Documenting how screwed up Vista REALLY is with file transfering

Visit Google and you seen countless references to how poorly Vista
sometimes moves/copies files using Windows Explorer. The logical
conclusion is Microsoft added some hyped up phony so-called "security"
routines passing all or at least some files through elaborate
filtering as a precursor to actually moving the files. Why, Microsoft
doesn't say. Likely some stupidity checking file permission and/or
kowtowing to the music industry and the Hollywood crowd looking in
files with Digital Rights Management issues or some such similar
spying.

As PROOF Windows Explorer is screwed up consider the following
experiment.

As part of my backup routine I make full backups of all videos I've
obtained as new, have worked on or finished, moving each to separate
folders across several internal and externals drives.

Here's this week's activity:

385 total video files totaling 49.7 gigabytes. Picking 10 of these
files at random and moving them from their source folder to their
final destination folder using Windows Explorer the average transfer
speed according to Vista itself by clicking on the show more
information tab varied from 14.4 MB a second to 38.3 a second. That's
a pitifully slow 864 MB a minute to 2,298 per minute max on super fast
SATA-2 drives running off a SATA controller with the latest Vista
certified drivers.

Now watch what happens when you don't use Windows Explorer. My
application of choice for backing up is Bounce Back which makes
straight copies of or simply moves the actual file. No disk imaging or
cloning involved.

According to Bounce Back's summary it took only 17.15 minutes to move
the entire 49.7 gigabytes worth of files which is roughly 3 GB a
minute or way faster than Vista can do it itself.

Microsoft has tuned Vista to perform? Hardly. Not when some third
party application can move files way faster than Vista can itself.
Since copying/moving files is a core feature of any operating system
and a fundamentally simple task it again calls into question just how
dumb Microsoft's programmer are when some third party application can
move files way faster and in the process give file details and show
ACCURATE information as to time remaining to move the balance of files
in a batch operation giving ACCURATE second by second progress.

Conclusion: The more you known how poorly Vista performs the more you
confirm how screwed up Vista really is.

<> wrote in message
news:...
> Visit Google and you seen countless references to how poorly Vista
> sometimes moves/copies files using Windows Explorer. The logical
> conclusion is Microsoft added some hyped up phony so-called "security"
> routines passing all or at least some files through elaborate
> filtering as a precursor to actually moving the files. Why, Microsoft
> doesn't say. Likely some stupidity checking file permission and/or
> kowtowing to the music industry and the Hollywood crowd looking in
> files with Digital Rights Management issues or some such similar
> spying.
>
> As PROOF Windows Explorer is screwed up consider the following
> experiment.
>
> As part of my backup routine I make full backups of all videos I've
> obtained as new, have worked on or finished, moving each to separate
> folders across several internal and externals drives.
>
> Here's this week's activity:
>

385 total videos of Sheep ****ing activity, Adam running from the law, 56
videos of Adam playing with himself. That alone heats up a CPU. Doesn't
matter if you are running Vista or Ubuntu.


> 385 total video files totaling 49.7 gigabytes. Picking 10 of these
> files at random and moving them from their source folder to their
> final destination folder using Windows Explorer the average transfer
> speed according to Vista itself by clicking on the show more
> information tab varied from 14.4 MB a second to 38.3 a second. That's
> a pitifully slow 864 MB a minute to 2,298 per minute max on super fast
> SATA-2 drives running off a SATA controller with the latest Vista
> certified drivers.

What you don't realize is that you have antivirus and other programs that
are not vista related hindering your file transfer. If you cleaned up your
machine, you would see an increase of 75%. Since you don't know what you
are doing, your system will always be ****ed up. Don't blame Microsoft for
your stupid behavior.


>
> Now watch what happens when you don't use Windows Explorer. My
> application of choice for backing up is Bounce Back which makes
> straight copies of or simply moves the actual file. No disk imaging or
> cloning involved.
>

Again your system is infected with outside stimulus. Clean up the garbage
and your system performance will improve.


> According to Bounce Back's summary it took only 17.15 minutes to move
> the entire 49.7 gigabytes worth of files which is roughly 3 GB a
> minute or way faster than Vista can do it itself.

You don't have it configured properly. No wonder why your computer is ****ed
up. You really need to do a clean install.


>
> Microsoft has tuned Vista to perform? Hardly. Not when some third
> party application can move files way faster than Vista can itself.
> Since copying/moving files is a core feature of any operating system
> and a fundamentally simple task it again calls into question just how
> dumb Microsoft's programmer are when some third party application can
> move files way faster and in the process give file details and show
> ACCURATE information as to time remaining to move the balance of files
> in a batch operation giving ACCURATE second by second progress.

