Don't think Vista is scrod? Let your eyes feast on this...

Link to article that describes file copying problems:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12...ying_problems/

For those of you that constantly demand proof, now, damn your own
eyes.

No more later,

Andy C.(never #)

Andy C.(never #) wrote:
> Link to article that describes file copying problems:
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12...ying_problems/
>
> For those of you that constantly demand proof, now, damn your own
> eyes.
>
> No more later,
>
> Andy C.(never #)
>
Last nite i wanted to copy a small firefox bookmarks file from one
folder to another. I started at 8:15. I got it copied somewhere around
8:50. Everytime I would try to paste, I got a dialog box with no file
info, so eventually I would hit cancel. Only problem was the dialog box
wouldnt go away and return control to explorer. I ended up rebooting
and trying again. same result. rebooted again. Eventually, around the
5th time i tried copy/paste, Vista decided to cooperate. What a crappy
OS!!! Grrrr! Thanks a frickin' lot, Gates & Co.

No wonder i get thoroughly aggravated with the resident Vista fanboys
who blame users for the OS's bad behavior. Vista BLOWS.

Dave

You sure have it all wrong. Here is the definition of SCROD

Scrod (or schrod) is not actually a specific type of fish, but rather a
generic term for a young (2-lb or less) cod or, less frequently, haddock,
split and deboned. It is a staple in many Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine,
New Hampshire, and Rhode Island seafood and fish markets, but is rarely
found outside New England and New York.



I don't know where you get off thinking Vista is a type of fish, but you
need to get your eyes checked. Just FYI. Vista is classified as software
to the normal population.





"Andy C.(never #)" <> wrote in message
news:bb4f64e3-ca58-4c0e-8466-...
> Link to article that describes file copying problems:
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12...ying_problems/
>
> For those of you that constantly demand proof, now, damn your own
> eyes.
>
> No more later,
>
> Andy C.(never #)

Andy C.(never #) wrote:
> Link to article that describes file copying problems:
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12...ying_problems/
>
> For those of you that constantly demand proof, now, damn your own
> eyes.
>
> No more later,
>
> Andy C.(never #)

You actually think all installs of Vista exhibit this very same behavior?
They don't.
I only saw this happen in the 4k series of Longhorn betas and I've not
seen it on any of the 5k series betas and certainly not on any of the 15
RTM's we now have up and running.
Also "the register" is the biggest POS MS hating e-rag on the web.
Frank

Andy C.(never #) wrote:
> Link to article that describes file copying problems:
>

Oh, puleeeze!

The last time the Register published a fact in an article about
Microsoft, they canned the "reporter" who accidentally included it and
the editor who let it slip by into print.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

I don't think anyone would disagree that there are perceived problems with
file copies in Vista. What is hard to come by are technical details and
reproducable results.

Back in the day, the anti-virus was blamed for bad performance and seemed to
be cause. Regarding the screenshots, without knowing the configuraiton or
files being copied, I don't have a problem believing that the status is a
billion days to copy because the OS is chewing on a large or open file and
inhibited by an anti-virus program, fragmentation, driver, moon phase, etc.

I've never copied more than 10GB at a time and haven't experienced the issue
(unless a thumb drive is involved... Don't get me started on thumb
drives...).

"Andy C.(never #)" wrote:

> Link to article that describes file copying problems:
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12...ying_problems/
>
> For those of you that constantly demand proof, now, damn your own
> eyes.
>
> No more later,
>
> Andy C.(never #)
>

"PNutts" <> wrote in message
news:F97E3346-1146-41FE-B926-...
> I don't think anyone would disagree that there are perceived problems with
> file copies in Vista. What is hard to come by are technical details and
> reproducable results.
>
> Back in the day, the anti-virus was blamed for bad performance and seemed
> to
> be cause. Regarding the screenshots, without knowing the configuraiton or
> files being copied, I don't have a problem believing that the status is a
> billion days to copy because the OS is chewing on a large or open file and
> inhibited by an anti-virus program, fragmentation, driver, moon phase,
> etc.
>
> I've never copied more than 10GB at a time and haven't experienced the
> issue
> (unless a thumb drive is involved... Don't get me started on thumb
> drives...).

Which is exactly the point I was trying to get across. There are so many
variables involved that any results gotten are anecdotal. For instance, the
screenshots I did of mine. The disk to disk is going to be higher because I
have a SATA adapter on my old EIDE drives. So instead of 100MB/s, I get
1.5GB/s. Then you have the SATA2 which is 3GB/s. Then you also have SCSI vs.
SATA2. The SCSI is inherently faster at the moment because of the way it
works. Here is a pretty good link I found with the different transfer rates
for each.

http://forums.storagereview.net/inde...howtopic=21191

So until there is an actual STANDARD for testing, we are going to keep
getting the back and forth crap that we see from the Vista haters.

--
Ok, I got the big purple f*cker, Sponge Bob is next!!
http://www.lockergnome.com/darksentinel
You know what to do with the munge