Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Vista Slow To Copy, Delete Files

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the how-many-million? dept.

Bug 494

Bruce Schneier has said that trying to make digital files uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet. With Vista, Microsoft seems to have done a pretty good job of making premium content files not copyable. Now a few readers have tipped us to a new wrinkle: Vista also makes it very, very slow to copy, rename, or delete ordinary files. Here is a Microsoft TechNet thread on the problem. The Reg reports that Microsoft has a hotfix for what sounds like a subset of the more general problem complained about on TechNet; but they will only give it to customers who ask nicely. And a hotfix is fussier to install than a proper patch.

cancel ×

494 comments

Confirmed! (5, Informative)

yoyhed (651244) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499625)

I can confirm this. Copying a 10MB file from one directory to another on the same partition, on a fast 7200rpm 16mb cache SATA 1.5gb/s hard drive, can take 5-10 seconds, whereas it's instant on XP for me.

Re:Confirmed! (0, Offtopic)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499771)

Ok, so vista has a issue with copying files. Is there going to be an artical for every little bug in vista? I mean come on! If it was taking 30 minutes to copy, or it corrupted the file or something I would think it was news.

This just in! It's confirmed that Firefox loads slower than Opera! I'll have to submit that as an article I guess.

Re:Confirmed! (5, Insightful)

yoyhed (651244) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499811)

This just in! An extremely common and necessary file operation takes about 10 times longer to do in Vista on the exact same hardware! Trust me, it's _really_ annoying. Oh, and this is Slashdot, of course there will be an article about every little thing ;-)

Re:Confirmed! (1, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#18500047)


This just in! It's confirmed that Firefox loads slower than Opera! I'll have to submit that as an article I guess.


If it was "just in" (and not known for years), and it was loading 10 times slower, then sure, it's Slashdot-worthy.

Re:Confirmed! (5, Insightful)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 7 years ago | (#18500091)

With something so basic and fundamental, yes, it will be reported on /. It indicates MS completely blew QA on Vista, which isn't surprising since they were going to ship in Jan come hell or high water. Another delay was absolutely not acceptable, as Vista delays have already made them a laughing stock among some, and more importantly was shaking confidence in others.

I think we will see that rushing out an incomplete and untested product is a sure way remove confidence. Evidently MS hasn't learned from their "only use odd-numbered service packs" mantra that used to exist among many of us. Why was that? Because the odd numbered SPs fixed the issues of the even numbered SPs, including the initial release.

Re:Confirmed! (2, Insightful)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 7 years ago | (#18500183)

oh for heavens sake. In QA it is impossible to catch everything, in fact I'm impressed vista works as well as it does considering they rebuilt so much of it.

My argument is that this is a "whoops, sorry, here is a fix for that" issue, not a "MX suxxors, c0p1es f1l35 sl000w" and post to slashdot issue. IMHO the only reason this would really effect anyone is if they're using vista as a server of some sort, in which case they deserve any headaches they get for not waiting until vista proves itself for server reliability. I'd go so far as to say that if this article wasn't posted, 90% of the people complaining here would have never even noticed.

Re:Confirmed! (4, Insightful)

Vengeance (46019) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499803)

Egads, what a piece of JUNK.

What in the *hell* is the point of a pretty interface for your operating system, when it won't carry out basic operating system tasks efficiently?

Of course, I'm not *really* asking this question, since we all know that the point of Windows upgrades isn't to improve our experience, but to drive the purchase of new hardware, that will require new software, that will drive Microsoft's numbers up. That being said, this sort of thing is just completely unacceptable. Copying files is amongst the most basic things a computer can be asked to do.

Re:Confirmed! (4, Informative)

whathappenedtomonday (581634) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499885)

5-10 seconds? That's really fast! Try this on a dual boot system with 2 partitions, XP on C and Vista on D: double click a ZIP file on your XP partition from inside Vista and copy the files inside the ZIP to your Vista D partition (which shows up as C anyway). I got a whopping 8-30 bytes per second that way recently and waited about 10 minutes for a few images to crawl from the XP partition ZIP temp folder to the Vista partition. I didn't try if copying the zip to the Vista partition first would speed things up, but I guess it would have helped a little.


Bottom line: file operations in Vista suck, even if your HD is fast and you have lots of RAM.

Re:Confirmed! (2, Interesting)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 7 years ago | (#18500063)

I've quite enjoyed how the 'estimating time remaining' message doesn't go away before the operation is done in some cases even though its taking over 10 seconds to copy a file.

Incidentally, copying from a Samba share over the network seems fairly snappy, but I haven't measured it, I don't personally own a Vista machine; it was a client's.

Re:Confirmed! (3, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#18500093)

Bottom line: file operations in Vista suck, even if your HD is fast and you have lots of RAM.