Wrong again. You need to start with a known. Clean your system, install
the correct software and patches and your system will perform to specs.
Since you have totally screwed up your configuration of course you will see
skewed results.

Typical for a beginner.


>
> Conclusion: The more of an idiot you are, the more ****ed up your system
> will be.

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:03:05 -0700, "Spanky deMonkey, ESQ"
<> wrote:

>
><> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> Visit Google and you seen countless references to how poorly Vista
>> sometimes moves/copies files using Windows Explorer. The logical
>> conclusion is Microsoft added some hyped up phony so-called "security"
>> routines passing all or at least some files through elaborate
>> filtering as a precursor to actually moving the files. Why, Microsoft
>> doesn't say. Likely some stupidity checking file permission and/or
>> kowtowing to the music industry and the Hollywood crowd looking in
>> files with Digital Rights Management issues or some such similar
>> spying.
>>
>> As PROOF Windows Explorer is screwed up consider the following
>> experiment.
>>
>> As part of my backup routine I make full backups of all videos I've
>> obtained as new, have worked on or finished, moving each to separate
>> folders across several internal and externals drives.
>>
>> Here's this week's activity:
>>
>
>385 total videos of Sheep ****ing activity, Adam running from the law, 56
>videos of Adam playing with himself. That alone heats up a CPU. Doesn't
>matter if you are running Vista or Ubuntu.
>
>
>> 385 total video files totaling 49.7 gigabytes. Picking 10 of these
>> files at random and moving them from their source folder to their
>> final destination folder using Windows Explorer the average transfer
>> speed according to Vista itself by clicking on the show more
>> information tab varied from 14.4 MB a second to 38.3 a second. That's
>> a pitifully slow 864 MB a minute to 2,298 per minute max on super fast
>> SATA-2 drives running off a SATA controller with the latest Vista
>> certified drivers.
>
>What you don't realize is that you have antivirus and other programs that
>are not vista related hindering your file transfer. If you cleaned up your
>machine, you would see an increase of 75%. Since you don't know what you
>are doing, your system will always be ****ed up. Don't blame Microsoft for
>your stupid behavior.
>
>
>>
>> Now watch what happens when you don't use Windows Explorer. My
>> application of choice for backing up is Bounce Back which makes
>> straight copies of or simply moves the actual file. No disk imaging or
>> cloning involved.
>>
>
>Again your system is infected with outside stimulus. Clean up the garbage
>and your system performance will improve.
>
>
>> According to Bounce Back's summary it took only 17.15 minutes to move
>> the entire 49.7 gigabytes worth of files which is roughly 3 GB a
>> minute or way faster than Vista can do it itself.
>
>You don't have it configured properly. No wonder why your computer is ****ed
>up. You really need to do a clean install.
>
>
>>
>> Microsoft has tuned Vista to perform? Hardly. Not when some third
>> party application can move files way faster than Vista can itself.
>> Since copying/moving files is a core feature of any operating system
>> and a fundamentally simple task it again calls into question just how
>> dumb Microsoft's programmer are when some third party application can
>> move files way faster and in the process give file details and show
>> ACCURATE information as to time remaining to move the balance of files
>> in a batch operation giving ACCURATE second by second progress.
>
>Wrong again. You need to start with a known. Clean your system, install
>the correct software and patches and your system will perform to specs.
>Since you have totally screwed up your configuration of course you will see
>skewed results.
>
>Typical for a beginner.

Typical feeble excuses from the same predictable asshole. Guess what
**** for brains, I deliberately left out some other information just
so I could sit back and watch which of the Three Stooges would be the
first to make an ass of themselves first. Congratulations, you were
first! I always give fools enough rope to hang themselves with. ;-)

What I didn't mention before is BounceBack first scans all the folders
to be backed up and also the folders where current backups are stored
so it knows what it needs to backup and what can be deleted where the
original source files have been ditched thus giving you the option to
removed orphaned backups of original files now deleted from the backup
achieves.

Since I have several terabytes worth of files that means BounceBank
scanned ALL of that before actually doing any moving and that is
included to the time to complete report. Imagine if I asked Vista to
scan every one of the over one million files on my system before
moving some. It would have a nervous breakdown and lock up.

Your pitifully weak argument is typical of fools. If my system was
"messed up" or not configured correctly, the usual feeble and
laughingly weak claim of a MS fanboy and ****wits the universe over,
then any application would suffer the same sluggish behavior since it
is the OS, not the application that determines how swiftly things get
processed.

Here I clearly showed how Windows Explorer drags along, but not
BounceBack. Since BounceBack flys like greased lightening your
argument is a bogus as you pretending to know what you're talking
about. Clearly you haven't a clue. Neither does Frank, Yanaire or any
one of the other blowhard wannabe types that post here. One reason I
so enjoy slapping your morons around as often as possible.

