none
calculating time remaining moving, deleteing, copying files verry slow

    Question

  • why would vista take forever to move delete (permanently and moving to recycle bin) and copying files. it's not really the operation that's slow but the calculating time remaining stays up forever after the operation is complete and keeps it from starting for a long time?

     

    anyone have any ideas

    Monday, January 22, 2007 5:19 PM

Answers

  • because many handles and processes are working simaltiousely, your hard disk activity is so busy with all processes, so it should need so long time for this, add to this, you need UAC to be on and shows you prompt message for file operations.

    Good luck

    Sunday, January 28, 2007 3:16 PM

All replies

  • because many handles and processes are working simaltiousely, your hard disk activity is so busy with all processes, so it should need so long time for this, add to this, you need UAC to be on and shows you prompt message for file operations.

    Good luck

    Sunday, January 28, 2007 3:16 PM
  • I have experienced the same issues moving files from a Maxtor 300GB disk drive and my Win2k3 servers. This is really a bad bug and needs a resolution from MS. I have not seen anything yet from then on any of the forums or Google. Get it together MS!!
    Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:58 PM
  • I have the same problem and it's not consistent but when it occurs it is usually as below:

    Move file (size not important) from Drive C: to Drive E: (both SATA II on same PC)
    Takes ages for the green progress indicator in the address bar has reached 100% (What is this for, scanning the folder??)
    File transfer starts but progress indicator doesn't move
    After an indeterminate period transfer starts moving the progress bar along to completion

     

    I don't believe this is a hardware problem as transfers are v.fast when using an XP machine to access the Vista PC over 1GB ethernet.  Is this a common problem that needs a bug fix or have I got a wrong setting somewhere?

    Friday, February 16, 2007 3:55 AM
  • what ive noticed is that the bar goes to 100% and bounces back several times until the actual process is done.
    Friday, February 16, 2007 7:38 AM
  • i wish that someone would say something more than referring to programming handles, etc etc etc blah blah blah. a lot of programming to do a simple process is a lame excuse. moving a file should not be such a difficult problem. deleting a file, copying a file or files, etc.... these should be be such difficult processes. the move, copy, delete, cancel functions take way too long. and to be quite honest, a lot of people are getting rid of their brand new pc computers with a brand new preinstalled version of vista on it because of the os problems. compatibility issues, resource issues, etc. it is getting way out of hand. xp was not like this in its opener back in 99-2000.

    microsoft has its hands full, and all i keep reading about are programmers using the excuse that the reason my move command locks/stalls is because of A LOT OF PROGRAMMING/PROCESSES THAT ARE COMPUTING. be for real here.

    find a solution, or scrap the entire "Calculating time remaining" feature out of the os. this is one of many problems driving people insane. yet, i can honestly say this is one of the biggest.

    media center has many a glitch, but please microsoft, work on what is a problem thus far. fix my move feature, my copy feature, my delete feature, and above all else dont lock up if i decide to cancel one of these features because they do not work.

    Calculating time remaining stall is a serious problem. next, work on resource management. linux tackled this problem long ago. maybe take some pointers from them in terms of resource management. after all, microsoft has stolen the idea of gadgets from linux anyways. why not take things that are more useful such as stability!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Sunday, February 25, 2007 3:47 AM
  • Chiming in to say I'm finding the same problems. Any deletion, creation, move, copy of files takes FOREVER. These basic features were faster in 3.1, let alone XP or 98
    • Proposed as answer by Ɽenée Wednesday, July 06, 2011 11:25 PM
    Monday, February 26, 2007 11:05 PM
  • Dir listings and copy / robocopy commands work fine and fast at the command prompt.  MS DOS 6.2 anybody?
    • Proposed as answer by BrianJester Thursday, April 30, 2009 10:35 PM
    Tuesday, February 27, 2007 4:35 AM
  • I am having exactly the same problem. Even rename of very small files on the same partition takes a very long time and blocks the explorer of this window. Hope to get a solution or workaround soon.
    Tuesday, February 27, 2007 11:59 AM
  • Yep, I have 18 open instances of this and I just got my computer yesterday from Dell.

     

    It started after I turned off the Account Manager.  That's bull.  I don't need to confirm every damned click of my mouse, guys.  I then should not be penalized for NOT being a moron by enduring this kind of basic functionality bug.

     

    Maybe I should be, since I bought Microsoft.

    Thursday, March 01, 2007 1:45 AM
  • I simply can not believe that I updated to a new computer and put windows Vista on it to find that it's not even capable of moving and deleting files in an efficient manner. Microsoft must be kidding! The most basic of features that I use all the time is a slow train wreck. How could this even be possible? Who do they have designing these programs - monkeys?
    Friday, March 02, 2007 11:46 PM
  • This is one of many known bugs in vista and while microsoft has a hotfix, there really is no solution at this time. if you do a google, you will see many complaints about this.

    try and get a file copying utility shell from www.majorgeeks.com or www.betanews.com and workaround the problem for now.

    otherwise, dual boot or go back to xp as vista is a disappointment overall. thats what i did.
    i love xp.

    Saturday, March 03, 2007 6:59 PM
  • Do you know what shells to use?  Or do you happen to know where the hotfix is located?

    I've been trying to copy a roughly 600mb zip file from an XP machine to my new Vista Laptop, and this "calculating time remaining" garbage is nonsense (and it also seems to hang halfway in the transfer, but thats another story), but I'm able to transfer XP to XP with no problems.
    Sunday, March 04, 2007 11:34 PM
  • God NO KIDDING! I've never experienced a message box with a "calculating remaining time" message that then stays on the screen for 20 or 30 seconds when I am just attempting to delete a desktop shortcut! There's something definitely up in Vista with deleting files. Deleting files from any directory also very slow and results in the same message box. Interestingly, this problem was not occurring for the first week or so while using Vista, but started after that. Perhaps I just wasn't DELETING any items for the first week and so I wasn't aware of the problem, but it is most definitely VERY annoying. Anyone know if this is a bug, or just normal for Vista?
    Monday, March 05, 2007 2:37 AM
  • I, too, would like a link for the hotfix#, if only to save subsequent viewers from having to search.

    One option is to use the command shell's move, xcopy and delete commands. These would (presumably ;-) not waste time performing calculations that won't be displayed in the command line interface. A quick test indicated moving a folder within the same drive was almost instantaneous, as it should be since only a directory entry is affected; xcopy also seemed  to take about 2/3 the time of an equivalent copy via drag'n'drop or paste. These should also work fine when the source or destination is a mapped drive.

    You could also initiate operations from the XP machine where possible, i.e., do a copy from XP to Public, then use the command shell on Vista to move to the final destination.

    Another thing I noticed was that explorer seemed to get faster and smarter on subsequent operations of the same folder structures, such as moving or copying the same set of folders back and forth between two different parent folders. This is probably just because the structures were just traversed and indexed however.

    Now, I'm off to find out why I had to use FireFox to sign in with my live id (under IE7 it consistently reported "cookies are disabled" even after I'd restored the defaults and/or enabled everything... ;-)
    Wednesday, March 07, 2007 4:13 PM
  • Learn to use Google for finding stuff.
    Here is the hotfix link, but I didnt use it and not sure if I recommend doing so.
    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/931770

    I have been using Total Commander for all my vista file copying needs for the past week.
    http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail/Total_Commander/945901171/1

    I am still looking for a good easy way to partition my HDD so that I can load XP onto this dreaded vista machine for a dual boot setup. tried gparted and ran into CD boot errors with linux. then i tried a ubuntu live CD and got boot errors as well. it seems that these do not yet support my core2 intel video and bios yet. so much for a linux alternative.
    http://gparted-forum.surf4.info/viewtopic.php?id=335
    http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=365511
    http://apcmag.com/5485/dualbooting_vista_and_xp

    Good luck.
    Wednesday, March 07, 2007 5:07 PM
  • Not to beat a dead horse, but I am having the same problem, and agree with the previous posts about programmer speak.  I am a loyal MS customer but this is ridiculous.  If this isn't fixed shortly I will definetely change the OS to XP, and NEVER recommend Vista to anyone.  This is so basic; how did this ever get out of Beta? 

     

    Where are you MS?  What is the deal?  When will this be fixed?

    Sunday, March 11, 2007 3:25 PM
  • Look, I am not an expert on how vista works, but if I'm not mistaken, vista keeps track of meta data, etc of files in a SQL database behind the scenes... Well, working in Dynamics Ax together with SQL 2005 learned me when you index your data too much and info is updated, deleted ... then the index needs to be updated too.

    Well I think, when moving, deleting of copying files, vista needs an update of the indexes. Normally this should not be a problem ,but if there is a bug then there's a good chance it has something to do with this.

    greets,

    Friday, March 16, 2007 9:37 PM
  • No, there is no SQL database, and no index .. there used to be metadata on all files in XP, but Microsoft has had to remove it from Vista due to loss of data. There is now only metadata if a property filter has been written for a particular file type, and the metadata is just encoded into the file itself (generally). In effect this means XP should be slower, but OH NO!

    This is simply a case of very, very poor quality control .. This has to be without doubt the worst bug I have seen in a commercial product .. It affects 3 of the most common operations on a networked computer, and should be the very minimum of testing requirements for releasing an OS.  How did this slip through an alpha, beta, CTP, business release, and then public relase and still not be a mainstream update/fix available 2 months into the wild. 

    I think this sort of *** should go to the Press .. see how quick MS releases an update then.

     

    Friday, March 23, 2007 2:05 AM
  • Use the disk management console (diskmgmt.msc). Windows Vista finally allows non-destructive repartitioning
    Saturday, March 24, 2007 2:05 AM
  • Because of the slow move/delete/copy I'm thinking of going back to XP .......

    I downloaded a 1,8 Gb file over the internet to my D drive. Moving the tmp file from C to D took three times longer than downloading the file on a 6Mbit internet connection !!

     

    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 7:19 AM
  • On a related matter, if say I had 1GB of files in a folder and wanted to copy them to my 512MB USB stick i would drag and drop the lot and when the USB stick got full the copy would terminate. In this way I could just drag (say) a selection of mp3 files onto my USB stick.

     

    In Vista, it won't let you do this, if the target disk would be full it won't let the copy start. This means I have to select 512MB or less of files before I start the copy. Any way this behaviour can be changed?

    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 7:50 AM
  • I have also experienced this issue on a number of occaisions, I also have had a situation whereby a folder created previously within XP will not delete.

     

    There does seem to be some strange file system issues that have clearly not been bottomed out yet.

     

    If anyone from Microsoft reads this post and can advise on a hotfix, this would be much appreciated.

     

    Regards,

     

    A

    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 8:16 AM
  • I can't help but noticing that neither Linux not OS X nor any BSD flavour have ever had such problems.

    When are you people going to grow up to a real OS and stop this insane situation of monopoly?

    Stop complaining start ACTing!!!!!
    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 11:46 AM
  • Also make sure write caching is optimized on the hdd and optimize for performance. Once I checked those 2 file transfers sped up a good bit.
    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 12:33 PM
  • I concur here.  I am having the same problems.  I believe the last time I tried to move about 800k bytes to my SATA 150 RAID 0 setup, it took over 60 seconds.  Maybe even over 120 seconds.  I'm running an Athlon XP 3200+, 1.5 GB Ram.  This should not be this slow.  Rediculous.  I have recommended to everyone I know that Vista is a bad idea, especially to my co-workers and supervisors at my workplace.  Sounds like this should be high priority for patch Tuesday.  To get the big guns out I'd say:  "Well, in the Gnome/Ubuntu Linux GUI I can transfer a file instantaneously--how long does it take in Windoze?"  The fact that users have reported command-line file transfers do not have the same problem highlights an interface issue, and not an underlying API problem.  This should be a quick fix for the big machine that is Microsoft.

