrymen before you say
disparagingly that what I say "doesn't even make sense":
wwwdottheregisterdotcodotuk/2007/05/15/vistas_long_goodbye_continues/

 

[Hope]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/15/vistas_long_goodbye_continues/
(sorry, thought I could not post urls)
Quote from article:
"Microsoft's inability to fix a defect in such a basic feature has led to
its share of conspiracy theories that would be quickly dismissed as kooky,
were it not for the company's steadfast refusal to provide any details about
what's causing the problem. The top contender: The inability to copy files
without stalling isn't a bug at all, but rather the result of a digital
rights management feature designed to protect Hollywood (even if the rest of
us have to cuss our way through four hours deleting a few gigs worth of
crap)."

 

[philo]

If you want a detailed technical explanation of how file copy
in Vista works, see the following: http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/

<snip>

LOL

According to that article...Vista uses an improved "copy" algorithm as
compared to XP...
it's just slower

LOL

 

[Mark L. Ferguson]

Agree. I have been looking for a way to make the copy 'half-duplex' but so
far I haven't found anything available. My reason for this is that often an
ethernet connection will show slowness just like that in Vista, and the fix
is to use half-duplex.

I tried getting MS to listen to that, but I think probably you have filed a
few suggestions yourself :/

--
Was this helpful? Then click the "Yes" button below. Voting helps the web
interface.
http://www.microsoft.com/wn3/locales/help/help_en-us.htm#RateAPost

Mark L. Ferguson

..

 

[Paul Smith]

According to that article...Vista uses an improved "copy" algorithm as
compared to XP...
it's just slower

Well actually copying files between machines on my local network here is
much faster than with Server 2003 or XP. Windows Vista uses around 99% of
network bandwidth, previously it would only ever manage to get up to about
70 or 80%.

I suspect if I had a gigabit switch it would be even faster.

--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/
http://www.windowsresource.net/

*Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*

 

[Paul Smith]

Paul, take a look at this article from your own countrymen before you say
disparagingly that what I say "doesn't even make sense":
wwwdottheregisterdotcodotuk/2007/05/15/vistas_long_goodbye_continues/

The Register? How about quoting a technical source. Honestly why would
Windows Vista do all this DRM stuff when deleting files?

You don't see the system falling to its knees when moving or deleting iTunes
songs do you, if you want to look at DRM take a look at that. The player
always is what implements DRM, to explorer a file is just a file.

Even then the DRM stigma around Windows Vista is almost entirely FUD
invented by some guy called Gutmman which I debunked over a year ago.

http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/2006/12/31/windows_vista_drm_nonsense
http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/2007/08/14/peter_gutmann_s_vista_drm_claims_again

--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/
http://www.windowsresource.net/

*Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*

 

[thetruthhurts]

Disk performance is noticeably improved in SP1.


Checked for DRM? That doesn't even make sense.


Irrelevant as built on a false premise.


I hope for you sake you didn't. That's the one feature people like me have
been demanding since the move to NT.

There is a lot about Vista that does not make sense.

 

[Hope]

Philo,
Isn't the first thing checked by the police on computers deleted files?
Especially if some notice has been given to the perp. It would not surprise
me if the greedy Hollywood DRM crowd had Microsoft put a feature in Vista to
make it easier to catch their "perps". So maybe this is not such a far
fetched idea after all. At any rate, I would not dismiss it out of hand
especially if Microsoft wanted to curry favor with the Hollywood people to
make lucrative deals for themselves as far as offering movies or music
through Media Player.

Let's hear an explanation from Microsoft about what the cause of this
problem is and then the rumors will go away.
OR they can make the problem go away through a fix...some say the upcoming
sp1 does NOT fix it.

 

[philo]

Philo,
Isn't the first thing checked by the police on computers deleted files?
Especially if some notice has been given to the perp. It would not surprise
me if the greedy Hollywood DRM crowd had Microsoft put a feature in Vista to
make it easier to catch their "perps". So maybe this is not such a far
fetched idea after all. At any rate, I would not dismiss it out of hand
especially if Microsoft wanted to curry favor with the Hollywood people to
make lucrative deals for themselves as far as offering movies or music
through Media Player.

Let's hear an explanation from Microsoft about what the cause of this
problem is and then the rumors will go away.
OR they can make the problem go away through a fix...some say the upcoming
sp1 does NOT fix it.

<snip>

One thing about Vista is that the folders keep former versions.
If you delete a file that is within a restore point (and not in the recycle
bin)
one can right click on the folder and restore the file..

That's good in one way...as a lot of people delete stuff by accident...
but from a security stand point that could be dangerous.


However much I am in favor of protecting privacy...
I cannot say I have any sypathy for protecting "perps"