I agree - they really cocked up the file copy/move code in Vista. It's
really weird - it definitely wasn't broken in XP, there was simply no need
to fix it.

But it's a stretch to condemn all of Vista just because of this one problem
area. Apart from file copying I'm very pleased with its performance.

SteveT

On Aug 30, 1:36*pm, "Ringmaster's Ass Kicker" <ringmas...@nutcase.net>
wrote:
> <TruthSq...@hope.com> wrote in message
>
> news:...
>
> > On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:03:05 -0700, "Spanky deMonkey, ESQ"
> > <spa...@deMonkey.com> wrote:
>
> > Typical feeble excuses from the same predictable asshole. Guess what
> > **** for brains, I deliberately left out some other information just
> > so I could sit back and watch which of the Three Stooges would be the
> > first to make an ass of themselves first. Congratulations, you were
> > first! I always give fools enough rope to hang themselves with. ;-)
>
> Guess what you piece of donkey ****, you couldn't run a working copy of
> Vista correctly if you tried. *You just don't know how to copy. *Whatyou
> don't realize is that you need to make some modifications to get your copy
> of Vista to run correctly since you totally ****ed it up.
>
> What happened to your system when you didn't protect it correctly was some
> NTFS permission Access Control errors. *There is an Access Control Entry bit
> that should be set to 0 and you have it set to 1 which will slow down your
> system by at least 73%. *Oops.
>
> You also have NetBEUI turned on which you should have turned off if using
> video files. *There is a registry setting to do this but again you ****ed it
> up.
>
> In the Administrative Shares there is a share name called IPC$ which allows
> data transfers between programs and processes and you also don't have that
> configued correctly. *Again, data will be hindered for YOU.
>
> You are mistaken on the results from BounceBack. *Since the data transfer
> time is calculated differently your results are off by a factor of 5.
>
> Since you don't know the first thing about Vista configuration, you will
> always be stuck in the mud. *Face the facts, you are just a dope who can
> type.

It an operating system. It should enable not block. Vista is crap.
One shouldn't have to hack their "own" OS.

On Aug 30, 2:45*pm, "Steve Thackery" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> I agree - they really cocked up the file copy/move code in Vista. *It's
> really weird - it definitely wasn't broken in XP, there was simply no need
> to fix it.
>
> But it's a stretch to condemn all of Vista just because of this one problem
> area. *Apart from file copying I'm very pleased with its performance.
>
> SteveT

I keep finding problems and reading of other problems others are
having.
It may rarely crash but so what. It fails to do what it is told.
I can't even delete all the files I need to. And I've had to
download programs to cover functions the Vista OS no longer
handles.

I regret not getting a Mac. Assuming a Mac is better.

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:36:14 -0700, "Ringmaster's Ass Kicker"
<> wrote:

>
><> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:03:05 -0700, "Spanky deMonkey, ESQ"
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Typical feeble excuses from the same predictable asshole. Guess what
>> **** for brains, I deliberately left out some other information just
>> so I could sit back and watch which of the Three Stooges would be the
>> first to make an ass of themselves first. Congratulations, you were
>> first! I always give fools enough rope to hang themselves with. ;-)
>
>Guess what you piece of donkey ****, you couldn't run a working copy of
>Vista correctly if you tried. You just don't know how to copy. What you
>don't realize is that you need to make some modifications to get your copy
>of Vista to run correctly since you totally ****ed it up.

Same tired bullshit you and Franky ****wit have repeated thousands of
times. The more obvious you are wrong the faster **** falls out of
your mouth.
>
>What happened to your system when you didn't protect it correctly was some
>NTFS permission Access Control errors. There is an Access Control Entry bit
>that should be set to 0 and you have it set to 1 which will slow down your
>system by at least 73%. Oops.
>
>You also have NetBEUI turned on which you should have turned off if using
>video files. There is a registry setting to do this but again you ****ed it
>up.

Pure speculation on your part. According to Vista using advanced
search and set to look computer wide included non indexed locations
there is no file named NetBeui on my system. Want to try another wild
guess? You see doofus NetBEUI applies to applications on separate
computers to communicate over a local area network. I use no such
network scheme. All drives are internal or external and only operate
on this particular computer. You should improve your cut and paste
skill if you're trying to sound like you know what you're talking
about, otherwise you end up with egg on your face, like now.
>
>In the Administrative Shares there is a share name called IPC$ which allows
>data transfers between programs and processes and you also don't have that
>configued correctly. Again, data will be hindered for YOU.