    Many thanks,
    --Steven
    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 12:51 PM
  • none of you people have a CLUE what the problem is. STop speculating and badmouthing when you clearly have no idea, much less any kind of reputation worth a customer base reading since you all have < 5 posts....

    i guess hopefully intelligent people reading this will have already figured this out ...


    'waaah i'm about to NEVER recommend this OS to anyone. waaah waaah waaah. this is ridiculous how could this get past QA?'

    grow up. learn how things work.
    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 12:57 PM
  • Your statement can be boiled down to:

    The O/S is so horribly written and bloated with un-needed features that no matter how fast your computer is it can never possibly process the system calls and manage file handles fast enough for Windows Vista to provide the user with a timely interaction experience.

    This is just a smoke and mirrors tactic.  Basically, you're making a statement that the person's computer isn't powerful enough to do a simple operation such as a file system table modification (moves and deletes are simply table modifications if they are on the same fixed disk and logical partition), without even asking for hardware specifications.  Your argument here is vacuous.

    I notice you are the moderator of this forum, do you hold any offical position with Microsoft?  Can you tell us concreately what will be done about this issue?

    Thank you,
    --Steven
    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 12:59 PM
  • "It is rediculous", and "how can this get past QA" are both valid complaints.  We're talking about a company that has been sitting on this new operation system release for years--and now the GUI doesn't even respond in a timely manner when doing something as base as copying a file.  I think critisizing Microsoft here is valid, since anyone can go download Linux and install it for free and receive performance that does not exist in a commercial product costing over or approximately $400 for some versions of it.  That is what is "rediculous" about it.  For you or anyone to say that this critisism is ill-founded, well, please give me more evidence than simply saying that my critisim is worthless because I "don't know what is involved" in copying a file on a computer system or I "have less than 5 posts on Technet."  I think it is safe to say that the operation in question is simple and routine enough to be high on the list of what a user might want to "do" with a Disk Operating System, don't you think?
    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:08 PM
  • And of course your post was oh so helpful.
    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:08 PM
  • Microsoft just released an update, but you have to download it separately.  Go to http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download and following the insructions.
    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:09 PM
  • I have complained about this on the shell team's site forum.

     

    The system is generating missing THUMBNAILS when you complete the drag and drop operation.  The cancel button does indeed cancel the operation, but it does NOT cancel the thumbnail generation.

     

    If there is a hotfix for this bit of stupidity, I would love to get my hands on it.

     

    If you don't have the hotfix and do not need thumbnails, you can turn this bit of abject stupidity off by going to  CONTROL PANEL -> FOLDER OPTIONS, select the VIEW TAB  and then checking ALWAYS SHOW ICONS, NEVER THUMBNAILS.

     

    And poof, this HUGE delay goes away.

     

    Think twice before doing this, however, as it has system wide consequences, including the fact that you do not thumbnails of wallpaper as you are selecting them any longer.

     

    You can also make this bug mostly go away by always running your explorer in TILES view, so it is CONTINUALLY wasting your cpu building thumbnails.  This doesn't get it 100% (you could still drag and drop before it gets a chance to thumbnail a file, after all), and it is a HUGE waste of resources and CPU for something you probably don't want or need (or you would already have it like that), but I suspect that most of the dev team and beta testers were using their system this way - it is the only possible reason something this stupid and easy to find made it all the way through to the final release.

     

    Drag and drop operations are NEVER the freaking time to generate thumbnails.  If you have them, great, otherwise do without.  I don't care how cool it is to get a picture of my video in the delete confirmation window if it takes 45 seconds to get the damn thing.

    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:12 PM
  •  ahmhdy wrote:

    because many handles and processes are working simaltiousely, your hard disk activity is so busy with all processes, so it should need so long time for this, add to this, you need UAC to be on and shows you prompt message for file operations.

    Good luck

     

    Wrong, see my post in this thead about thumbnail generation.  This isn't just because the system is busy, it is because the system is busy doing something POINTLESS at the worst possible time.

    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:14 PM
  • Maybe, maybe not.  It may not be a technical solution to the problem, but sometimes words spur action.  Sometimes the right ones do it faster.  Are you saying that we just shouldn't try?  We should just accept poor results from Microsoft because the reality is that they are a monopoly and can get away with it?  I don't understand why people are so opposed to others' ideas, all the while calling this place a "forum."  Yes, I am being Microsoft-negative.  Yes, I am advocating free software over bloated software.  The fact of the matter is that, in some ways, I like Vista.  Going further, there are annoying things that are part of every new O/S rollout that anyone is going to come across.  It is just disappointing that something like "copying files" was overlooked.  I am not shocked at this from a Microsoft product; the problem is, I should be.
    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:15 PM
  • none of you people have a CLUE what the problem is. STop speculating and badmouthing when you clearly have no idea, much less any kind of reputation worth a customer base reading since you all have < 5 posts....

    i guess hopefully intelligent people reading this will have already figured this out ...


    'waaah i'm about to NEVER recommend this OS to anyone. waaah waaah waaah. this is ridiculous how could this get past QA?'

    grow up. learn how things work.

     

    Steve?  Bill?  Is that you?

     

    Learning how it works won't make it suck less.

     

    Bitching about <5 posts = Pot>Kettle>Black

     

    I'm an anonymous coward and proud of it.

    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:16 PM
  •  Anonymous wrote:
    Microsoft just released an update, but you have to download it separately.  Go to http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download and following the insructions.

     

    Irony for you:

     

    I just did that after encountering the problem.  I was trying to decompress a zip file using the native zipped folder compression (Actually MS Build community tasks source code - yes I'm a c# developer by day and no longer by night).  It ran REALLY slowly, so I thought it was just the folder compression being *** (like it was in XP), so I installed WinZip 11.  This showed the same problem after doing a right click -> extract.  I give up.  I shouldn't have to go through that. 

     

    Anyway, here I sit on a Ubuntu BETA release OS (yes BETA) which is far more stable and reliable so far.  Now to investigate Apache, Python and PostgreSQL for this web application rather than SQL Server 2005 and ASP.Net/C#...

     

    Sorry - I can't sit around wasting my life beta testing stuff for Microsoft, ESPECIALLY SEEING AS I'VE PAID A LOT OF MONEY FOR IT TO WORK PROPERLY IN THE FIRST PLACE.

    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:20 PM
  • I also have the same issues with this. I'm not sure if anyone has tried this over an IPSec tunnel or a VPN, but transfers are essentially impossible to get working. It will sit at Calculating Time Remaining for ~5-10 minutes then tell me the file isn't available anymore. I refresh the view where the file is located and it refreshes instantly (can even ping -t the system indefinitely and the same error will eventually come up so I know the link is good), and without trouble. I hit retry, it starts to copy then goes into the Calculating Time Remaining bit again and eventually dies. Even trying to copy a simple 5MB file doesn't go without waiting easily 2+ hours. I can however RDP into the same system (both boxes are running Vista, one is the Business edition and the other is Ultimate) and copy the file to my clipboard, then paste onto my system and the transfer is as fast as I would expect.

     

    I read through the KB article posted at the top of this page of this thread and it looks like M$ is willing to give the patch if you contact them or wait for the next service pack (none scheduled at this time that I know of). Contacting them requires a $59 fee though which may (and most likely will be) refunded. Anyone have this patch available directly? I'm not sure I want to run the risk of hoping they'll refund my $59 for an issue that is clearly OS related and not user error..

     

    I also wonder if, when I go to save a file from IE and then open the folder in Explorer, sometimes it takes *forever* for it to show me the files in it (sits on Not Responding). I'd be very surprised if it was hardware related as I've got 2GB dual channel DDR2-800, 10K Raptor, and an Athlon 5200+ in my system. Could these issues be related? This happens on more than one system running Vista, but these boxes were smoking fast with XP.

    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:29 PM
  • Xepol..

     

    I thought turning thumbnails off worked for me (a 1.9MB file transferred very fast - it was a CHM too so hopefully it wasn't trying to build a thumbnail to begin with). Trying to copy a 38.8MB EXE over my IPSec tunnel isn't cutting it though - same issues as I posted above. For anyone who is quick to blame the IPSec tunnel, I can ping the box indefinitely with no lost packets and both routers show the IPSec tunnel as being fully enabled and running successfully. I can run these transfers from an XP box copying a file from the Vista box at the other end of the tunnel and it works great. Definitely has to be a UI issue with Vista.

    So frustrating..

    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:42 PM
  • You sir, obviously have no idea how computing works, so I'll educate you.

    Within an Operating System's file system, there are 4 simple file control functions. Yes there are others, but they are built upon these. Copy, Delete, Load(with a specified program), and Save (from a specified program). Move is simply a combination of copy and then delete. These functions were written and perfected in the 70's-80's, yet somehow, not so much in Vista. To do so is not missing a simple bug as you seem to think, rather it is a massive display of incompetence.

    If what some say here is true, that it takes longer to copy files from one hard disk to another than it takes to download said files from the internet, than this is a massive disservice to the community that Microsoft is trying to serve.


    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:45 PM
  •  Contra wrote:
    You sir, obviously have no idea how computing works, so I'll educate you.


    You'll forgive me here flocktard, but Move is not a "combination of copy and delete", it is a rename operation. Obviously you have a pulse on this "computing" thing, eh?

    Thanks for stopping by to share your thoughts though. It's always amusing to see the slashbots get out on "teh internets" to tell it like it is.
    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 2:01 PM
  • MOVE is a rename function when on the same disk, a copy/delete when moving between different disks
    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 2:06 PM
  • Actually a move operation involving a single drive is actually a rename, it only becomes a copy-delete when it is to a separate drive, this is what some people are commenting about, that to "move" a file is actually just changing the drives index to show the file in a different folder, it involves NO moving of data whatsoever.

    However what you say is partly correct, the time to copy data from one drive to another is no way indicative of the OS as a whole, I personally found mass data moves quite painless in vista (maybe because I prefer my win2k layout better than anything since, and don't have the problem with icon caches, etc) and could throw a few hundred gig between raids and regular drives without any slowdowns.

    Would be nice if we could have this "hotfix" (why do a lot of "hotfixes" require reboots?) made more public so OEMers like myself could pre-load it for people Smile
    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 2:10 PM
  • I used to get this, it took MINUTES to move a file from one folder to another. And we're talking like a 20k text doc here, nothing fancy.

    Fixed it though. I went into : Control Panel / Programs and features / and unchecked "Remote Differential Compression".

    Now, I have no idea why this works for local files, cos its only supposed to be for networks, right? Well, since unchecking that I can drag and drop files almost instantly (well, max 3 second lag).

    Hold on - has someone mentioned this already?
    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 2:18 PM
  •  

     

    Get the Hotfix KB-931770 here

    http://hotfix.xable.net/download/index.php?dir=Language%20Neutral/Vista/

     

    and quit yer wining.

    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 2:25 PM
  • Mombo, have you tried the hotfix yourself?  Does it solve the problem?  I read the KB article, and it says this is a fix for network file transfers, not local file transfers.  Please tell us your experience post-hotfix.

