I'm at a friend's right now and using his new HP, anything we try to copy, be it from DVD of external HD is going super-slow.

I brought over 1.5GB of images on a DVD and copying the contents all at once (611 files) said it was going to take some multiple hours.

Now we've connected a relatively fast external USB drive and I'm trying to copy about 100GB - the machine counts up the files and then says it's going to take 3 days to copy. The time eventually comes down a bit, but still will read about 25 hours.

SImilar operations on my much slower 1.7Ghz Pentium running XP takes maybe one hour. And only a few minutes for the DVD.

Any ideas?

What out-of-the-box crapware does he have installed?

Yeah: Virus scanning software slowing down file accesses?

Incorrect SATA device driver installed?

I once had a system where the hard disk was super slow because I had enabled ATA emulation mode for the SATA DVD-ROM drive (it was a setting in the BIOS), so that it could boot from the DVD. That really slowed down the disk.

The system is an HP notebook and as far as I know, there's no crapware running. I haven't looked to closely at this yet though.

I searched Google and a lot of other people complain about slow explorer copying.

It seems that sometimes grabbing less files will allow the copy to move faster. ie. 25MB/s instead of the 100KB to 4MB/s that I've been calling "slow." Usually it won't go faster than 1MB/s though.

Following on a tip I read somewhere else I'm trying the copying without using Explorer. Instead I'm using DIrectory Opus, a replacement file manager. COpies are now flying. I'm not sure the exact rate, but I can see multiple files ranging in size from 4 to 10MB copying within a second.

The frustration with VIsta is something those Laptop Hunters commercials don't address - for obvious reasons.

My preferred copying program is Teracopy, which gives you a report of what files are remaining, and tells you the transfer rate. Most of the time I've seen good speed improvements from it.


You're oversimplifying and generalizing.

Matt, I'm over-simplifying? A FREE Windows Vista PC is still a worse deal financially than any Mac.

This friend would have loved to get a Mac, but thought they were too expensive, so they spent $1200+ on this HP notebook. The machine, outside of the problems I've mentioned here (which are not solvable according to hundreds of posts on the net), is really a piece of crap. Sure, it's shiny and has polished chrome plastic things all over it and swirly decorations, but it's really poorly built. Has a small screen, but a numeric keypad! A tiny tiny tiny track pad that defaults to a speed so slow that you have to swipe your finger across it no less than three times to get the cursor from one side of the screen to the other.

I'm sorry, but the only way these vendors continue to sell machines is because most people don't know any better.

If that friend had called me first with their desire to pick up a machine, I would have made sure they got a Macbook.

If I knew for certain I wouldn't run into driver and other problems, I'd offer to wipe their machine and put XP on it. But I'm confident to a high degree (it's HP) that I'll have all kinds of driver issues going from the pre-installed "Vista Home Crap" to XP. I can't believe there hasn't been more legal action against MS due to Vista. It's utterly terrible and practically unusable. It's the most poorly designed UI and operating system I've ever used. And I'm including GeOS and the c64's command-line here.

The argument used to revolve around apples and oranges. Now, it's just about wanting a piece of fruit (of any kind) and getting a mouth full of sand instead.

Wait, that was a Vista PC? Did it by any chance happen to be brand new without the Service Pack 1 update? That's something they (well, we, since I helped test it) fixed in Service Pack 1.

And by fixed, you mean still slower then XP talking to the same devices on the same network. It was still pretty bad when talking to non MS SMB devices. No idea if any post SP1 patches have attempted to address it more, as Vista has been abandoned by nearly everyone I know. My old IT department just got in the habit of upgrading to XP any laptop that came in the door with Vista.

Bruno, I'm just saying that I haven't seen this problem on every single computer running Vista, and I'd be willing to bet that I see more of them in individual installations than you do.

That said, I haven't been happy with file transfer on any version of Windows, even though I've never personally had an installation perform as slowly as you're seeing. That's why I use Teracopy, which I highly recommend to everyone running Windows, just for the advanced things you can do with it. I'm very much considering paying for the full version, which will even let you add and remove files from a transfer queue.

Two more points:

- Windows 7 has slightly improved file transfer performance, both in speed and information. It will tell you the current speed and which file is transferring. But I still installed Teracopy.

- I make no defense for HP laptops. I've disliked all the models I've come across, and I refuse to believe that your friend doesn't have crapware on there. HP puts on twice the amount of crapware and company branded software that Dell does.

As far as I know, all updates were applied. That's another point my friend mentioned, that when they first connected the machine it had to download and install updates for ages. That's another unique Microsoft and partner problem. Vendors shipping crap OS installations that need updating when they're sold.

SP1, as far as the reports I've read when searching about this problem, also does not fix it.

We weren't touching the network and the problem is most definitely with Explorer as I mentioned DirOpus went fairly quickly.

We first noticed it when trying to transfer 611 images ranging in size from 1 to 3MB from a DVD I had just brought over. Then the more recent copy was from an external USB 1TB disk partition (a second partition of 500MB was also mounted from that drive).

These are systems HP is shipping like this. If I was able to find hundreds of matches on Google, you can reasonably expect it affects thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people. My friend said he would not likely have ever searched Google about the issue, let alone jump on a forum to post about it - like 90%+ of other purchasers.

I'd like to see some of these points in Microsoft's new commercials.

On top of the slow copy speed, the OS also felt crazy slow. Don't even get me started on the difficulty in finding the control panels and settings/properties. The system was a Core2Duo at 2.something GHz and CPU utilization as reported from Task Mgr was negligible in all cases.

IMO, Vista is a step backward from Windows 3.1. I can't imagine that in the short time they've been working on Windows 7 that it's going to be anything but suck part 2.