My question is: for all users, or some...? I really doubt this happens everywhere, I had the Vista RC2 until recently on my modest machine and copying/moving was as fast as on XP (i.e. normal).

Generalizing that in Vista these are slow kinda skews the issue: quite possibly this is not just unfixable bloat, but is caused by something specific and will be fixed in the coming weeks.

Re:Confirmed! (2, Interesting)

0123456789 (467085) | more than 7 years ago | (#18500125)

Where you running an anti-virus programme? I've had similar issues with just this operation with XP and Win 2K (Not used a Vista machine yet) if McAfee's on-access scan capability was enabled. Might be worth checking?

Re:Confirmed! (5, Funny)

drooling-dog (189103) | more than 7 years ago | (#18500027)

Moving/copying a lot of large files is very suspicious behavior. The compliant and well-behaved user who leaves things where they are supposed to be should only rarely have to do that. Perhaps Microsoft is slowing down the process to give you time to reflect on the error of your ways (or maybe to think about switching to a different OS)...

Re:Confirmed! (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 7 years ago | (#18500069)

I wasn't planning on moving to Vista any time soon, and the longer I wait, the better my current XP installation seems.

Apart from eye-candy I can do without, what new features does Vista have?

Windows' main competitive edge over Linux/OSX is the simple reality that it had virtually no DRM, making it eays for consumers to use cracked applications. (I'm not saying piracy is okay, just that it is a fact of life and a primary reason why Windows is so popular). If MicroSoft do a good enough job at DRM, they will lose the "TCO" battle.

armadillo (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18499635)

Q: What did Spock find in the Enterprise's toilet?

A: The Captain's log.

NOT OFFTOPIC (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18499939)

it's a vista yoke

Re:NOT OFFTOPIC (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18499991)

That may be, but you really shouldn't be surprised that there are people out there with mod points that have no idea as to what "on topic" really means. This is, after all, /. you know.

In your case you probably pissed off someone and they're modding with an agenda in mind.

Why only a Hotfix and no patch? (5, Funny)

jkrise (535370) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499643)

For very very basic functionality?

What is Vista doing? Factoring large primes in 640KB RAM?

Re:Why only a Hotfix and no patch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18499663)

What is Vista doing? Factoring large primes in 640KB RAM?

Its a feature, a feature called Windows Genuine Advantage!!!!!!

Re:Why only a Hotfix and no patch? (1)

ettlz (639203) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499765)

That would be the product of two large primes.

No, pardon me. You were right...

Re:Why only a Hotfix and no patch? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18499809)

Why is the parent post 'Overrated'? Looks like mods from MS have taken over these boards completely.

Was that supposed to be a joke? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18500077)

I factor large primes all the time, and in my experience, 640K ought to be enough for anybody.

Re:Why only a Hotfix and no patch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18500085)

I can't factor even small primes, yet alone large ones.

Whah? (1, Funny)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499645)

What the heck is this supposed to mean:

--snip--
"I've seen this bug in action, and trust me, it's as if you're copying over a 64k link using only 256mb of RAM," one Reg reader complained.
--snip--

Is the guy trying to be sarcastic or something?

Re:Whah? (4, Informative)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499773)

No that guy is just keeping the low level of bug reporting that all are doing in that technet thread.

If you did google for the "bug" you might have come accross this [neowin.net]

"Start >> Control Panel >> Programs and Features," Turn windows features on or off" ,Uncheck "Remote Differential Compression"

I think that is only for the network problems, not for the generic copy or delete problems (not sure, reports are not good)

I have seen also reports about vista that is has problems with large sparse files, but i haven't taken the time to reproduce. (will do later, but every 30 days it seems i have to evaluate windows vista again.... )

Re:Whah? (1)

WK2 (1072560) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499845)

I had to read that sentence twice. I think by 64k, he means something about as fast as a dialup connection. It looks to me, that he is saying that copying a file from one directory to another is as fast as downloading that same file on a (slightly faster than) dial-up connection.

Interesting... (2, Interesting)

Alioth (221270) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499647)

One of the complaints about the Linux community is how people tell noobs to RTFM or use Google.

Interesting that the last post on this Microsoft Technet discussion is "learn to use Google". Seems that any fanboy whether it's a Microsoft fanboy or not is susceptible to giving people this treatment :-)

Re:Interesting... (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499683)

That's not the last post, there's another page.

Re:Interesting... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18499695)

"One of the complaints about the Linux community is how people tell noobs to RTFM or use Google."

I haven't had this problem with the Ubuntu crowd.

Re:Interesting... (1)

yoyhed (651244) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499739)

Nope, the Ubuntu community just tells noobs to "sudo apt-get this, sudo gedit this and add this line", without explaining what they're doing or why!