    Thanks,
    --Steven
    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 2:32 PM
  • I just bought a core duo Toshiba laptop wit 1 GB RAM and have seen the same problem with vista home premium.Uninstalling any program takes forever!!! No aero running and 800 MB of RAM in constant use doing nothing!!! Tonight's project will be installing XP media center. I guess MS shot itself in the foot when they made such a "good" OS like XP(sure it had bugs but...). My work machine (dual core pentium D,3 gb ram, geforce 6600) was chewing through 1.2 GB of RAm with only outlook and firefox when I had Vista Business on. Put XP back on there and voila- RAM usage is down to 386 MB with the same apps open. I don't care how much RAM you have, or throw at a system, I want an OS that uses it efficiently!! Undesirable features in vista: RAM hogging, UAC,Windows Defender, slow hard drive response to uninstall/delete/move files.
    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 2:56 PM
  • <quote>Morbo:

     

    Get the Hotfix KB-931770 here

    http://hotfix.xable.net/download/index.php?dir=Language%20Neutral/Vista/

     

    and quit yer wining.</quote>

    Because downloading and running random executables off the internet is the BESTEST IDEA EVAR!!!

     

    Or maybe it's some seriously weak shi* that MS hasn't publicly posted this.

     

    earl

    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:32 PM
  •  Steven wrote:
    Mombo, have you tried the hotfix yourself?  Does it solve the problem?  I read the KB article, and it says this is a fix for network file transfers, not local file transfers.  Please tell us your experience post-hotfix.

    Thanks,
    --Steven

    I decided to take the plunge & try this hotfix.

    It worked for me. I tested a 576MB file, copy/paste & cut/paste both between seperate hard drives and to  a different location on the same hard drive.

     

    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:39 PM
  • 1.  As you can see since it is a KB Hotfix so it is something Microsoft has publicly posted.

    2. It is not a random executable - it is coming from a reliable site.

    3. Quit Whinning.
    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:46 PM
  • Hint for Contra: Move, if within the same volume, requires nothing more than a file directory change. It does not involve moving or copying any file data.
    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:54 PM
  • >> No aero running and 800 MB of RAM in constant use doing nothing!!! Not that this has anything to do with the thread at hand, but Vista is designed to fill up whatever physical RAM is available. It preloads things that it thinks you might use in the near future. This *improves* performance, rather than reduces it. If something else winds up needing the RAM, the occupied RAM is immediately freed for that use, and costs you nothing. Be careful making simplistic judgments about perceived behavior. When you don't actually understand the detailed workings, you may come to the incorrect conclusion (as here).
    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 4:00 PM
  • I noticed that many who are having the problem have < 2GB RAM. I consider 2GB to be the functional minimum for a professional user. And 4GB RAM is best. Is anyone having this problem with 2GB RAM or more? I'm curious because I am not having this issue...and that is not to say your problems are not real or that I am denying the issue. I'm just trying to understand if RAM is possibly the issue and I'm in no way saying this is somehow anyone's problem. The "quit whinning" comments are really unhelpful, rude, and a true sign of a lack of professionalism.

     

    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 4:16 PM
  • 1. As the website itself states <quote> Please do not upload any hotfix`s which are publicly available from microsofts website! </quote>

    2. It is a random executable because whose word should we take that it is a reliable site...yours...mine...theirs. If you believe anything someone tells you then I have a bridge to sell you.

    3. That added nothing productive to the discussion and simply assumes that any viewpoint that disagrees with you is not worth hearing.
    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 4:46 PM
  •  Steven wrote:
    Your statement can be boiled down to:

    The O/S is so horribly written and bloated with un-needed features that no matter how fast your computer is it can never possibly process the system calls and manage file handles fast enough for Windows Vista to provide the user with a timely interaction experience.

    This is just a smoke and mirrors tactic.  Basically, you're making a statement that the person's computer isn't powerful enough to do a simple operation such as a file system table modification (moves and deletes are simply table modifications if they are on the same fixed disk and logical partition), without even asking for hardware specifications.  Your argument here is vacuous.

    I notice you are the moderator of this forum, do you hold any offical position with Microsoft?  Can you tell us concreately what will be done about this issue?

    Thank you,
    --Steven
    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 4:55 PM
  • I have 2GB RAM, and have been experiencing this same issue. Deleting a text file from the desktop has taken more than a minute at times. It just sits at 0% and thinks about what it's going to do.
    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 5:15 PM
  •  mashby wrote:

    I noticed that many who are having the problem have < 2GB RAM. I consider 2GB to be the functional minimum for a professional user. And 4GB RAM is best. Is anyone having this problem with 2GB RAM or more? I'm curious because I am not having this issue...and that is not to say your problems are not real or that I am denying the issue. I'm just trying to understand if RAM is possibly the issue and I'm in no way saying this is somehow anyone's problem. The "quit whinning" comments are really unhelpful, rude, and a true sign of a lack of professionalism.



    I have this problem on my Latitude D820 with 2 GB of RAM. Also, why are you recommending 4 GB? You won't be able to use it unless you have the 64-bit version.


    I have found that the more files you have, the longer it takes. Working with one 3 GB file isn't as bad as 3,000 files totaling 1 GB.
    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 5:15 PM
  •  redmaxx wrote:

    I have found that the more files you have, the longer it takes. Working with one 3 GB file isn't as bad as 3,000 files totaling 1 GB.


    That's been the way it's worked for as long as I can remember though, and is certainly not something unique to vista.
    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 5:32 PM
  • I have been seeing this also when doing FTP transfers. I also found that if the file I'm copying to another drive replaces an existing file on that drive, the "calculating time" message box pops up in front of the "replace existing file?" dialog.  Like the obedient Windows user I am, for a long time I would sit there and wait for the "calculating time" box to go away so I can answer "yes" to replace the file.  Then once I got impatient and thought, "I wonder what will happen if I try to move aside this 'calculating time' dialog and just answer 'yes' to the replacing file dialog box?"  My first thought was that the calculating time dialog was modal, but to my surprise it wasn't!  When I answered "yes" to the replacing file dialog, the "calculating time" dialog disappeared and the file copied in a very acceptable time frame.  So, I see that there is definitely some kind of bug, but it's probably NOT in the actual copying/moving/deleting of the file, and instead it's in the showing of that "calculating time" dialog.
    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 5:39 PM
  • Vista 32 bit (any 32 bit) can only address 3GB RAM max
    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 5:59 PM
  • What did you mean by (any 32 bit)?  All 32 bit operating systems can address up to 4 gigs of RAM.  The limitation in some versions of 32 bit Vista is a licensing restriction.


    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:10 PM
  •  Craig Matthews wrote:
    What did you mean by (any 32 bit)? All 32 bit operating systems can address up to 4 gigs of RAM. The limitation in some versions of 32 bit Vista is a licensing restriction.


    On some (most?) motherboards, various ROMs and firmware occupy memory address space below the 4GB mark. Your system RAM can't use that space unless you remap it. See this link for the details:

    http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2006/08/14/699521.aspx

    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:47 PM
  • Not a licencing restriction. To address 4GB of memory you need 32 bits of address bus. (Assuming individual bytes are addressable.) This gives us a problem - the same problem that IBM faced when designing the original PC. You tend to want to have more than just memory in a computer - you need things like graphics cards and hard disks to be accessible to the computer in order for it to be able to use them. So just as the original PC had to carve up the 8086's 1MB addressing range into memory (640K) and 'other' (384K), the same problem exists today if you want to fit memory and devices into a 32-bit address range: not all of the available 4GB of address space can be given over to memory.

    For a long time this wasn't a problem, because there was a whole 4GB of address space, so devices typically lurk up in the top 1GB of physical address space, leaving the bottom 3GB for memory. And 3GB should be enough for anyone, right?

    So what actually happens if you go out and buy 4GB of memory for your PC? Well, it's just like the DOS days - there's a hole in your memory map for the IO. (Now it's only 25% of the total address space, but it's still a big hole.) So the bottom 3GB of your memory will be available, but there's an issue with that last 1GB.

     

    And if you think devices can't possibly need that much memory-mapped IO, I have some sobering news for you: by this summer, you'll be able to buy video cards with 1 GB of video memory.

    To be perfectly clear, this isn't a Windows problem-- it's an x86 hardware problem. The memory hole is quite literally invisible to the CPU, no matter what 32-bit operating system you choose.

     

    If you're planning to stick with a 32-bit operating system for the next few years, don't waste your money on 4 GB of RAM. You won't be able to use it all. Buy 3 GB instead.

    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:56 PM
  • Wow, what a fanboy we have here.  He obviously has no idea what the problem is but he thinks you should. 
     "Stop speculating and badmouthing..."  why, because the overpriced copy of Vista that I paid for and is full of bugs is worth it??   Yea right.
    "i guess hopefully intelligent people reading this will have already figured this out"   Now, now my son, assuming only makes an ***..... er never mind. 

    Sorry, when I see these types of replys, all I can think of is that someone either works for Microsoft and its their job to rant all over the net, or there are some seriously ill people that are trying to protect their beloved Bill and Steve.   I don't know which.

    Well, back to work trying to patch my overpriced little pile of cra... er software.  :-)

    N.


    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 8:00 PM
  • I noticed Explorer had major issues with deleting files and unzipping files when I had AVG (the free version) installed. Once I removed AVG and installed Avast (also free edition) everything was OK again... Do you use AVG anti-virus?
    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 8:42 PM
  • No, my point was that Vista takes noticeably longer with each file. So that an XP system that had to move 3,000 files would go faster than a Vista system with 3,000 files. Vista spends an inordinate about of time "Calculating Time Remaining".
    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:20 PM
  • I call bullshit on this.  Read the damn intel x86 hardware manuals and weep.  You can address a LOT more than 4Gb of RAM using the GDT and LDT features (local / global descriptor tables) on Pentium+ CPUs.  Only a single process' address space is limited to 4Gb in theory and there are ways to work around that.

    Windows uses pages and can dynamically map a larger quantity of memory into the main address space.  I mean I have a nice IBM Windows 2003 server sitting in the machine room with 2x dual core Opterons and 16Gb of RAM running SQL 2005 which can quite happily use it all..

    Considering the memory manager in 2k3 server is the same as vista (well similar enough), bullshit has been called.

    And yes, I'm writing this from Ubuntu because my Vista is broke.  Who cares - it's not the tools that count, it's the end result.
    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:02 PM
  • Wonder if SoftICE is still available to see what the heck have they written from a assembly language's point of view, which most of us can easily understand, rather than bullshitting here and do the guessing game.
    anybody still using soft ICE?
    Tuesday, March 27, 2007 11:02 PM
  • I am running Windows Vista Ultimate "64bit", running a dual core AMD 4600+ (S939) with 4Gig of memory.  I have also had this problem with the slowdown of file transfers and deleting.  When you are used to fast performance it can be quite frustrating.  I will let you know if the hotfix fixes the problem for me.
    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 12:11 AM
  • Didn't fix it because it says "this update does not apply to your system" and will not install.  Has anyone else had any luck installing this hotfix with Vista "64bit" or is it just a "32bit" fix?
    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 12:25 AM
  •  Chris The Techie wrote:
    I call bullshit on this. Read the damn intel x86 hardware manuals and weep. You can address a LOT more than 4Gb of RAM using the GDT and LDT features (local / global descriptor tables) on Pentium+ CPUs. Only a single process' address space is limited to 4Gb in theory and there are ways to work around that.

    Windows uses pages and can dynamically map a larger quantity of memory into the main address space. I mean I have a nice IBM Windows 2003 server sitting in the machine room with 2x dual core Opterons and 16Gb of RAM running SQL 2005 which can quite happily use it all..

