Inside Vista SP1 File Copy Improvements

http://blogs.technet.com/markrussino...4/2826167.aspx

by Mark Russinovich

Inside Vista SP1 File Copy Improvements

Windows Vista SP1 includes a number of enhancements over the original Vista release in the
areas of application compatibility, device support, power management, security and reliability.
You can see a detailed list of the changes in the Notable Changes in Windows Vista Service Pack
1 whitepaper that you can download here. One of the improvements highlighted in the document is
the increased performance of file copying for multiple scenarios, including local copies on the
same disk, copying files from remote non-Windows Vista systems, and copying files between SP1
systems. How were these gains achieved? The answer is a complex one and lies in the changes to
the file copy engine between Windows XP and Vista and further changes in SP1. Everyone copies
files, so I thought it would be worth taking a break from the "Case of." posts and dive deep
into the evolution of the copy engine to show how SP1 improves its performance.

Copying a file seems like a relatively straightforward operation: open the source file, create
the destination, and then read from the source and write to the destination. In reality,
however, the performance of copying files is measured along the dimensions of accurate progress
indication, CPU usage, memory usage, and throughput. In general, optimizing one area causes
degradation in others. Further, there is semantic information not available to copy engines
that could help them make better tradeoffs. For example, if they knew that you weren't planning
on accessing the target of the copy operation they could avoid caching the file's data in
memory, but if it knew that the file was going to be immediately consumed by another
application, or in the case of a file server, client systems sharing the files, it would
aggressively cache the data on the destination system.

continued.......
http://blogs.technet.com/markrussino...4/2826167.aspx


-Michael

And yet: it does not work.
In my dual boot computer with XP Vista SP1 installed on separate but
identical hard drives Vista is still time by your stopwatch slower than XP
across the board for common functions like program installation, program
startup and file copying.
By using very high speed drives with massive cache and quad core CPUs with
massive on board memory and choosing disc access tasks where data was
already prefetched Vista may measure as fast or faster than XP.
In the quarter mile if a Ferari is at the starting line and bicycle 5 feet
from the finish line and both start at the same time the bicycle will be
proved faster than the Ferari.
Vista is unfixable. Microsoft may cram it down users throats but those that
can will skip it and wait for the next version of Windows and Microsoft
knows this now.
The best update for Vista would be to graft the aero interface onto XP,
clone the Google Desktop search engine, and call it Vista SP2.

flambe wrote:
> And yet: it does not work.
> In my dual boot computer with XP Vista SP1 installed on separate but
> identical hard drives Vista is still time by your stopwatch slower than XP
> across the board for common functions like program installation, program
> startup and file copying.

I guess you failed to read that when you install SP1 is deletes previous
users superfetch files and while file copying etc will initially be
faster, some app openings etc will INITIALLY be slower until superfetch
is once again re-trained to respond to users computing habits.
That's why doing only one test run of XP to Vista on fresh installs
using same hardware is not a true term usage test.
Frank

That is correct. I do not have SP1 installed but even with Vista Ultimate as
it is initially when the system is installed it is about 5 times slower in
many functions. If you turn it off overnight, it will be slower when you
restart it.

Vista needs time to fill its internal databases. They serve purpose. It is a
different era of computing.

Tuned up Vista is FASTER than XP. By tuning up I mean that it will tune up
itself given an opportunity and time.

When I install SP1 (I will be waiting for April installations as a part of
scheduled upgrades and downloads because I am not in a hurry, my Vistas work
great as they are) I expect the system slowing down for a few days. It is
inevitable.

Those idiots just demonstrate that they are idiots. I seriously doubt those
statements: "I am running Vista and XP on my super computer with RAID0" etc.

I do have two machines with pretty much the configuration he claims. I
barely have time to do my scheduled work in Vistas. I have a chance to go to
my XPs perhaps once in 2 months. Every time I think to myself "is is still
alive?" Every time the system downloads a backlog of updates, etc.

They think they can make all those fantasies and people would believe it.
people with experience smell rotten fish immediately.


"Frank" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> flambe wrote:
>> And yet: it does not work.
>> In my dual boot computer with XP Vista SP1 installed on separate but
>> identical hard drives Vista is still time by your stopwatch slower than
>> XP across the board for common functions like program installation,
>> program startup and file copying.
>
> I guess you failed to read that when you install SP1 is deletes previous
> users superfetch files and while file copying etc will initially be
> faster, some app openings etc will INITIALLY be slower until superfetch is
> once again re-trained to respond to users computing habits.
> That's why doing only one test run of XP to Vista on fresh installs using
> same hardware is not a true term usage test.
> Frank

In article <>,
AlexB <> wrote:
>
>Tuned up Vista is FASTER than XP. By tuning up I mean that it will tune up
>itself given an opportunity and time.
>

Wow. That's pretty smart. Will it do my stats homework too if
I leave the book near the monitor?