Re:Interesting... (2, Interesting)

Metasquares (555685) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499877)

The people who don't use Google are the same people who don't care why, so long as it works.

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18499947)

Because before, a majority of the people asking the questions were complaining: "Why won't you just tell me what to do?". A lot of people got sick of hearing it.

Re:Interesting... (1)

dday376 (1035900) | more than 7 years ago | (#18500175)

And Microsoft is infamous for providing in-depth explanations when they explain how to do something to the typical end-user.

Or maybe it's why the industry has settled on calling them HOW-TOs instead of WHY-TOs....

Re:Interesting... (0, Flamebait)

jkrise (535370) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499727)

Even more interesting is that the first post on this thread is dated Nov 2006. Looks like this problem has been there since Jan 2007.... ie: ever since the release. Why is Slashdot so slow to highlight glaring defects in Vista?

Re:Interesting... (0, Flamebait)

yoyhed (651244) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499787)

Because people on Slashdot don't actually use the newest Microsoft OS before flaming it, so they wouldn't really know some of the less-publicized-yet-annoying problems like this.

I'd say Slashdot is actually pretty quick at highlighting problems with Vista (try slashdot.org/tags/defectivebydesign [slashdot.org] ), but they don't really pick the right problems to bitch about - it's just "DRM this, Activation that".

Re:Interesting... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18499729)

It's a trap. A real Microsoft fanboy would have told people to use Windows Live Search.

Re:Interesting... Differences in cost (1)

Kilz (741999) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499757)

The reason a lot of Linux users will tell new users to google it or RTFM is because of cost. Linux is free in a lot of ways, and one of them is monetary. While you dont pay for it with cash, you pay for it with little or no support. You should be prepared to search for answers online and in the manual. The difference with Vista, is that you paid for it. With paying should come support for the product. Telling customers to look else ware is not a good idea. They may find more than the answer, and maybe the wrong one.

Removing files in XP is very slow too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18499651)

Even XP is painfully slow removing files. I remember uninstalling Steinberg Virtual Guitarist application that has a couple of thousands of small wav files - it took about 20 minutes to uninstall that software with 2.8GHz, 2GB machine that has SATA disk.

Not XP's fault (4, Informative)

yoyhed (651244) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499685)

That's not XP's fault, that's the fault of the software's uninstaller - it was one of those that manually checks for each file it installed being there, then deletes it, then goes to the next. Those are so annoying! I wish they'd at least give the option to just delete the whole install directory (which XP would do pretty much instantly, even with thousands of files).

Re:Not XP's fault (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499949)

Yeah, I've even seen some uninstallers that no only check if the file exists, which usually only involves a directory scan, but also they try to open the file for some reason, maybe to see if it isn't in-use.

Sllllooooowwwww....bottom line is you can't base delete times on an OS by how long and uninstaller takes. Uninstallers sometimes do all kinds of stupid things. After all, they're intended to be used only once, so no one usually complains about the performance of that sort of program. Which is why most of them are created using some kind of installer/uninstaller toolkit like Install Shield.

Re:Removing files in XP is very slow too (2, Informative)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499719)

This was likely because the uninstaller was removing each file one by one, or even verifying the contents of each file so it would only remove files that hadn't been changed. Just deleting the whole folder would have taken a lot less time.

Re:Removing files in XP is very slow too (0, Troll)

cheekyboy (598084) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499833)

1. Do not use windows explorer file manager, use a 3rd party, its always 5-200x faster, MS programmers are newbie lamers, why do you think they got the job.

2. even dos based norton commander is faster.... whats ms doing.... Show us the code idiots!, we can fix it because your too lame.

3. Often it the product managers fault, "oh it workse, not the fastest, but it works, case CLOSED" your task is to now to X feature. Slave programmers
at MS dont have the freedom to say, "this code sucks, let me spend 5 days making it 9000 TIMES FASTER, COZ IT BLOWS ASS", Manager being a R-Tard accountant
golf playing monkey doesnt care, he wants his $900,000 bonus, so he can give you a $2000 bonus for good work.

Re:Removing files in XP is very slow too (1, Troll)

yoyhed (651244) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499909)

Okay, I'll bite.

Do not use windows explorer file manager, use a 3rd party, its always 5-200x faster
Nice troll. If you'd even read the post you replied to, you'd see it had nothing to do with Windows Explorer. Oh, and everything is instant for me in Explorer, so I don't know what you're talking about. Plus, I like getting stuff like "Enqueue in Winamp" or "Add to Archive with WinRAR" in my right-click menu, so I don't use 3rd party shit.