    Considering the memory manager in 2k3 server is the same as vista (well similar enough), bullshit has been called.

    And yes, I'm writing this from Ubuntu because my Vista is broke. Who cares - it's not the tools that count, it's the end result.


    Read this and weep:

    http://www.vistaclues.com/reader-question-maximum-memory-in-32-bit-windows-vista/
    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:15 AM
  • FWIW, I noticed this behavior after migrating a substantial amount of data from an XP machine to a new Vista Business machine (with 2G and a 7200 drive, by the way). It was unbearable at first, prompting my initial post in this thread. However, I noticed that by some time the next day, it had settled down, so I supsect it was all related to initial indexing occurring in the background. Since then, I haven't had the problem (whatever its underlying cause may be).

     

    So, do your install, copy or migrate your files, then go out for a pizza and a few beers. In the morning (or whenever you get up) everything will probably be fine (depending on the beer of course).

     

    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 3:25 AM
  •  redmaxx wrote:
     Chris The Techie wrote:
    I call bullshit on this. Read the damn intel x86 hardware manuals and weep. You can address a LOT more than 4Gb of RAM using the GDT and LDT features (local / global descriptor tables) on Pentium+ CPUs. Only a single process' address space is limited to 4Gb in theory and there are ways to work around that.

    Windows uses pages and can dynamically map a larger quantity of memory into the main address space. I mean I have a nice IBM Windows 2003 server sitting in the machine room with 2x dual core Opterons and 16Gb of RAM running SQL 2005 which can quite happily use it all..

    Considering the memory manager in 2k3 server is the same as vista (well similar enough), bullshit has been called.

    And yes, I'm writing this from Ubuntu because my Vista is broke. Who cares - it's not the tools that count, it's the end result.



    Read this and weep:

    http://www.vistaclues.com/reader-question-maximum-memory-in-32-bit-windows-vista/

     

    Bullshit again.  I wish these people would go read a damn book about OS design.

     

    Clarification:-

     

    Total memory = total memory configured

    Cache = cached code / data / buffers

    Kernel memory = kernel code and data pages

    Available = Total - Cache - Kernel

     

    Available will sit at 3.1 - 3.3Gb because the OS has claimed a large chunk of CONTIGUOUS memory a load as cache, kernel memory etc as it's more efficient than paging random fragments later.  It's the most efficient, high performing use of the memory.  Yeah it's a load of memory but you're not going to do much else with 4Gb of RAM in a workstation other than wave your *** at it (unless it's a server).

     

    Add to that, the kernel needs more memory to store the larger page tables, buffers and atoms in a 4Gb system than a lower-equipped one.  Imagine the memory required for a TLB to look up all pages (4k size) in a 4Gb system.  Even more memory for this on post 4Gb systems.

     

    As for PCI, that isn't there all the time and is strictly access controlled by the NT kernel.  Processes don't need direct access to PCI memory so it's mapped out until you enter kernel ring 0 (well it was on NT+).  As for the BIOS, that's copied into RAM and paged out pretty much when the OS is loaded as it serves NO PURPOSE once the OS has loaded it's filesystem drivers.

    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:04 AM
  •  Chris The Techie wrote:
     redmaxx wrote:
     Chris The Techie wrote:
    I call bullshit on this. Read the damn intel x86 hardware manuals and weep. You can address a LOT more than 4Gb of RAM using the GDT and LDT features (local / global descriptor tables) on Pentium+ CPUs. Only a single process' address space is limited to 4Gb in theory and there are ways to work around that.

    Windows uses pages and can dynamically map a larger quantity of memory into the main address space. I mean I have a nice IBM Windows 2003 server sitting in the machine room with 2x dual core Opterons and 16Gb of RAM running SQL 2005 which can quite happily use it all..

    Considering the memory manager in 2k3 server is the same as vista (well similar enough), bullshit has been called.

    And yes, I'm writing this from Ubuntu because my Vista is broke. Who cares - it's not the tools that count, it's the end result.



    Read this and weep:

    http://www.vistaclues.com/reader-question-maximum-memory-in-32-bit-windows-vista/

     

    Bullshit again.  I wish these people would go read a damn book about OS design.

     

    Clarification:-

     

    Total memory = total memory configured

    Cache = cached code / data / buffers

    Kernel memory = kernel code and data pages

    Available = Total - Cache - Kernel

     

    Available will sit at 3.1 - 3.3Gb because the OS has claimed a large chunk of CONTIGUOUS memory a load as cache, kernel memory etc as it's more efficient than paging random fragments later.  It's the most efficient, high performing use of the memory.  Yeah it's a load of memory but you're not going to do much else with 4Gb of RAM in a workstation other than wave your *** at it (unless it's a server).

     

    Add to that, the kernel needs more memory to store the larger page tables, buffers and atoms in a 4Gb system than a lower-equipped one.  Imagine the memory required for a TLB to look up all pages (4k size) in a 4Gb system.  Even more memory for this on post 4Gb systems.

     

    As for PCI, that isn't there all the time and is strictly access controlled by the NT kernel.  Processes don't need direct access to PCI memory so it's mapped out until you enter kernel ring 0 (well it was on NT+).  As for the BIOS, that's copied into RAM and paged out pretty much when the OS is loaded as it serves NO PURPOSE once the OS has loaded it's filesystem drivers.

     

    Ok after review, actually the OS supports 3Gb before it enters PAE mode (Page address extension).  Basically two lookups for each address.  Now you lose a chunk of that thanks to the PAE stuff.  Nevertheless it's there and the OS is using as efficiently as possible.

     

    Install Vista x64 and it's all sorted.  Our 2k3 servers are x64 mode.

    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:10 AM
  • very cool of you to post this, and i'd love to download the hotfix and quit whining.......unfortunately that website only seems to have the x86 version of the hotfix and not the x64 one.

     

    in fact, if i could download the hotfix already i'd never have whined in the first place.

     

    what i dont understand though, is this problem seems to be very widespread, that it never ever got noticed....it's really weird....either that or MS seriously thought we'd accept the 'feature' in exchange for a shiny blurry desktop.

    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:13 AM
  • I've tried the hotfix. Yes, it really works. File of 155 Mb size is transferred from local network disc in 17-18 seconds without hotfix. The same file is transferred in 11-12 seconds with hotfix. BUT! Transferring in FAR Manager is faster much with or without hotfix, when "Use system copy routine" checkbox in FAR "System Settings" is unchecked. Transfer time is about 5-6 seconds for 155 Mb size file. Standard DVD folder with full content is transferring in 9 min 30 s in explorer and in 3 min 30 s in FAR Manager. (I'm from Russia, so FAR is freeware for "Ex-USSR" :-)))
    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 12:25 PM
  • I installed the hotfix and it's still a no-go for me with network transfers. Just sits at calculating time remaining until eventually it tells me the file is no longer available (but I can refresh the file list so the link is still good).
    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:01 PM
  • So that's how vista is supposed to work?? Fillup RAM for what? I had only outlook and firefox open. Windows desktop manager was eating up RAM.Making simplistic judgements is better than overanalyzing! How does filling up RAM help when you have made no requests??? Does it make you feel better that you are using all resources you paid for? ALso, since the RAM isn being used, when a process requires RAM, there will be a delay(however small) before vista lets go of RAM it has filled up on. Remember RAM speed is not as high as CPU. Anyway it still doesn't explain why moving files takes longer than win 3.1 as pointed out by another member of this forum?? If you don't have anything useful to contribute, don't!!!
    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 3:08 PM
  • I absolutely f*cking hate Vista.

    The replies here of people saying you need more than 2gig of ram are actually sick, all my tests are done with known, good working hardware using a Cisco gigabit network.

    Dual core athlons with 2gig of ram and other machines of high spec, previously worked FINE with XP (so no blaming of the network)

    So far I've tried the following fixes which seem to keep cropping up

    • RDC - Remote differential compression - Turned OFF - No difference
    • netsh interface tcp set global autotuning=disabled - No difference
    • Control panel -> Folder options -> show icons, never thumbnails - No difference
    I'm now faced with the decision as to whether I should run a fix from a non-Microsoft site because Micro$hit won't publish the fix publically?

    I've been using linux and recently mac so I'm used to stuff breaking and fiddling, but come on this OS costs a lot of money and is apparently final.  I wouldn't care if it was a glitch in graphics or similar but this is a fundamental and critical problem.

    Copying large 100meg+ files still gives 7/8meg so throughput isn't an issue - but try copying a webroot of say 15,000 files which is still only 150meg it literally drops to 70k/sec and hangs.

    Extremely p*ssed off Vistauser
    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 5:28 PM
  •  Anonymous wrote:
    2. It is a random executable because whose word should we take that it is a reliable site...yours...mine...theirs. If you believe anything someone tells you then I have a bridge to sell you.

    I would really like to know why some people have such a big problem with using a Microsoft file form a non-Microsoft site. Whether the site is trustworthy may be a highly subjective evaluation, but evaluating the trustworthiness of the file is rather easy:

    In the Signature tab of the file's properties, the signature is shown as Microsoft Corporation, Thursday, January 25, 2007 3:21:38 AM. It is signed using SHA-1 and RSA algorithms. Unless these algorithms have been compromised, I see no danger in accepting this file as genuine. The only thing an attacker could do, is to give the file another file-name.

    I'm definitely going to try the (Vista 32-bit) hotfix from this site:

    http://hotfix.xable.net/download/index.php?dir=Language%20Neutral/Vista/&file=Windows6.0-KB931770-x86.msu


    Maybe I'm missing something here security-wise, so please enlighten me!
    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 6:13 PM
  •  Anonymous wrote:
    2. It is a random executable because whose word should we take that it is a reliable site...yours...mine...theirs. If you believe anything someone tells you then I have a bridge to sell you.

    I would really like to know why some people have such a big problem with using a Microsoft file form a non-Microsoft site. Whether the site is trustworthy may be a highly subjective evaluation, but evaluating the trustworthiness of the file is rather easy:

    In the Signature tab of the file's properties, the signature is shown as Microsoft Corporation, Thursday, January 25, 2007 3:21:38 AM. It is signed using SHA-1 and RSA algorithms. Unless these algorithms have been compromised, I see no danger in accepting this file as genuine. The only thing an attacker could do, is to give the file another file-name.

    I'm definitely going to try the (Vista  32-bit) hotfix from this site:

    http://hotfix.xable.net/download/index.php?dir=Language%20Neutral/Vista/&file=Windows6.0-KB931770-x86.msu


    Maybe I'm missing something here security-wise, so please enlighten me!
    Wednesday, March 28, 2007 6:15 PM
  • Ive got this problem too

    windows vista Ultimate X64, 4gb ram, can someone post the x64 file

     

    Ive also noticed that even robocopy seems slower than when the same pc was running xp

     

    Btw i wasted a half a day trying to install vista with 4gb of ram , it would only install with 2gb and would bluescreen with 4gb, Windows6.0-KB929777-v2-x86 fixed all that but thats now 2 serious bugs i have found ,im not ready to go back to xp yet but its getting close.

     

    Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:12 AM
  •  Mombo wrote:

     

     

    Get the Hotfix KB-931770 here

    http://hotfix.xable.net/download/index.php?dir=Language%20Neutral/Vista/

     

    and quit yer wining.

     

    So is this site reliable?

     

    Can those files be trusted?

    Thursday, March 29, 2007 2:15 AM
  •  

    "So is this site reliable?

     

    Can those files be trusted?"

     

     

    Yes, I have been using patches from this site for over a year, scan them with 4 different products, never a problem.

