Why is Vista 30 times slower than XP in File Transfering?

[weewillie]

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

 

[DanS]

(e-mail address removed) wrote in 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.

 

[john]

(e-mail address removed) wrote in 4ax.com:


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...

 

[DanS]

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.

 

[Fritz]

No, it doesn't.


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.

 

[+Bob+]

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.

 

[Charles Tomaras]

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!

 

[Homer Schwartz]

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.

 

[DanS]

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.)

 

[Jack the Ripper]

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

 

[Jack the Ripper]

Keep taking those drugs. They are good for your system.

LOL, he is high on something. You got that right.

 

[+Bob+]

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"!

So it's about a 2:1 factor. That's very significant. Vista has a
serious performance problem (shock).

If I spent all of my
time copying files back and forth, I might care about this.

So it's not a problem for you. It is for others, including the OP.

But Vista has
so many other advantages over XP that this is way down on the list of things
to whine about.

Care to highlight them? All I've found is disadvantages.

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.

Further highlighting Vista's problems.

Should I start a topic titled "why is XP 30 times slower than Server 2008 in
File Transferring"?

XP is older. Newer OS's should perform better, not worse. Therefore,
poetic license aside on the "30 times", the thread would be
non-useful.

Vista is, be definition in this thread, a regression in this area, and
a thread is appropriate.

 

[xfile]

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.

 

[measekite aka Spanky de Monkey]

So it's about a 2:1 factor. That's very significant. Vista has a
serious performance problem (shock).

You seem to have more problems than most with Vista. Maybe it's time for
you to use something that you can understand: Try DOS 6.22.

So it's not a problem for you. It is for others, including the OP.


Care to highlight them? All I've found is disadvantages.

You should get a book: "Vista for Retards". Read it and come back in 6
weeks.

Further highlighting Vista's problems.

Again, Vista is way over your head. Stick with what you know. Sticks and
rocks.

 

[weewillie]

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

 

[Black Baptist]

No, no, no, it CAN'T be Vista! Vista has no problems! Just ask the fan
boys around here.

Transfers are fine here.

 

[Poutnik]

Vista is slower than XP at copying/moving files but I wouldn't say 30x
slower, maybe just 10x slower. The new feature, low-priority I/O, is a
possible explanation. On the other hand, I read somewhere that there is
some kind of "interference" with network access, even if your file
operations are local. Some people noticed a decrease in media player
performance during network access. That might explain why changing the
NIC helped.

Vista, or your Vista ?
Copying / moving in my Vista is comparable with disk speed.

 

[theclyde]

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.

I am seeing it.

 

[Poutnik]

Good for you. I have two Vista Home Premium SP1 machines: one HP
Pavilion (laptop) w/ Intel Core 2 Duo @ 1.73 GHz & 2GB RAM, and one HP
Slimline (desktop) w/ AMD Athlon 64 x2 @ 2.7 GHZ & 4GB RAM. When I copy
files in the GB range using Windows Explorer it takes quite a while
before the copy/move operation even begins. Copy/Move operations are
clearly slower on these systems than on an XP SP2 machine that has a
Pentium IV @ 2.26 GHZ & 1 GB RAM. However, I have no intention to
downgrade to XP for that matter.

I remember Explorer copying was said to be slow even before Vista.
Did you try e.g. Total Commander and its fast copying mode ?

 

[Ron O'Brien]

Vista is slower than XP at copying/moving files but I wouldn't say 30x
slower, maybe just 10x slower. The new feature, low-priority I/O, is a
possible explanation. On the other hand, I read somewhere that there is
some kind of "interference" with network access, even if your file
operations are local. Some people noticed a decrease in media player
performance during network access. That might explain why changing the
NIC helped.

This is a known problem that was fixed with SP1 - well, fixed-ish, it's
still slow but oddities like this have always bugged Micro$oft products,
their newer o/s or software is not necessarily an improvement - it's just
'different' - call it a 'challenge' or a 'computer-geek puzzle'. Either way
no M$ product is ever designed for productivity, speed, efficiency or
reliability, it simply evolves!