MS programmers are newbie lamers
Yes, Microsoft programmers are obviously "newbie lamers", working for one of the largest and most successful software companies in the world.

Show us the code idiots!, we can fix it because your too lame.
If I was MS, I wouldn't let someone like you "fix" my code, because you can't even spell "you're".

Cue the "Bill, is that you?" jokes!

Re:Removing files in XP is very slow too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18500005)

Ok, I'll bite, "Bill is that you?"

WTF Register quote? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18499657)

I realize "The Register" is the "National Enquirer" of IT, but what the heck does this quote in TFA mean: "it's as if you're copying over a 64k link using only 256mb of RAM"
I've used Windows 2000 with only 256M of RAM and it's quite speedy...I've run a remote desktop session over a 56kbps link and although noticable, it's pretty speedy. (and yes, I've copied big files over that link)

How does mixing speed (bps) and RAM (M) work anyway? It's sorta like saying "I've driven my car 50kph with a cat,ferret, and dog in the back seat but when the seat covers are blue it seems really slow"

TDz.

Speed is relative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18499801)

How does copying a file over a 64k link on a machine with 256MB of RAM compare to copying a file over Gigabit ethernet on a machine with 4 Gigs of RAM?

Re:Speed is relative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18500009)

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but the point the GP was making is that the amount of RAM in this case is irrelevant when the speed is so low. It would just be better to say "over a 64kbps link" and leave it at that to imply the amount of slowness.

Re:Speed is relative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18500181)

Um, the 64k link refers to the memory bus speed... not a network connection. The point is that you are matching really slow performance (64k memory bus speed vs Vista's slow file copy) with suposed "higher end" capability (256mb memory vs MS Vista. Yes, 256 MB isn't much these days, but if you had HAD that much capacity when the memory bus was so slow, well, you get the idea. It was an analogy and none of you got it. You are grounded from /. for 10,000 ms!

Vista File I/O Like Swimming in Molasses (3, Informative)

N8F8 (4562) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499673)

I used to get frustrated waiting for large file copies in XP but Vista is horrible. I can't get it to un-sleep properly either. I'll drop the lid and open it later and hit a few keys. 2 minutes later the screen is still black so I'll try to shut it down or start it up and I wind up holding the start button for 10 seconds to get anything to work. It's also annoying that 90% of the time the battery is still drained when I shut the lid.

Re:Vista File I/O Like Swimming in Molasses (1, Informative)

martin (1336) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499713)

the hibernate issue is well known and documented. There are several ways that MIGHT fix this, I'll leave this as an exercise to find the links ;-)

Re:Vista File I/O Like Swimming in Molasses (1, Funny)

jkrise (535370) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499751)

I can't get it to un-sleep properly either. I'll drop the lid and open it later and hit a few keys. 2 minutes later the screen is still black so I'll try to shut it down or start it up and I wind up holding the start button for 10 seconds to get anything to work...

In Vista, there are so many options to choose while putting your laptop to sleep. Next time DO NOT CHOOSE the 'Coma' option.

Re:Vista File I/O Like Swimming in Molasses (5, Interesting)

kevinadi (191992) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499805)

Someone remind me why I need to "upgrade" to an OS where everything is slower and comes with a restriction for pretty much anything. Not to mention it's not really more secure than a fully patched XP anyway. AND it requires me to upgrade my RAM to do less. How's that making any sense?

MS is pretty much mistaken when they thought people will blindly go for Vista when all they could offer as an improvement from XP was transparent windows. Bleh.

Re:Vista File I/O Like Swimming in Molasses (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18499837)

Someone remind me why I need to "upgrade" to an OS where everything is slower and comes with a restriction for pretty much anything. Not to mention it's not really more secure than a fully patched XP anyway. AND it requires me to upgrade my RAM to do less. How's that making any sense?

Shiny!!

Re:Vista File I/O Like Swimming in Molasses (1)

yoyhed (651244) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499941)

Yes! I enjoy moving around the "Copying..." window while I wait, and watching it blur everything behind it! Seriously! It looks really nice! Try it on Graphite with transparency all the way up!

Re:Vista File I/O Like Swimming in Molasses (0)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#18500011)

Sounds like everything coming out of MS nowadays.
Outlook/Office 2003 onwards feels sluggish, Vista is a pile of crap and don't get me started on Visual Studio.
I get ribbed by my colleagues for liking older versions, but feature creep in MS has gone too far.

Re:Vista File I/O - MS Knows (2, Insightful)

kurt555gs (309278) | more than 7 years ago | (#18500131)

I think you dont give M$ enough credit. I think they employ folks to test and evaluate how far they can push push consumers ( aka sheep ) before they actually bolt.

M$ is serving themselves, the RIAA, and the MPAA with Vista, not you.