     

    Thursday, March 29, 2007 5:20 AM
  • I am also experiencing incredibly poor performance when copying and moving files, and yes, even calculating the time to move the files takes just as long as actually moving the damn files!  As this is one of the most basic features of an OS, you'd think they would ensured it would work correctly. Seems they've spent more time making things look pretty than actually making sure the basics work.

     

    I've also noticed that copying files over a network is even worse; on several occassions I've had to leave it copying files overnight as it was going to take 3 hours to move 200Mb of files - ridiculous.  XP shifted the files in a couple of minutes.  I can't belive they've not done any benchmarking on this and picked this up pre-release.

     

    I read on a tech news website that Microsoft may charge users for the patch and ask people to phone their hotline in order to obtain the patch.  I can say right now that if they don't provide this as a free hotfix then I'll certainly bear it in mind next time I need to upgrade my computer and I have the option of whether to buy a Mac or PC.  It's not like Vista is cheap either, so if bugs are found I'd expect them to be free hotfixes.

    Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:02 PM
  • I just got home and realized there were some files I wanted off of my laptop (running the x86 Business version of Vista). I connected to it over my IPSec tunnel with my x64 Vista Ultimate box and experienced the exact same trouble as I and many others have been posting about. I got the first file of 15 but then it would essentially timeout over and over on the second file (and all subsequent) telling me the location had a problem and couldn't be found (all the while I could ping it and refresh the folder list). To test the connection itself, I moved to my Server 2003 box which is right next to me, connected to the same gigabit switch and using the same connection/IPSec tunnel. The files are almost done transferring without a single hitch.

     

    Has there been any official response from MS on this forum regarding this? Clearly a lot of people are running into trouble..

    Thursday, March 29, 2007 10:42 PM
  • Following up..

     

    I just transferred the files from my 03 server box to my Vista box using Vista to test it out. The speed was almost 10MB/s and there wasn't a single error. What in the world could cause this......

    Thursday, March 29, 2007 10:45 PM
  • Vista has what M$ calls next generation IP stack. Basically, the new features are TCP receive window scaling, selective acknowledgments, and better roundtrip time (RTT) estimation. More than likely, it is the round trip time estimation process that is hanging and causing the entire download/file transfer to abort. Theoretically, they have a good idea. The execution however, as you already know is horrible. It will be interesting to turn on an analyzer and capture some packets and see if I am right. Not sure if the same is happening with file transfers within the computer/drives also. Seems to me that vista is trying to calculate file transfer time unsuccessfully thus causing the process itself to hand which basically means that MS does not have a frikkin QA dept!! Process monitor by sysinternals will tell you exactly what's happenning with the calculating time.... please deposit 25 dollas to continue... type of messages. It's almost Friday Smile
    Friday, March 30, 2007 12:34 AM
  • Yes I've done this as well; connected to my Vista machine from my XP machine and the files transfered across no problems and very quickly (normal speed that I'd expect).  If I do the opposite and connect from my Vista machine to my XP machine and copy the files across then it's painfully slow.  I'm not sure, but I'm suspicious whether it has something to do with the IPv6 protocol that is being used in Vista, or whether it's just that Vista seems to be rubbish at creating new files.  Regardless, something aint right and it should have been picked up on pre-release.
    Friday, March 30, 2007 9:51 AM
  • Um, everyone should have known this issue exists in Vista ...

     

    It's either 1 of 2 things - you've all seen the Apple commercial vs the new Vista with his big security goon?  Well, my theory is every byte of data needs to go thru the overhead of - allow / deny - at some point in Vista's innards Wink lol

     

    If it's not that - It's probably because MS has decided in their ultimate wisdom to bend over for the media corps and DRM and thus are encrypting EVERYTHING going to and from your system bus...  this is by design!   So instead of copying pure data - the process is - read a few k - encrypt - send over system bus to destination - repeat.

     

    I'm surprized you don't know about this -read it- http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

     

    Vista is not going on my personal systems ever.  Period.  MS needs to get a clue.

    Friday, March 30, 2007 4:29 PM
  • Yes, a 32-bit processor has an offset register that is capable of addressing up to a 32-bit unsigned integer, or 4GiB.  And yes, there are 3-level page table translations that allow up to a theoretical 64GiB (32GiB max. is most commonly implemented, long story) using Processor Address Extensions (PAE) of the Pentium Pro (i686) and select, latter Pentium processors as well as Core (plus all AMD Athlon-based cores, which use 40-bit EV6 internally, long story), not looking at "Long Mode."

    But how you model the access to that memory is the question.

    There are countless user/kernel space models that limit usage to 1/3, 2/2, 3/1GiB or other, similar approaches.  There are even split 4/4GiB models implemented in other OSes (not NT5/6, largely championed by Red Hat in Linux, although there are issues/tradeoffs too, beyond just performance) which completely maintain a full 4GiB for kernel and then one or more sets of 4GiB user space tables, up to 64GiB.  Of course, with PAE, you take a major hit.  It gets worse on Intel IA-32e (aka EM64T) since it doesn't offer an I/O MMU (like x86-64 aka AMD64 implementations), so any memory mapped I/O or other DMA requires (for maximum safety) "bounce buffers" for anything virtualized (remember, i686 is a 32-bit offset plus 16-bit segment, 48-bit virtual normalized into 32/36-bit) beyond the lower, normalized 32-bit/4GiB addresses.

    This is far more complicated than you make it -- from all aspects -- the physical platform (36-bit for i686/GTL+ designs, 40-bit for EV6/HyperTransport or Intel emulations), the register virtualization (such as 48-bit "Long Mode" using 52-bit PAE and its 4-level paging, which is how addressing compatibility is maintained with 48-bit "segmentation" of 36-bit PAE with its 3-level paging) as well as the individual programs.

    Especially the last aspect, because from the standpoint of a single, 32-bit/4GiB program, that 4GiB holds not only just the userspace allocations for the program, but any and all kernel functions it will need to call/address, any and all shared objects or other libraries it uses, and any memory mapped I/O or other, external memory allocations or references.  That's why 2-3GiB "user space" limitations are commonplace.

    Heck, on Linux, if you only have 1GiB of RAM, I recommend a kernel built with a 1GiB (actually 960MiB) "user space" maximum -- for performance reasons.  It's quite a boost to get away from most of the various performance hits, especially on non-AMD (don't be me started).

    Saturday, March 31, 2007 2:35 AM
  • The problem with NT security has never been the OS, it's the applications.  The architects of NT/Win32, or even .NET for that matter, were very intelligent, and made good choices.  Many of us in the OS/2 and UNIX world loved the MAC design in the original NT 3.1/Win32 API, and we very much approve of the .NET model.

    The problem?

    Microsoft's own tool developers and, worse yet, application developers have never adopted their own, good APIs and designs!  So you get things like MS IE -- designed for access control ignorant "Chicago" (aka DOS 7+Windows 4 aka Windows 9x) -- as core DLLs in Visual Studio 4.0+ and at the heart of NT, bypassing security.  Same deal now for .NET, the API has been regulated to largely Indigo (Internet/web-centric .NET services) and nothing else.

    100% of Microsoft's own Windows applications utterly failed the "Designed for Windows NT" logo branding in 1995, because they were written with Visual Studio 4.0, which was largely targeting Windows 95 and ignoring all sorts of mandatory Win32 APIs.  So the legacy continues today, we have a very, very "Chicago polluted" Win32 API, nothing as originally designed.

    As such, end-users must run as "administrator" for so many applications to run correctly or completely, and do all sorts of other things as "administrator."  That makes all the real, solid MAC (and even newer RBAC) controls and designs of NT/Win32/.NET utterly useless as they are completely bypassed by 90%+ of users!  And that's exactly what happens!

    Hence why Microsoft came up with this stupid UAC non-sense, to enforce it with "nagware" from the OS, instead of just fixing the problem at the tools/application level in their own tool/app departments.  If they would get their own tool/app developers to start doing that (internally, not just ISVs, although everything is outsource today, even at Microsoft's app division, so it happens), and enforce "least privilege model" in the applications from the get-go, that would solve the problem much better.

    Ironically, with all its advanced, superior MAC/RBAC design over legacy UNIX/POSIX, NT (even 6.0/Vista) is rather useless because the tools/apps don't assume users are unpriviledged, which any common UNIX/POSIX developer automatically assumes from code line #1.  Then you mix in additive MAC/RBAC and auditing options like SELinux that companies like Red Hat is pushing on everyone, and most critical open source apps are adopting, and despite the "legacy" aspect of Linux, it's quite a good sell for a standard, hardened, well audited platform.

    Kinda sad, because I believed in NT from day 1 when I took hold of the NT 3.1 betas.  But because the entire toolchain and apps are so far behind API changes -- from the original NT/Win32 to .NET API (both of which were quite ahead of their time, and still better than SUSv3/POSIX-2001+ today) -- NT in implementation requires stupid things like UAC to have any effect.  Sad, really sad.  The OS design is good.

    Saturday, March 31, 2007 2:52 AM
  • ms hotfix for

    The copy process may stop responding when you try to copy files from a server on a network to a Windows Vista-based computer


    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/931770
    Saturday, March 31, 2007 1:49 PM
  • the hotfix is not on that page, just a link to a link to a link to a page where you can call microsoft technical support and they can charge you for the incident.

     

     

    Saturday, March 31, 2007 6:16 PM
  • But of course why do you think their name is Micro$oft?? Wouldn't be a problem if your name was Mr Rich Smile
    Saturday, March 31, 2007 10:05 PM
  • They don't charge for hotfixes.  Read the whole page and quit whining.
    Saturday, March 31, 2007 11:26 PM
  • I checked off "Always show icons, never thumbnails" and it solved the problem for me immediately so I think the stuff people have been saying about this are right, and all the DRM/UAC stuff is way off.
    Sunday, April 01, 2007 12:16 AM
  • I hav tried the "Always show icons, never thumbnails" on and off.
    It makes no difference at all.
    Copies and deletes are still S.L.O.W. unless you do them in the shell (no gui).

    On my shiny new Vista Business system, the Indexing service will never start.
    I wonder if this is related to the copy/delete slowness problem.
    Anyone else have indexing running and still have slow copy/delete?

    The system log reports Event Id 7023 ...
    "The Windows Search service terminated with the following error:
    The system cannot find the path specified."

    But it does not tell me what damn file it is looking for.
    Regedit shows me the path the service is looking for, but the directory is empty.
    It is C:\INDEX\Search\Data .
    I found no help for this issue at ms or anywhere else.
    Anybody else have a problem getting the indexing service to run?
    I guess most people turn it off to save resources just like they did with XP.
    Still, I would like it to start to see if it speeds up deletes and copies.



    Sunday, April 01, 2007 4:50 AM
  • I was wondering what is the problem with my PC. I upgraded to 1 GB RAM and start using my PC with Vista on it.  During copying files to CDs  or backuping to removable HD the system stops or just Explorer start thinking.  Where I can get the bug patch to fix this problem?

     

    Thanks,  Marijan

    Sunday, April 01, 2007 4:14 PM
  • Let me know if you guys who have problems with local file moving\copying have AVG Anti-virus Free Edition
    Tuesday, April 03, 2007 11:01 AM
  •  

    i have the local problem, and the network problem. the hotfix for x64 didnt make it any better. i'd say whatever is causing the local problem is also affecting network transfers. and the hotfix is not for this specific issue.

     

    disabling remote differential make no difference to either network or local copying etc either.

     

    i am using sophos antivirus 6.5.3

     

    it certainly appears that calculating time remaining within explorer itself is causing the massive delay both before and during copying.