If I seem overly negative it's probably because this stuff is all coming to a head with me. I'm tired of supporting people using such unusable products. I'm going to start taking a harder line on this topic, but in as friendly a way as possible. I need to steer more friends into dumping Windows and to stop supporting companies, like HP, that put out such terrible hardware.

HP and others need to open their eyes and look at the auto industry. In many ways it's foreshadowing what may very well happen to them, at least in the consumer space.

As far as crapware goes, the only thing I found RUNNING was some HP control deck thing, which I quit, and Norton Anti-VIrus, which I also disabled. Reports found on the net were about all makes/models of machines, desktops, notebooks, etc. Again, file copying with DirOpus was orders of magnitude faster. I used it only as a work-around though. I wouldn't dream of telling a relative computer novice that they needed to use an alternate/replacement file manager instead of Explorer because the $1300 they just dropped on a machine wasn't enough to be able to copy files between disks.

If I was quite a bit better off financially, I'd cut friends a check for the difference in price between whatever machines they were looking at and a comparable or better Mac, just to get them to make the right decision. But, I don't suggest everyone get a Mac. There's a place for a generic PC in many people's lives, especially non-novices. I have multiple non-Apple machines myself.

Just two things:

1- you may have said you disabled Norton, but I'd be surprised if that did anything. I can't tell you how strongly I recommend uninstalling that utter piece of crap software and trying what you're doing again. Even if it doesn't help, it will give me piece of mind that one less personal computer is running Norton.

2-
I'm sorry, but you'd be wrong.

Give it a try. It's essentially free to download and use for a year, and with that new virtualization software from Sun (I think it's Sun), you could try out Windows 7 completely free on your Mac. Give it a try or you will have no leg to stand on when you start your inevitable campaign against it.

You're correct about that. But I'd again urge you to look into Teracopy. It won't hurt even the novice user (my mom doesn't even notice it). It simply replaces the default Explorer file copy mechanism.

I think Differential Compression could be the reason why it's so slow for you. Try turning it off and seem if it's any better for you.

* Configuration -> Programs (or something of the sort... I'm using a Dutch version)
* en/disabling windows parts
* look for "Remote Differential Compression" and remove the check
* reboot.

Lots of people have reported Vista being dog slow at copying. This tweak is said to fix it.

I think Remote Differential Compression is only for network file copies. The problem Bruno was complaining about was for local drive to drive file copies (I think?).

You're right, it is only *meant* for network file copies. But for some reason it doesn't restrict itself to only those, and has a very negative effect on local drive to drive copies. That's why it's better to disable it altogether.

Remote Differential Compression was disabled - I disabled it myself, one of the first things I did to try and solve the issue. It had no effect. I also verified yesterday afternoon that indeed it was running SP1 and updates were "up to date."

Finding RDC is what prompted me to ridicule the whole of MS's new control panel layout/methodology. It's hideous, even through navigating the basic settings.

I think the bottom line is being illustrated very well through MS's new commercials. If you're shopping for a Suzuki Swift or Yugo (HP machines), you shouldn't be looking at the BMW dealership (Apple Stores). They may both consume gasoline, but that's where the similarity ends.

I do have XP running under virtualization right now on my Mac (very infrequent use), so I can easily give Windows 7 a shot. Personally I just can't come up with any reason to though. My virtual XP already has IE8 running on it which is one of the things I need the quick copy of Windows for - web testing.

Sorry to read it didn't work. It was worth a shot though...

It is hideous, but the search box makes it almost usable. It wouldn't have found RDC for you, but it's good for the basics.

I'll agree with that. One of the very first things I find myself doing when setting up a new PC for myself or family is switching the control panel to classic view, so I can get to the places I need faster. Sadly, when you make a similar switch in 7, you end up with about three times as many icons. But it's not too difficult to find my way around it, frankly.

It's probably a tough design choice for them. When a novice goes into the control panel, MS doesn't want to present them with that long list of icons, so they try to guide the user through to their goal. But on the other hand, if a user needs such hand-holding, it's likely that they shouldn't be in the control panel screwing things up in the first place.

I'll argue that MS's control panel implementation makes it harder for both novice and expert alike. They've needlessly complicated even simply tasks.

Making something easier to use takes a lot more design savvy than simply hiding things. Unfortunately, design seems to be something Microsoft can only apply decently to hardware, IME. Go figure.

Forget control panel design, there'e no hope. How many things in seven are prefixed with "Windows"? That's my favorite part about the control panel in vista. Windows Anytime Upgrade. Windows CardSpace. Windows Defnder. Windows Firewall. Windows Sidebar Properties. Windows SideShow. (bonus points if you know the difference between the last two) and last but not least Windows Update.

I'm sorry, but that's outrageous. It's a usability nightmare. It's bone headed. It shows a lack of any understanding of how UI should work. It shows a lack of respect for the end user. It shows a lack of respect for the administrators who have to deal with MS's crap. I for one am glad the world actually stood up and told Microsoft where they could shove vista.

I actually like the Vista/7 default control panel, at least from the rare experiences I've had with it. I tend to go to it and immediately type what I want, with "UAC" being the first search. I honestly have no idea what icon has UAC controls in it, nor do I care. Much like how I've been used to using my Mac for a few years with spotlight/quicksilver. I don't care where the files/icons are, I just want to find what I need and run/open it.

OS X system preferences index is even filled with a bunch of windows and generic terms to help switchers. "Wallpaper" for example returns "Change desktop background" as the first hit.

I wish the Group Policy Editor had the same feature. Have you seen how much stuff is in there in Windows 7, compared to (say) Windows XP?