You a mind reader too dumb ass? How do you know what I have something
"turned on" or not or if this or that has a bit set to zero or one?
Talk about grasping for straws. Besides, when, where does Vista inform
the end user of such necessary changes?

I'll wait for your answer, but I won't hold my breath. Just admit
Windows Explorer sucks as a shell. Even most MVP's admit it.

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 22:45:40 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
<> wrote:

>I agree - they really cocked up the file copy/move code in Vista. It's
>really weird - it definitely wasn't broken in XP, there was simply no need
>to fix it.
>
>But it's a stretch to condemn all of Vista just because of this one problem
>area. Apart from file copying I'm very pleased with its performance.
>
>SteveT

It is only one area that's "cocked up". We both know that. So does
Microsoft which is the interesting part. They don't care. If I learned
anything in using Windows since it's inception going back to when it
first saw the light of day is Microsoft is unique in software
companies in that each new version of their software has a nasty habit
of bringing forward unfixed bugs from the prior version. Since the new
version surely has bugs of it's own, each succeeding version of
Windows has the potential of being worse than the previous one.

Microsoft makes some half-ass attempt to patch things, but that isn't
fixing the problem. Another reason Windows suffers from terminal bloat
creep with each newer version of Windows gaining massively in size
from the last. Most software companies keep a detailed bug list and
make a good faith effort to resolve bugs in a prior version before
releasing the next one. Not Microsoft, they look at the bug list, say
good enough once they get it down to under a thousand or so and a army
of Rubes that don't know any better cheer. Laughable.

Ringmaster wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 22:45:40 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
> <> wrote:
>
>
>>I agree - they really cocked up the file copy/move code in Vista. It's
>>really weird - it definitely wasn't broken in XP, there was simply no need
>>to fix it.
>>
>>But it's a stretch to condemn all of Vista just because of this one problem
>>area. Apart from file copying I'm very pleased with its performance.
>>
>>SteveT
>
>
> It is only one area that's "cocked up". We both know that. So does
> Microsoft which is the interesting part. They don't care. If I learned
> anything in using Windows since it's inception going back to when it
> first saw the light of day is Microsoft is unique in software
> companies in that each new version of their software has a nasty habit
> of bringing forward unfixed bugs from the prior version. Since the new
> version surely has bugs of it's own, each succeeding version of
> Windows has the potential of being worse than the previous one.

You've learned nothing...and therein lies your problem. You're a
"know-it-all' who really knows nothing.
Face it, your GD ego is so fragile, it's to break if you ever accepted
the truth that you are wrong.
You're an asshole and everyone in here knows it. You're a loser...accept
that fact and move on.
>
> Microsoft makes some half-ass attempt to patch things, but that isn't
> fixing the problem. Another reason Windows suffers from terminal bloat
> creep with each newer version of Windows gaining massively in size
> from the last. Most software companies keep a detailed bug list and
> make a good faith effort to resolve bugs in a prior version before
> releasing the next one. Not Microsoft, they look at the bug list, say
> good enough once they get it down to under a thousand or so and a army
> of Rubes that don't know any better cheer. Laughable.

"Laughable"? Yes you are! Very laughable! You just can't accept the fact
that with your limited brain capacity and your glaring incompetence you
don't know what you are doing so you always blame MS....always! It's
always MS's fault!
Oh and did I mention that you're a fukkin PIG, PIG!

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:55:52 -0700, Frank <> wrote:

>Ringmaster wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 22:45:40 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I agree - they really cocked up the file copy/move code in Vista. It's
>>>really weird - it definitely wasn't broken in XP, there was simply no need
>>>to fix it.
>>>
>>>But it's a stretch to condemn all of Vista just because of this one problem
>>>area. Apart from file copying I'm very pleased with its performance.
>>>
>>>SteveT
>>
>>
>> It is only one area that's "cocked up". We both know that. So does
>> Microsoft which is the interesting part. They don't care. If I learned
>> anything in using Windows since it's inception going back to when it
>> first saw the light of day is Microsoft is unique in software
>> companies in that each new version of their software has a nasty habit
>> of bringing forward unfixed bugs from the prior version. Since the new
>> version surely has bugs of it's own, each succeeding version of
>> Windows has the potential of being worse than the previous one.
>
>You've learned nothing...and therein lies your problem. You're a
>"know-it-all' who really knows nothing.

Well I guess that's why both Microsoft and IBM asked me to be a beta
tester long before a bozo like you ever head of Windows. All the
decent beta testers for Microsoft have quit long ago in disgust
because they know Microsoft doesn't listen to the very people they ask
to test their crap. Translation they don't give a ****. Look up the
word shill. That's all you are Frank.