I think they have very carefully examined this and many more yet to be discovered issues and have figured out how bad they can make it for consumers while serving their real customers, big business and the govenment.

Give them more credit, they are good at this.

Cheers

Obligatory (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18499681)

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Vista fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Vista PC (an Intel Core 2 Duo w/4 gigs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my ancient Mac running OS 9, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Vista PC, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

In addition, during this file transfer, Firefox will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even Notepad is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Vista PCs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Vista PC that has run faster than its Mac OSX counterpart, despite the Vista PC's same chip architecture. My 286/12 with 2 megs of ram runs faster than this 2.4ghz mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that Vista is a superior operating system.

Vista lovers, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use Vista over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

Re:Obligatory (2, Insightful)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499831)

half the new kids won't even get it

Re:Obligatory (0, Offtopic)

timster (32400) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499915)

I'm shocked that it's so far down. I can't believe all the people in above threads complaining about why this is on Slashdot.

One of these days somebody will make a statue of Natalie Portman and nobody will even care. Sad.

Re:Obligatory (3, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#18500153)

One of these days somebody will make a statue of Natalie Portman and nobody will even care


I did. And she was naked. And petrifiedq, of course. I even put hot grits on it! Nobody cared. Very sad, indeed.

The Microsoft standard. (1)

WK2 (1072560) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499923)

At home, on my ancient Mac running OS 9, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Vista PC, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

You neglected to incorporate the Microsoft Standard into your calculations.

Insightful?! (5, Informative)

jimicus (737525) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499929)

How can this be insightful? This is a reworking of an old troll, which originally went like this:


I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (a 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Macs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Macs' faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 300 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.

Mac addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

Flamebait ? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18500021)

Come on mods, parent is tying to be informative, there's no troll or flames (except in the post he quote). If you want to mod it down, at least mod it down "Redundant" or "Offtopic".

And please don't mod up my post.

Re:Flamebait ? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18500187)

And please don't mod up my post.

Stupid request. That is almost the best way to be modded up.

-- mod me offtopic!

Re:Insightful?! (0, Flamebait)

Goaway (82658) | more than 7 years ago | (#18500083)

Of course it's Insightful! It's about Microsoft being bad!

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18499961)

Vista lovers, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use Vista over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
Well, lets say you somehow 'accidently' downloaded a bunch of mp3s and movies, and you would like to have all the illegal ones removed. So installing Vista would have these removed for you, and you will then be safe from the RIAA, MIAA, MAFIAA, or as well all hope will someday become: CIAA

It is feature I invented (5, Funny)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499705)

Hey, They stole my stuff. My code takes very long time to do trivial tasks. That is my idea. They stole my idea!

Microsoft have prior art, I'm afraid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18499779)

See: most of their previous operating systems

Re:It is feature I invented (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18499799)

You sir are a fool for not patenting your idea.

DRM? (4, Insightful)

ehaggis (879721) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499725)

Nowhere in the thread does it mention DRM. Where did the summary of the article come up with this assumption? I am not saying that I would be surprised if this were the case, but random accusations and misleading summaries...we can leave that to the National Enquirer ... or Slashdot.

Re:DRM? (1)

ResidntGeek (772730) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499753)

The point was, Vista is making all files hard to copy.... including copyrighted ones. Perhaps they've found a way around Schneier's statements, eh?

Re:DRM? (4, Insightful)

MORB (793798) | more than 7 years ago | (#18500089)

Well, one could naturally believe that it's slow because it checks the content of the file for possible markers that it is a file containing protected content, or something like this.

The alternative explanation is that it's slow because vista's coding sucks, which is seems just as likely but is even less flattering.

Basically, is it slow because they are evil, or because they are incompetent? Pick your poison. A file copy using the most expensive desktop OS on the market shouldn't be slow.

My Vista sucks (-1, Troll)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499785)

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Vista fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Vista PC (a Core 2 Duo E6600 w/2 Gigs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my 8600/300 running Mac OS 8, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Vista PC, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

In addition, during this file transfer, Firefox will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even Notepad is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Vista PCs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Vista PC that has run faster than its Mac counterpart, despite the PCs' faster chip architecture. My 68040/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 2.4 ghz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Vista PC is a superior machine.

Vista addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use Vista over other faster, cheaper, more stable operating systems.

Re:My Vista sucks (0, Offtopic)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499813)

Gah, beaten to it by an AC.

The mods are terrifying... (0, Offtopic)

jkrise (535370) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499889)

Why is the parent modded +5 Funny?

It asks a very direct, simple, honest and logical question.... and it's been modded funny. I think Slashdot should simply BAN all articles / Slashvertisements on Vista until sanity prevails in the moderation system on these boards.