     

    i will remove my antivirus and report back here if it make any difference or not.

     

    what i'd like to see though, is confirmation from microsoft as to what it's actually doing when it says calculating time remaining, and why it must do so before it actually starts doing it. and whether or not they intend to fix it. on the surface it looks like if we were able to stop it calculating and just copy, it'd be quite normal.

     

    i really hope it's not doing anything DRM related, as if it is we'll probably never see a fix, as it'd be a 'feature'.

     

     

    Tuesday, April 03, 2007 11:28 AM
  • Please help, I have a brand new HP DV6244 Pentium Core 2 Duo, running VISTA, I have a file on my desktop when I try to move to another folder it says:

     

    Moving 1 Item (27.1MB)

    From Desktop (Desktop) to MyFolder (C:...\MyFolder)

    Time remaining: Calculating...

    Items remaining: 1 (27.1 MB)

    Speed: 0 bytes/sec

     

    It sits here forever and never does anything, and I have left it all night. Other folders I try to move and get the same thing, or an error that says:

     

    Windows exporer not responding...

     

    I heard that Vista is a Memory (RAM) hog so I thought it was the RAM so I upgraded to 2 GB of RAM, and am even using a 2 GB USB Flash Drive as ReadyBoost RAM as well.

     

    What the heck is going on this really sucks, i spent a lot of money on this new computer and even more trying to get it to run correctly and I can't even delete, or move files.

    Tuesday, April 03, 2007 2:11 PM
  • looks like we're going to have to work this out for ourselves.

     

    can anyone who is having this specific problem copying/moving/deleting *local* files please post their system specs.

     

    so far we know it ISN'T:

    Amount of RAM

    Specific to AVG anti-virus

    specific to x86 or X64

    Motherboard chipset

     

    so what i think we need to see is if its:

     

    CPU Type

    Hard drive type (SATA/SATA-II w/NCQ / P-IDE)

    which edition of vista

    which anti-virus...if any in use

    which video card (doubtful, i've changed from intel G965 to GeForce 6600 and it's exactly the same)

     

    lets see if we can find some common ground. personally right now i'm wondering if its a SATA issue? perhaps we can disprove that?

     

    EDIT: noticed this just now too, i bet there is 3-4 issues all combined to ruin our experience.

     

    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932170/en-us

     

     

    Tuesday, April 03, 2007 3:32 PM
  • guess i'd better follow my own advice Wink

     

    i'm using:

    Intel P4 3.06 w/EM64T

    Vista Ultimate 64-bit

    single seagate 160GB SATA-II w/NCQ using Intel Matrix Raid controller setup as 'raid'

    Sophos Anti-virus

    Intel DG965OT mainboard, tried with and without GeForce 6600 vga card

    2GB 533Mhz RAM (hard disk is not being thrashed when the delay occurs, ram shows 50% free)

    Belkin wireless G+ PCI card (using broadcom driver that ships within vista)

    Tuesday, April 03, 2007 3:56 PM
  • Guys,
    I guess I'm oversimplifying but.....why bother with hardware specs? Isn't this the same hardware that you ran XP on without these problems? What's changed in the equation? The os is now Vista. And if it is hardware related, it's a vista driver issue and not a slow/underpowered hardware component. I don't think we all need to move to quad core cpu's with 8 Gigs of RAM just so that MS can ignore a major defect!!As for the file copy/move, I disabled windows defender and UAC (Windows firewall is next if this doesn't solve it although can't see a firewall messing with file copy/move) and so far the issue seems to have gone away!!! FYi-I'm using Norton AV  and for spyware protection-adaware and spybot. From my perspective, vista is xp with a lot of extra junk on top of it like defender,uac,ipv6 stack,DRM,HDMI1etc. They have also changed stuff around  (windows explorer, folder options, properties) so now you have to spend a few minutes searching for it.
    Wednesday, April 04, 2007 1:33 AM
  • i see your point, but i'm not trying to indetify which hardware is the problem, but indeed which hardware has driver/compatibility issues with vista, thus to see if we can indeed come to your conclusion or not Smile this does of course lay trust in the people who say they dont have a problem to be telling an accurate story. i have faith in them, since anyone who's seem this 'bug' surely cannot overlook it, it's SLOW, not just 'not very quick' you're talking massive long delays and hangs while it calculates.

     

    so, if for example it seems that SATA drives on a raid are casuing it to go belly up, at least we dont have to poke around with hotfixes for SMB and stuff like we have been doing.

     

    for me, i'm not running on the same hardware i ran XP on, it's a new machine with fresh install.

     

    if it does turn out that the slowness is not just a feature, then we'll just have to decide as individuals if we choose to use it or not. for some of us it's too late now of course, but such is the risk you take when adopting early.

     

    for me searching is very fast. the thumbnails and nice shiny bits bring it down a bit, but i know a problem when i see one, and the file handing from explorer is a problem, be it a feature or a bug, it matters little, the result is the same. but we dont know if it's a bug, or a feature, as MS havent even acknowledged it yet.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Wednesday, April 04, 2007 8:46 AM
  • Since my post 6 weeks ago on the first page of this thread things are getting progressively worse !!  This thread is now one of the most active on the TechNet forum - Microsoft Take Note.

     

    In addition to the usual file problems first reported.

    Right clicking on a file in a mapped network drive can take over a minute to bring up the menu options.

    Mapped network drives are often displayed with a red X indicating they are not connected when the obviously are.

    A folder on my desktop containing 6 remote desktop config files takes >40 secs to open and display it's contents.

     

    Despite the amount of work involved and my initial determination to stick with Vista I'm reverting (upgrading   )to XP this weekend as this particular bug is seriously impacting on my ability to perform simple everyday day tasks.  I'll continue to monitor this thread and hopefully a solution will be forthcoming from MS in the not too distant future. Now where did I put that XP Pro install disk?
    Wednesday, April 04, 2007 9:26 AM
  • I'll add in what I've seen so far.

     

    When copying from my Vista computer to a windows 2000 server the file transfer takes about 5 minutes for a 200MB file.  The server has a 1GB connection and from any other computer the  file transfer takes only seconds.  However if I log into the 2000 server and browse to the file on my Vista computer and copy it that way it only takes a few seconds.

     

    File copying from other PC's or servers to the Vista computer works like it should it's faster and much less copy delay but it's still greater than XP. 

     

    When I copy the same file from my Vista computer to a server running server 2003 it transfers faster both ways than it does from the 2000 server.  This is rather frustrating because both servers are gigabit linked to the network but the 2000 server doesn't seem to communicate with Vista very well at all.

     

    I'm running Vista Business on a laptop with a core 2 duo chip 2ghz with 2GB ddr2 memory and  a 80 GB sata hd at 7200rpm.  It is super responsive and the new memory cacheing is sweet but my only beef is the file transfer issue.  Oh and trillian won't connect on my work network but it will on my home with the same firewall settings.  It's annoying but I'll live through it.

    Wednesday, April 04, 2007 8:01 PM
  • My business partner gave up on Vista yesterday and installed XP Pro on his box.

     

    Vista choked on its own March 2007 update.  The subsequent update did run, and upon reboot the system reported hard disk corruption and could not be fixed.  I had to factory restore just to get the laptop working again.

     

    I am holding in my hands a copy of XP Pro and this will be the last thing I use Vista for (writing this note).

     

    I am absolutely astounded that a multibillion dollar company with the resources and talent of Microsoft, and with excellent examples of competiting products at the peak of innovation in the industry from which to copy ideas from, that Vista is the result of this braintrust.  They should be ashamed of themselves.  Yes, they worked hard and the labour was long and the birth was arduous but the baby is braindead.  Do the Spartan thing and toss it off a cliff. I've wasted weeks of work transfering my stuff over from my XP laptop, only to have to go back to it to get my data.  Thank god most of my stuff is emailed or stored on a corporate server.

     

    BTW, anyone from MS who is reading this, I'm in charge of development for a medical software firm and make the recommendations for over 2500 users.   Guess who won't be installing Vista any time soon?  Thats what you get for releasing pre-release alphaware.  Thanks for wasting my valuable time.  I'd sue you for loss of income but I know at this stage you probably have more lawyers on staff than you do developers.

    Wednesday, April 04, 2007 9:55 PM
  •  Jay Patterson wrote:

    I'd sue you for loss of income but I know at this stage you probably have more lawyers on staff than you do developers.

     

    ROTFLMAO!! Nice one Jay.

     

    Seriously though I'm beginning to think that the deafening silence from MS over this issue might signify  serious difficulties in it's rectification, i.e. fixing it will break something else - DRM perhaps?  In the absense of any solid information from MS we can and indeed can only speculate on how far reaching this problem is.   I know the following:

     

    1. The list below happens 50-75% of the time.  Long time is defined as minimum 2x what XP Pro would take to several minutes.
    2. It takes a long time to open a  local or network folder and display it's contents
    3. It takes a long time to copy files between  local or network folders
    4. It takes a long time to display and make available right click menu options on files or folders
    5. Folder Thumbnail creation/display causes the screen to flash and explorer to hang
    6. None of these issues occur when using the command prompt for file operations

    The PC is doing something (using CPU cycles) during these delays but I don't know what.  Taken at a simplified level if Explorer was just doing what you asked it to do file operations would be very fast and issue free.  I have a strong suspicion that the 'calculating time' message is totally bogus and there to placate non-technical users.  Any of you creative techies out there want to have a stab at explaining what explorer / vista is really doing with these simple file operations? 

     

     

     

     

     

    Thursday, April 05, 2007 2:35 AM
  • On my Core 2 Duo e6600@3.0GHz

    - Display the start menu takes noticably longer time then XP, maybe 0.1 seconds
    - Opening folders without icons-as-thumbnails is 0.5 second longer then XP
    - Copy files from network or locally is always slow and sometimes very slow.

    Both of these simple actions are instant on XP.

    It's quite amazing how a multithread optimized and GPU offloaded OS can behave this slow. These days when PCs use so much power they should be ashamed. On that note we should be good example for developing nations and make a low-power PC for anything except gaming. Is it Microsofts bloat-it-up to help Intel sell new PCs business culture?

    I recall they made Windows NT boot slower as it booted way faster then windows 95 so customers would feel they had a "big" system and later IE was made to be a bit slow and "heavy" so users got feeling they had a serious application infront of them.

    uTorrent is a prime example of efficient and clean code. Too bad theres no real choice but Windows for gaming.

    http://jooh.no/web/quartz-10.0-4_vs_vista.png
    http://jooh.no/root/text/Microsoft/Bloat/bloat.html
    Thursday, April 05, 2007 2:55 AM
  • well, a lot of this it certainly true....and some of it i doubt (NT and IE) but indeed could be true.

     

    but i think if this thread is turned into just another general vista rant then we may lose any legitimate ammo this thread has. assuming anyone from MS will ever read and address it. we know vista isnt MacOSX, and we knew it wouldnt be, and we dont expect it to be.

     

    i put vista on my new family machine, and yes *this bug* annoys the hell out of me, but alas it will most likely stay installed on that machine, as the benefits (ease of use, nice DVD apps etc) outweigh the file copying cost, in this instance.

     

    however, *this bug* has meant that i'd not even conisder putting it on any further machines, and as a microsoft partner, it's a sales blow for me. we get emails and marketing materials through saying how we should market vista and sell it to businesses. and right now in my eyes its impossible with this bug looming over it. this may not affect MS's profits, but it sure as helll will affect mine, my customers are not the consumer type who want nice DVD apps and pretty desktops, they are people that want a system that doesnt 'hang' doing normal things like copying, deleting etc. do MS sersiously expect me to put longhorn server in a business if it's based on this vista technology containing *this bug*?

