XYplorer Beta Club

Well, for what it's worth, I've been evaulating XYplorer for work and home use, and I'm beset by this bug as well. Especially at work, where I copy large files all the time, it's very important to me. There are some other XYplorer features that I believe are lacking as well (special folders among them) but that's for another thread, I guess.

There are some really nice features about XYplorer too, and I wish I could make this the one file explorer that I could use.

Don, if it would help increase the priority of XYplorer features/fixes on Vista, I would be glad to purchase and send you a full retail North American copy of Vista OS, no strings attached. I'm that interested...

Chad

Okay, I hear you. Thanks for the generous offer. (I won't need it though, 'cause I can get it here for free.) I will attend this issue after Dual Pane is added.

admin wrote:

I won't need it though, 'cause I can get it here for free

yes, but if you buy a new system then you have to pay for Vista and then pay more for a 'down grade' to XP

I read a recent review about Windows 7 and they (MS) said it would be much faster than XP or Vista - they had tested it on a basic machine - turns out it had 3GB memory - that is not basic to me and I now think that Vista is probably good but requires memory, lots of it. My lap-top has Vista and I hate it but hope that Win7 is better but my old peripherals will have to be scrapped - MS answer complain to the manufacturer to get new drivers - who wants to write new drivers for products they no longer sell - great!

Okay, I hear you....I will attend this issue after Dual Pane is added.

Nice. That's gratifying to see! Based on that statement, I'm considering going ahead with the purchase right away anyway...

soja wrote:Nice. That's gratifying to see! Based on that statement, I'm considering going ahead with the purchase right away anyway...

And don't make the mistake another user did and not buy the Lifetime vers...you really need it here to keep up with all the new goodies!

Also, your offer to get Don Vista'd was a very nice gesture!

Oh, almost forgot...welcome to the XY forums!

Thanks, JC. =)

Concerning the speed of Vista file copying: Vista SP0 was known to be very slow. SP1 now is supposed to have fixed this. They developed a new faster version of the CopyFileEx API. I'm actually using this API ever since in my "Backup (To)" code.

So, can anybody using Vista SP1 confirm that copying large files is much faster when using XY's "Backup" than when using XY's "Copy" (which is outsourcing the job to the Shell)?

A file of 1 361 932 KB

Copy : 1:59:59
Backup : 1:43:53

original and copy on same disk (physical and logical).

Copy and backup to same location (copy first, file deleted, then backup).

Laptop Asus F5 (2xT5300 1.73GHz, 2GB) Hitachi 160GB ATA disk, write buffer (cache) active, Microsoft driver version 6.0.6001.18000 of 21/06/2006

Vista Home Premium SP1

raananb wrote:A file of 1 361 932 KB

Copy : 1:59:59
Backup : 1:43:53

original and copy on same disk (physical and logical).

Copy and backup to same location (copy first, file deleted, then backup).

Laptop Asus F5 (2xT5300 1.73GHz, 2GB) Hitachi 160GB ATA disk, write buffer (cache) active, Microsoft driver version 6.0.6001.18000 of 21/06/2006

Vista Home Premium SP1

Thanks a lot!

Obviously the results are not as impressive as I had expected. Hmm. This kind of stops me in my drive to add a new copy solution. Too bad -- I had it all finished in my head. Okay, multi-threading, copy-queue, and progress feedback might be reasons enough to do it, but I was really keen of making it a LOT faster. That's the fun part of the work.

Hi raananb,

Can you please make the same test again but reboot between copies?
There might be something cached on the second attempt.

Anyway, I will try to do some tests myself. The XY file copy improvement on Vista is my long awaited fix...

admin wrote:So, can anybody using Vista SP1 confirm that copying large files

Not on Vista, but wondering what definition of "large" is...would a repeated test of a series of somewhat smaller files (but still large but maybe not huge) have any use in this issue?

j_c_hallgren wrote:

admin wrote:So, can anybody using Vista SP1 confirm that copying large files

Not on Vista, but wondering what definition of "large" is...would a repeated test of a series of somewhat smaller files (but still large but maybe not huge) have any use in this issue?

Well, I don't know. "File copying is not as easy as it might first appear..."

Summary

File copying is not as easy as it might first appear, but the product team took feedback they got from Vista customers very seriously and spent hundreds of hours evaluating different approaches and tuning the final implementation to restore most copy scenarios to at least the performance of previous versions of Windows and drastically improve some key scenarios. The changes apply both to Explorer copies as well as to ones initiated by applications using the CopyFileEx API and you’ll see the biggest improvements over older versions of Windows when copying files on high-latency, high-bandwidth networks where the large I/Os, SMB2’s I/O pipelining, and Vista’s TCP/IP stack receive-window auto-tuning can literally deliver what would be a ten minute copy on Windows XP or Server 2003 in one minute. Pretty cool.

Read the whole article:
http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovic ... 26167.aspx

raananb wrote:A file of 1 361 932 KB

Copy : 1:59:59
Backup : 1:43:53

original and copy on same disk (physical and logical).

Copy and backup to same location (copy first, file deleted, then backup).

Due to the nature of that backup it might be that some of the windows file caching came into play (despite the relatively large size). I don't run vista so I can check myself...
Even though it is unlikely, might be worth making sure: just copy it twice, count the time of the second copy (or just if there was a difference should also clear it up), meaning:
filce copy, delete target, file copy, delete target, file backup

just a thought, could well be nothing...

admin wrote:Okay, multi-threading, copy-queue, and progress feedback might be reasons enough to do it [...]

That would be awesome, been waiting for the ability to copy more than one file/group at a time forever (or at least close to it as it feels ), being able to decide weather a second/third/... operation should be queued or executed in parallel on a per-operation basis would just totally blow my mind!!! Is there already a thread where this is/was talked about (or mentioned in more detail) and I just missed it? Would love to give suggestions/feedback on plans like that!

Creat

Creat wrote:

admin wrote:Okay, multi-threading, copy-queue, and progress feedback might be reasons enough to do it [...]

That would be awesome, been waiting for the ability to copy more than one file/group at a time forever (or at least close to it as it feels ), being able to decide weather a second/third/... operation should be queued or executed in parallel on a per-operation basis would just totally blow my mind!!! Is there already a thread where this is/was talked about (or mentioned in more detail) and I just missed it? Would love to give suggestions/feedback on plans like that!

Creat

You're welcome to open a thread on this. I envision this feature currently for version 8.20.

So, can anybody using Vista SP1 confirm that copying large files is much faster when using XY's "Backup" than when using XY's "Copy" (which is outsourcing the job to the Shell)?

I cannot confirm that "Backup" is much faster than "Copy"
File: 700MB avi movie

1) copy: 41.2s
2) reboot
3) backup: 41s
4) immediate copy (no reboot): 16.9s
5) immediate backup (no reboot): 16.8s

Vista Home Premium 32-bit SP1
In all cases XYplorer completely freezes.
I wonder if it could have something to do with copy progress feedback or something: http://www.eggheadcafe.com/software/asp ... s-pro.aspx