Its an old TROLL post...(funny not interesting) (3, Informative)

acomj (20611) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499931)

Its an old mac bahing troll post that used to appear in every mac story, and was completely inaccurate. the author just switched some of the names.....

What I find a little scary is now its moded interesting...

Re:The mods are terrifying... (0, Offtopic)

jimicus (737525) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499945)

Why is the parent modded +5 Funny?

Because it's a rework of an old joke about Macs.

Re:The mods are terrifying... (0, Offtopic)

Goaway (82658) | more than 7 years ago | (#18500117)

Why is the parent modded +5 Funny?

Because the copy a couple of posts up in the thread got all the "Insightful" mods.

Re:My Vista sucks (2, Insightful)

Tack (4642) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499933)

I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Vista PC (a Core 2 Duo E6600 w/2 Gigs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder.

I'm about as anti-Windows as they come, and everyone around me will attest to the frequency at which I bitch about Windows (as I am in the unenviable position to have to use it on occasion at work). So I'm the last person who would use Vista, or defend it, but ...

... I have a hard time believing Vista is, by design, that bad. 20 minutes to copy a 17M file on a local disk, something is clearly wrong here. In the worst of conditions, that operation should take not longer than a few seconds. If your experience is typical and consistent with others, I'd be keen to read some more formal benchmarks to this effect. But I really think there's no way Vista is working as designed on your computer. Questioning Microsoft's competence is daily routine for me, but this pushes the realm of reason.

Re:My Vista sucks (2, Insightful)

DingerX (847589) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499959)

Vista addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use Vista over other faster, cheaper, more stable operating systems.

Okay, sure.

A) Stores sold out of Windows XP
B) MacOS is not cheaper
C) OpenOffice in Linux is not faster than MSOffice (yet), and people keep sending Office-formatted files.
D) Nobody got fired for buying Microsoft; but every time I go downtown, I see the dude who thought it'd be cool to put upper management in Leopard or Debian. I usually give him change too.
E) No need to know what non-English terms like NDISWrapper are to use Vista.
F) Specific hardware/software that runs only on Vista machines, you know, like games.

How are those for intelligent reasons? They ain't strong enough reasons for me, but if you want to call people "addicts" and "fanatics", yet insist there's no intelligent reason for buying into the Microsoft monopoly, then you'd best look in the mirror: fanatics and addicts of other OSs are not doing their market share any favors by ignoring the reasons for Microsoft's dominance.

That ain't a flame, and I still haven't seen touched a Vista machine.

Re:My Vista sucks (1)

Bazar (778572) | more than 7 years ago | (#18500025)

There is only 1 reason i can foresee, for the time being, that would make me upgrade to windows vista.

That reason is DirectX 10, which is exclusive to windows vista.
This version apparently runs faster then DX9 too... once the drivers fully support it.

Saying that, in the short term, i fully expect any games that come out to support both the DX9 and possibly the DX10 framework. But those running on DX10 will run faster, and possibly look nicer too.

But it'll take some game i haven't heard about to force my hand. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Re:My Vista sucks (1)

physicsboy500 (645835) | more than 7 years ago | (#18500057)

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Vista fanatics?

Woah! I know you guys are angry, but don't all three of you stand up at once!

Microsoft figured out what the ??? mean (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18499853)

1. Sell a broken Product
2. Make people pay to get it fixed.
3. PROFIT!!

News to me (2, Interesting)

mdboyd (969169) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499867)

Actually, I've been using Vista for over a month now on a P4 (2.8 Ghz) with 1Gig of RAM and I haven't noticed slow file copy speeds. Copying files over the network seems slightly faster. No, I haven't run any scientific experiments proving this, but if it was significant, I would probably notice.

My issue is with sidebar.exe... sometimes is takes over 200MB of memory. I know it's probably one of the gadgets I'm using, but one would think buggy gadgets would have been planned for.

Re:News to me (1)

yoyhed (651244) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499975)

Are you using the CPU/Memory monitor widget? I find that one takes quite a bit of CPU and memory to display the little speedometer-like dials.

As far as the file copying goes, I can attest to having experienced the problem the article is about, but not every time I copy. It's even a little bit more annoying that way; sometimes it'll be working great, and you'll copy a file and expect it to work quick and then, unexpectedly, you'll have to wait on that one.

Re:News to me (1)

mdboyd (969169) | more than 7 years ago | (#18500111)

Actually I have the CPU/Memory widget turned off. The widgets (or gadgets) I run are a Gmail gadget, remote desktop connection gadget (form quickly opening RD connections) and a network monitoring gadget. If I had to guess, I'd say the netmon gadget is the culprit but it's so useful that I'm hesitant to get rid of it. If I restart sidebar.exe the memory usage goes back down to a more appropriate number. It goes back up to 200MB over time.