     

    This single bug in spite of everything else good or bad about vista, is a major issue, a deal-breaker, in my opinion.

     

    right now, i'm going to spread the word of this bug far and wide, until someone at MS addresses this, explains why it happens, or indeed if it should happen, and what if anything they will or wont do about it.

     

    Thursday, April 05, 2007 8:47 AM
  • I've had this problem also. I tried the registery/network hacks/tweaks and none of that worked. I did try the KN931770 hotfix and it's speed it up somewhat.

    It never locked/froze up on me, but it was painfully slow to copy files form the other networked PCs and to back up to USB harddrive. I just used Robocopy, but it's a pain in the but to have to resort to the command prompt.

    I can't turn off thumbnails to work around this since I'm a graphics/web developer - it's a big performance gain to see the thumbnails without having to preview the file.

    This is a Dell D820 laptop, Core 2 1.8ghz, 2gb RAM. As expected, XP flies on this machine.
    Thursday, April 05, 2007 10:14 AM
  • I had the same problem for deleting, moving, or copying a file. I installed the patch but without results, and finally the problem was due to the Windows Search service (SearchIndexer.exe) or Wsearch service. One day, it seems this service stopped anormally, after a sofware has been installed, after a setting has been changed, I don't know why, but the fact is it was impossible to restart it (error 5). So I simply desactivate this service, because indexation is not required for me. And now I don't have any problem, I can delete, move or copy a file instantly, and the calculating time remaining doesn't appear more.
    Thursday, April 05, 2007 10:52 AM
  • You da man, Fabian !!!!!!!!
    That did the trick.
    I get INSTANT deletes now.
    I even copied an 8GB file ( a cooked dbspace ) from an internal drive to a external usb drive
    and them deleted it from the usb drive.
    ( The usb box just has an ultra ata drive inside).
    The copy took about 5 minutes. Vista said 25.5MB/sec.
    The delete took less than 1 second.
    Emptying the recycle bin took less than 1 second.

    I had previously queried in this thread if anyone else had  problems with the search service
    not starting. Mine will not start, so I thought there might me a relationship there.
    Nobody responded to my post.
    I put my search service on manual. That did not stop the slow deletes.
    I should have thought to just DISABLE it.

    I guess the reason that the deletes work so fast when doing "del" in a shell is that Vista is not
    trying to clean his indexes from the shell. Seems inconsistent. I guess he cleans it in the background (if the service would start, that is).
    One would think that the deletion code would see that the service is not running and not try to
    do anything. It must be wasting time trying to send a message to the service which is dead.

    Anyway, I'm glad you figured it out.
    Everyone should try this to verify that this is the only thing that is slowing up deletes.
    Then we can start bitching about the search service. ;-)


    Thursday, April 05, 2007 2:40 PM
  • Disabling the Windows Search service worked for me. Transfers are progressing exactly as expected!!

     

    Since I keep things in a clear hierarchy and organized on my box (unlike my desk ) I can do without the Windows searching services with no complaints.

     

    Finally an answer!

    Thursday, April 05, 2007 3:25 PM
  • Disabling Windows Search did nothing for me Sad
    Thursday, April 05, 2007 4:25 PM
  • My opinion:

    Every Calculating takes time even in XP or Win2k, but I think Vista calculates time for another reason, in fact it checks for available space on destination drive. If you try to copy a file(s) bigger than destinations free space, after calculating, Vista will tell you that you have not enough space before starting to copy. This issue or whatever we call it, doesn't exist in WinXP or Win2k. in XP or Win2k you can try to copy file(s) bigger than destinations free space, and system will tell you that you have not enough free space only when free space ends.

    I didn't read all the replies, maybe someone else said these reasons also. I'm not sure.

    Anyway, if anyone got any idea how to stop calculatime time while trying to copy/move it will be welcomed.

    Friday, April 06, 2007 7:36 AM
  • I'm with you, although it's not just moving or deleting files.  The Internet is so slow, I can't stand to use it.  I'm back to using my old computer and letting this new one sit, for 1 month, already.  I bought a super Dell with dual core and lots of ram.  So, I am disgusted. One thing I can't stand is a slow computer.  I'm about to remove Vista and put something else on it.
    Friday, April 06, 2007 10:26 PM
  • I have 4 GB RAM and many processes are slow.  It took a long time just to reply here.  The Internet is unbelievably slow.  With everything I purchased on this new computer, it should be lightening fast!  It probably is without Vista!
    Friday, April 06, 2007 10:46 PM
  • Try disabling IPv6, worked for me! Calculation occurs and it copies the file over! (By disabling IPv6 I mean by going to the properties of the internet connection and unchecking the IPv6 checkbox)
    Sunday, April 08, 2007 11:57 PM
  • Come on, people.  On page 5 you see Fabien's post about turning off (disabling) the Windows Service Service and doing that fixes the problem.
    Monday, April 09, 2007 2:38 PM
  • Having read this entire thread and having had the same problem (renaming, copying, deleting and moving local files), I have discovered, what I first thought was arbitrary but turned out be the rule, which is that I can do anything to files and folders that has not been created by Windows Explorer in the first place. I installed Vista on a harddrive that contained my data, prior to installing, and those files and folders can be deleted and copied without the anoying calculating time remaining bug. The same is true for folders that was created by e.g. uTorrent. I have currently employed a workaround that involves clustering operations involving copying, moving and deleting and perform all those operations only one time a day, and then restart windows explorer. I have no idea what explorer does to the files and folders, but it is not good. Hope this helps.
    Monday, April 09, 2007 9:06 PM
  • I just solved my problem, I followed an advice on page 4 in this thread, and deactivated the Indexing service and it worked. Hurray.

    How to:
    Open controlpanel, open administration, open services, and right click Windows Search and click properties. Then choose deactivated, and reboot.
    Monday, April 09, 2007 9:36 PM
  • Same here, it spends all its time calculating when it should be doing it, the gren progress bar doesnt move for ages, then just shoots across with a few seconds left. I'd rhater it moved consistently because if its a big copy it can take quite a while for it to start and it looks like a crash
    Wednesday, April 11, 2007 1:07 AM
  •  

    Disabling the Windows Search service worked for me, I can't believe I didn't try this before.  No problems on local disk to disk or to network file operations. Alternative How to details:

     

    Press Windows Key +R

    type cmd

    Click Okay (this opens command prompt)

    Type services.msc

    Press the Enter key

    Press Continue at the User Account Control Screen

    The services management console will open

    Scroll down to the Windows Search entry

    Right Click Windows Search and select Properties

    Click Stop

    Select Disabled from the Startup type dropdown

    Click Ok

    Close the services management console

    No reboot required

     

    Please post your success or failure with this work around as it would be useful to see if this works for all or just in some specific cases.

     

     

    Windows Search Description

    Provides content indexing and property caching for file, email and other content (via extensibility APIs).  The service responds to file and email notifications to index modified content.  If the service is stopped or disabled, the Explorer will not be able to display virtual folder views of items, and search in the Explorer will fall back to item-by-item slow search.

    Wednesday, April 11, 2007 4:57 AM
  • It worked!  Make sure you choose "Disabled".
    Saturday, April 14, 2007 2:00 AM
  • I followed the steps above and it worked for me.  I have been to the point of going to an insane asylum with this issue.  How could Microsoft release this product with that issue?
    Saturday, April 14, 2007 3:08 PM
  • SysAdminTH - i already told you - this is BY VISTA DESIGN...

    once Vista knows you have any DRM on your system, it bends over and lubes up for the media companies, and forces encryption of everything going thru your system bus.

    again, i don't want to explain it all here - someone else already has gone into SERIOUS DETAIL here...

    http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

    enjoy


    Saturday, April 14, 2007 6:29 PM
  • Stoping the service does not work
    Sunday, April 15, 2007 4:08 AM
  • Well thanks for that tip, Vista can now stay on my system for the time being. Worked Great ...
    Sunday, April 15, 2007 10:32 AM
  • The copy speeds are ridiculous.

    I am not on a network. The problem is local file copying. It is slow between one hard drive to another but slowest between on partition to another on the same disk. It's slow with copying/deleting/moving within the same partition as well. When it deals with large files the system lags and is virtually unusable for applications that require disk access. I found using Total Commander rather than Windows Explorer to copy large files reduces the system lag but has no affect on transfer feed.

    To copy 100 GB worth of media from one partition to another Explorer was going at a snails crawl pace, "3 days x hours left" to transfer the files. Installing the latest VIA chipset drivers alleviated the problem slightly. The same files now take, "3  hours x minutes." But this is still unacceptable. It took a fraction of that time to transfer the same files in XP.

    Disabling Windows Search did nothing. Nor did any of the network oriented "solutions." I have enabled the advanced performance settings in the disk drive properties -- didn't improve speeds much.

    My A/V is NOD32. I tried disabling that to see if it would alleviate the problem but that turned out ineffective.

    I think we should all state what our motherboards are and type of hard drives we are using. Maybe we'll find a common denominator. This issue might be related to drivers as much as it could be a Vista bug.

    * Vista Ultimate x64
    * VIA AV8 K8T800 Pro Motherboard
    * Seagate Barracuda 500GB SATA-II
    * Seagate Barracuda 160GB SATA-II
    Sunday, April 15, 2007 5:39 PM
  • this isn't a fix

    the patch isn't a fix

    nothing is working for what is perhaps one of the most critical flaws in windows - and MS is dragging their feet getting it together.

    How can I hope to deploy this to users if they can't even copy 400 megs inside of an hour... ridiculous.

    Things like this are where MS gets it's horrible reputation for quality.
    Tuesday, April 17, 2007 3:33 AM
  • i am on a network, that's where i see this issue, not on a local copy.  Thing is - i booted into safe mode wih networking, No av running, on a virgin install - still happens.  Obviously when i'm wired it's not AS bad, but it is still unacceptable.

    Microsoft, you guys need to get this problem worked out - and fast.  Maybe if you guys use Google to search for Vista copy slow, you'll realize how far reaching this is.
    Wednesday, April 18, 2007 7:48 AM
  • Hi,

     

    Vista is slow because of CLR 3.0 thickening - spread all over the kernel - just like your mom's gravy.

     

    I am advising workstation customers to stay with Windows NT 5.1 (XP),   at least until Windows Server 2007 is RTM

    which will provide the dilution code for a speed up of Vista - (called Service Pack 1).

     

    Cheers,

    Ring0

     

    Wednesday, April 18, 2007 10:28 AM
  • Ok guys, after the fixes, try this.  use a large 2gb file on your Vista machine.  copy and paste it into the same folder it resides in.  its still slowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!
    Thursday, April 19, 2007 9:24 PM
  • Same problems here as most of the previous messages.. Slow copy & delete locally and over network with Vista.

    NO response from Microsoft??? Is this one of the main reasons why Vista was sooo delayed in its release? Is the solution to the problem compromising the *high security* features of Vista? Really Mr Microsoft, I think that we (all that put our hard earned $$$) at least deserves some sort hint from your side that something is going on to solve the problemz.

     

     

    Hardware:

    Fujitsu-Siemens Laptop Amilo Pi 1536

    Vista Home Premium

     

    Friday, April 20, 2007 5:22 PM
  • I tried turning off Windows Search by setting it to disabled in services (Click Run > Type Services.msc).  This solved the problem although after a restart the problem re-appeared, I check Windows Search service was still disabled and it was.