For the most part my experience with Vista has been dull and uneventful. I don't have many complaints, but I can't really rave about anything either. I do like having the sidebar and I think the new way that personal folders are organized is better. These are life-altering qualities however. My home machine is still running XP and while I can get a free copy of Vista Business, I don't intend to upgrade any time soon.

Re:News to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18500143)

Please keep in mind that I am not a Mac fanatic... Just something you should consider...

It would seem you are a user that has pretty low expectations and standards of your computer. If you spend a allot of time behind this computer, trust me and do yourself a favor by going down to a mac store and buying a mac. Yes, they are a pricey, but I they are definitely worth every penny if you spend lots of time behind the keyboard like I do. Mac's are like Lexus's in the computer world. Everything is thought thru better and is rock solidly stable. Even the little cosmetic things....

If you are an average user that does not do very much, then I suspect your probably will never understand peoples passions for a mac. If you are someone who spends > 16 hours a day behind a computer, like I do, they you will definitely understand. :-)

Yes a Ford Escort and Lexus will definitely get you to the same place, but if you drive allot you will appreciate the extra creature comforts. I know I do, and I develop mostly Win32 for a living... :-)

Vista Problems (0, Offtopic)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499871)

I hear a lot of complaints about Vista and love to read about them because it makes the case stronger for competing open source operating systems. Remember, M$ did not put a gun to the collective heads to upgrade to Vista. If you upgraded, it was your decision. When you are an early adopter, you can expect bugs like these and many more to come. I personally wouldn't touch Vista at all as I discovered the wonders of FreeBSD on the desktop and have not looked back.

Remember, you aren't as "joined at the hip" to Microsoft as many people might think. Do a little research, take some small risks, and actually learn about your computer instead of only using it. The rewards are many and I have a desktop machine that is just about functionally equivalent to an XP box. I get some quirks with websites but that is because the website might have been built in an MS-centric technology. Even Firefox on Windows might have difficulty handling that website. I can use video streaming, mp3s, edit digital photos and more. Moreover, I do not suffer from the same security woes of Windows. While Windows XP has over a 100 patches for its fairly base OS, a look at FreeBSD's website reveals far fewer patches. FreeBSD also gives me more accessible control over the kernel so I can set certain TCP flags to timeout a connection sooner thus not leaving ports open. The firewalling/packet filtering facilities are also immeasurably better than Microsoft's. I can keep on going.

I can attest to this... (4, Funny)

GFree (853379) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499891)

Vista is definitely slower at copying, deleting, pretty-much all file processing commands. I can say this from my own experiences; God help you if you have thousands of files to process.

But you should check out the new animations they made for the copy/move/delete functions, whoa! They've got, like, flipping rectangles and shit, and the animations are so shiny!

At this rate, I bet the next service pack will bring a new 3D-accelerated BSOD too, complete with shiny and flippy messages to tell you your system is screwed, but man... check out that neat animation, that'll take the sting off at least!

(Oh, and to finally wrap up the karma bonus once and for all, Vista was the reason I finally converted to Linux. Huzaa!)

Re:I can attest to this... (1)

yoyhed (651244) | more than 7 years ago | (#18500031)

Spot on! The animation is SA-WEET, especially because the copying one is a file that SPLITS INTO TWO IDENTICAL THINGIES. And not only can you watch the animation, but you can move the window around and watch it blur things behind it too!

Hotfix versus patch? (3, Informative)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 7 years ago | (#18499967)

The Reg reports that Microsoft has a hotfix for what sounds like a subset of the more general problem complained about on TechNet; but they will only give it to customers who ask nicely.

That means it's not available on the general download site; you have to ring up and ask for it. That's all. Unless you have premier support, in which case it's available on the premier site.

And a hotfix is fussier to install than a proper patch.

?

How so?

Here's a speedup script in VBA (1)

jlebrech (810586) | more than 7 years ago | (#18500019)

Foreach file in filelist
.delete
uac.allow()
Next()

Slow deletions and standby problems (4, Interesting)

theinfobox (188897) | more than 7 years ago | (#18500023)

So far, my two biggest complaints about Vista are the file move/copy/delete times. We bought the upgrade version for testing on some PCs at work. I did the upgrade procedure and then proceeded to try to clean up the system after the upgrade. To delete a directory of about 500mb it took 14 minutes. The other big problem I had was that it failed to come out of standby properly. The screen would always stay black even though the system appeared to be out of standby mode. I thought the problems were due to the upgrade, but I did a clean install and still had those problems.

But, it's still faster than my 28.8k dial-up. (1)

ThatSandersKid (1068182) | more than 7 years ago | (#18500029)

Considering that I live, precisely, in the middle of nowhere. [wikipedia.org] And here in nowhere, SBC is too lazy to roll out any sort of internet connection that isn't this.

It's just plain slow...period (2, Informative)

PenguinBoyDave (806137) | more than 7 years ago | (#18500039)

My daughter got a new laptop with 1gb of memory and a sata drive. You'd think it had 256mb of memory with the time it takes to do darn near anything. The funny part is the the Linux partition on her laptop screams. Yup...that's enough to make me want to go out and buy Vista...

How is this a surprise? (5, Interesting)

Critical_ (25211) | more than 7 years ago | (#18500043)

As a Vista beta tester, I've personally reported the file copying bug at least half a dozen times. That, along with the crap UAC prompts, seems to be the least of my troubles. When do people start harping on about Vista's extremely poor video and sound-playback performance? On older systems, the move to VMR [wikipedia.org] for all video playback severely decreases playback performance. For example, on a Dell M60 latop with a Centrino 2.0Ghz (single-core) CPU, 2 gigs of ram, 7200 RPM EIDE hard drive, and a nVidia Quadro 700 Go w/ 128meg video card I can playback raw HDTV without a hiccup. In Vista, the same playback drops nearly half the frames regardless of the various decoding codecs used. Disabling Aero leaves the problem in the same situation. Disabling sound (AC'97 sound) lets a few less frames to be dropped. This is not an isolated problem but exists on many machines.

This problem is a lot bigger than just file operations. I really have to wonder why anyone is going to bother with Vista for anything expect the lastest/fastest consumer/gamer machines. I'm sticking to XP and my next laptop will be an Apple Mac Book Pro. I'll vote with my dollars, thanks.

I've had this issue (5, Informative)

The Mysterious X (903554) | more than 7 years ago | (#18500055)

But, after a week or 2, it suddenly cleared up.

I never did track down the cause of it, but disabling volume shadow copy and indexing did mitigate the problem a little.

Once it cleared up, re-enabling them did not cause any problems.

Seen it before: Windows vs OS/2 (3, Interesting)

Hyperhaplo (575219) | more than 7 years ago | (#18500101)

A long time ago - around '95 - a was at a friends house and he was doing some stuff on his computer. At one point he rebooted from windows into OS/2 and executed a large copy (along with a few other things) in OS/2 and said: 'booting into OS/2 and doing this is a lot faster'.

I found that really funny at the time. A while later (much more recently) another friend of mine had dualboot on his main machine - XP and Redhat. Once again, I got to see someone reboot a machine into a different OS to execute file transfers (in this case, across to another hard drive, and across the network). Granted, he had several scripts that he used on redhat that assisted what he was doing. What he said was that the same speed could only be achieved in XP by using FTP or similar utility (to his knowledge).

This news of Vista having the same problem (sounds like the same problem anyway - but worse) when copying files doesn't shock me. My slower machine (running XP SP2, a 2.4Ghz 512MB ram) can take ages to copy files - even if it is just across to another hard drive. When copying across the network I set up all of the copies and leave it (don't bother even trying to run anything else while it is doing this). On my newer machine, a 3Ghz 2GB ram (etc etc) dual core machine I expected this 'copy lag' to go away. N'uh uh. When I copy large (100MB+ files) around (drive to drive, or drive to network) the machine has a tendancy to lag badly. The 2.4Ghz machine lags so badly you can browse with Mozilla but not much else. The 3.0Ghz machine (so far as I am aware) should _not_ lag this badly.

To answer the questions:
1) Yes, I have looked into the hardware side of both of these machines and tried some tweaking. No luck.
2) Yes, I have looked into software settings including DMA and drivers.
3) Yes, I have trawled around the web looking for answers. The only answer I have atm is to use FTP :) or simply not use Explorer (I did try a few explorer replacement programs. Now I just queue the files and wait).

Any suggestions welcome. Yes, I have googled.

Lets not even start on trying to network XP "professional" with XP "home". *argl*

Disgusted with Vista (1)

webword (82711) | more than 7 years ago | (#18500149)

I'm terribly unhappy with Vista. I was pretty much forced to get it when I bought my most recetn laptop. No XP choice was available for the lappy that I wanted.

It is slow. It is a pain. And no, it isn't because I'm old. And yes, I'm willing to learn new stuff. It's because it just doesn't work. I see errors, it's slow, and it isn't any real improvement over XP from a GUI or user experience point of view. Blah!

Server performance? (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 7 years ago | (#18500171)

Wonder how this'll affect the server variants. It would just be funny as heck if Microsoft died in the server market because they had to put in all this DRM nonsense.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...