     

    I think Microsoft may well have made a serious error and not tested it enough before release, I wouldn't be surprised if this is the reason no-one from Microsoft has replied to our thread because they are in deep now working hard trying to fix it but they can't!!

     

    If your having the problem, make sure you leave a message on this thread because Microsoft need to pull there finger out, the larger this thread gets, hopefully the more they will realise what a massive problem this is.

    Friday, April 20, 2007 5:34 PM
  • I have now increased my local copying by using the hotfix, disabling the many services on my system and defraging the harddisk with PefectDisk Pro (windows defrag sux as usual)  I copied a 2 gb file from one folder to another.  Speeds were 8MB/s and are now approx 15-17MB/sec

    its still slower than XP Pro though.
    Friday, April 20, 2007 7:00 PM
  • Ok guys  try this.

    download Disk Bench.  http://www.majorgeeks.com/Disk_Bench_d1340.html

    then setup a large file  (2Gb plus) to copy from one folder to another.  I copied a 3Gb file using this on an XP machine (AMD X2 3800+ HDD SATAII 2GB Ram).  the Benchmark reported 32MB/Sec  I then duplicated the same file on a Vista Laptop (Dual Core 2.Ghz HDD SATA II drive 1GB Ram)  the same Benchmark reported 14MB/Sec

    Micro$oft sort this out NOW!
    Friday, April 20, 2007 9:07 PM
  • Any sign of SP1 actually being released soon?

    I have run a benchmark on XP Desktop machine and a Vista Laptop using the same program  (show here: http://www.majorgeeks.com/Disk_Bench_d1340.html )

    In XP pro copying a large DVD ISO imagine (3.5Gb) the benchmark results were approx 35MB/Sec.

    In Vista however the benchmark onthe same file was show as 15MB/Sec

    XP Machine hardware: AMD X2 3800+, 160Gb SATAII (7200rpm), 1GB ram.

    Vista machine:  Dual Core  2Ghz, 100Gb SATAI (5400rpm), 1GB Ram
    Saturday, April 21, 2007 12:40 PM
  • Same problem with my new VAIO Core 2 DUO, 2 Gb RAM, HDD 160.

    Overall speed of my previous (2 yo laptop) running XP was much better.

    M$ please correct this bug (and don'try to make index services workin if u don't know how, copernic or ggl do it efficient, fast and without grasping my cpu cycles).

    If want my perfs back Sad(((((((((((((


    Saturday, April 21, 2007 3:33 PM
  • And here's another Vista Install with the same problems...

     

    Happens when copying or moving files from and to network shares, copying and moving files on local drives and even when deleting files!

    I tried every solution mentioned in this post:

     

    - Disable Windows Search service

    - Install Hotfix

    - Turn off indexing

    - Turn off thumbnailing

    - Turn off IP v6 (Should turn it off anyway if not needed)

    - Etc, Etc

     

    Why won't it just immediately start copying, moving, deleting, etc??

    I think Microsoft should really include an option to disable to 'time remaining' feature, because it's not needed and SLOW!

     

    If I get this thing resolved, i'll post back...

     

    Saturday, April 21, 2007 7:04 PM
  • I have the same problem

    i want to copy a folder with 500 mb and it takes 5 hours and 50 min

    if somebody knows how to solve it please tell me, or where can i have the famous hotfix

    danke

    Monday, April 23, 2007 7:54 AM
  • The hotfix will not correct anything believe me, i did try it.

     

    I remove it after a while...

     

    I got around 50 Gigs of stuff on my computer that i want to backup on my NAS and it's slow, slow, slow

     I'm waiting patiently for a real fix from Microsoft.

     

     

    Monday, April 23, 2007 9:24 AM
  • Hotfix did not fix it for me either.  Nor did disabling the Windows Search service or disabling TCPv6 on the network connection or turning off the Remote Differential Compression or disabling the Windows Explorer Navigation Pane or disabling the TCP Auto Tuning Level.  Copying the file using robocopy also took the same amount of time.

     

    I am running Windows Vista Ultimate and Windows XP Pro SP2 in two seperate VMWare Machines installed on the same physical host PC.  They are both joined to a domain and I have mapped a drive to a Windows 2000 server on each of them.  They are both logging in as the same domain user and both connected over a 100Mb network.

     

    Copying a 75MB file from the shared drive to the same shared drive in a different folder takes the following amount of time:

     

    Vista: 3 minutes and 23 seconds.

    XP: 26 seconds.

     

    I honestly thought at first that this was just a driver issue with Vista in the VMWare PC, but we have now also experienced this on a HP laptop which came pre-installed with Vista (this is for internal use so Vista will stay installed on it for testing purposes).

     

    We too are now waiting patiently for the fix from Microsoft.

     

    Tim

    Monday, April 23, 2007 11:27 AM
  • I'm having this problem, also.

     

    It happens locally. I'm trying to delete some files from a volume on my machine. I was having problems with many files, but after applying the hotfix kb931770 I am now only having problems with a small bunch of files, all of them Genuine Fractals .stn (Sting) files. They are not large files, some as small as 800KB, but most in the 4MB range. I can't move, rename, or delete the files or delete the containing folders. The "Calculating Time..." dialog comes up, nothing happens for a great deal of time, and eventually Windows Explorer needs to be restarted from Task Manager. Also if I just click on one of the icons I get the green progress bar in the address box of the window and as it progresses it just gets slower and slower until it reaches the end and I click on the red "x" at the right to stop the whole mess.

     

    I can, however, open the files just fine (they open in Photoshop) and even do a save as and convert them to another format. I was also able to back them up to a CD using Nero. I've tried turning off the Windows Search Service with no success. I'm about to move everything off of that partition except those files and format it. I'm hoping that this will at least take care of the problem for now since it seems isolated.

     

    I wish someone at Microsoft could do something about this!

    Monday, April 23, 2007 4:42 PM
  • Nothing has helped in my case.

     

    Vista Business x64

    2GB RAM

     

    I only seem to have one of the symptoms. SLOW to copy to a netwrok share. For my testing I used a small (only 32MB file). I can copy the file down from the server to Vista in a couple of secinds, but to copy the same file back up to the same server takes 4 to 5 minutes.

     

    I have tried the KB931770-x64 patch....no help

    Disabled the search service....no help

    Disabled IPv6....no help

    turned off RDC....no help

     

    The only reason I can stand this at all is that don't copy files up to the server that often. And on that subject it does seem to be a Windows Explorer problem. I can tell that even without trying to copy the files via the command shell because if I say use Excel to sve a file to the server that has no delay. but is i save the file to my local hard drive and then try to copy it to the server it takes several minutes.

     

     

    Tuesday, April 24, 2007 2:57 AM
  • I cant believe that there is no word, no apology, no explanation, no time frame fix, nothing, nada from microsoft. Shows the arrogance of this company. I could not afford to treat my customers this way. Nor would I want to.

    Fix it please or at least tell us you know.
    Tuesday, April 24, 2007 3:57 AM
  •  

    I have this problem at home and at work.

     

    At home with Windows Vista Premium when copying files between partions and from CD\DVD to HDD.

    Not tried any fixes on this OS yet. On a dualcore acer laptop with 1gb ram.

     

    Also at work on Vista Enterprise when copying 4gb of small files from Network share to local HDD.

    on this OS I have tried;

    diabling the windows searching service

    disabling ipv6

    etc

    Takes hours in Vista (literally) takes a few minutes in XP.

    on a core2duo with 2gb of RAM

     

    Tuesday, April 24, 2007 1:55 PM
  • im having the same issue, something copying at 50kbs to 1000kbs is TOTTALY UNACCEPTIBLE! its coping to a bloody external HD on USB. this is total *** and it really makes me think they rushed out vista or had underpaid programmers....

    she the sake of vista, i really hope they fix this ASAP!
    Tuesday, April 24, 2007 7:52 PM
  • I have the same problem, and it is unbelieveable to me that MS has not yet acknowledged it or made the hotfix available without going through support. How is it possible that this got through extensive beta testing without this being uncovered? Look at the number of people who are experiencing this problem, and they must represent only a tiny percentage of the ones actually having the problem.

     

    A terrible debut for Vista. MS is very lucky that Leopard has been delayed until the fall, otherwise they'd be embarrassed beyond belief at the problems users are experiencing with Vista when compared to the reliability of OS X.

     

    BocaBoy

    Wednesday, April 25, 2007 6:09 PM
  • My slowness comes and goes, sometimes a restart fixes it, then the next time I boot up it may be very slow again. I mostly notice it when deleting files, as I'm currently going through about 5000 files individually to determine whether I want to keep them, and whether I have one or 15 files selected, after hitting delete it takes about 60 seconds for the circular waiting cursor to go away and ask me if I'm sure I want to delete. While its waiting, Explorer is frozen and unresponsive.
    Thursday, April 26, 2007 10:02 PM
  • Really...  I have 1GB 3.2 pentium 4  Windows Vista Ultimate and 3 mins to delete 600 meg with nothing else running?!  This does seem like a bug -> unless a full system restore point is done every time you delete.
    Friday, April 27, 2007 12:50 PM
  • Answer Re: calculating time remaining moving, deleteing, copying files verry slow
    Answer Was this post helpful ?
    Reply Quote

    because many handles and processes are working simaltiousely, your hard disk activity is so busy with all processes, so it should need so long time for this, add to this, you need UAC to be on and shows you prompt message for file operations.

    Good luck




    Ahmed Mahdy | MSDN & TechNet Forums Moderator | Blogs for Microsoft Tech. http://www.ahmed-mahdy.com

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Kind of amusing that the above is the second post in this verrrry long thread. While I haven't re-read the entire thread I find it difficult to comprehend how this is the only response from Microsoft personnel.

    Friday, April 27, 2007 11:46 PM
  • As I was trying to copy a bunch of files from my old computer to my new Vista computer, I was reading this interesting thread.

     

    Thanks to disabling the index service, the copy completed this time, albeit, very slowly.

     

    Ten minutes since the copy completed, Explorer is still consuming 140MB of memory and hasn't fluctuated.  It looks like the memory will not be released until I do a reboot.  Seems like a major memory leak to me.  I will reboot and reclaim the memory so I can copy another batch of files.

     

    I'm sure Microsoft is working on the problem, but I am disappointed that Vista was released with such a basic issue.  It seems to me that the majority of people that buy new Vista computers will be copying  files from their old XP computers.  My guess is that Microsoft knew about the issue for some time.  There is a huge beta community that must have seen this before Vista was released.

     

     

    Monday, April 30, 2007 1:23 AM
  • Well I just wasted 4hrs of my morning calling into support about this issue & the possible fix for it.  It took me 25m to delete 23gb of information off of a network drive.

     

    It was very frustrating calling into them - it basically ended with them saying, "oh, you are on a network with more than 20 computers, you need to pay."  Extremely un-professional, because the network or number of nodes clearly is not at issue here.  I can put back in my XP Pro hard drive into my laptop & delete that amount of information in less than 8 seconds.  Something even more hilarious, I can run an XP Pro Virtual Machine out of Microsoft Virtual Machine 2007, (while running Vista as the host OS) and delete that amount of information in less than 8 seconds.

     

    That's the solution!  Run Microsoft Virtual Machine with an XP Pro machine for all your file xfer needs!! lol

     

    I am starting to believe Windows Vista is the 2d coming of Windows '95.  This is a very bad showing.

     

    Monday, April 30, 2007 8:01 PM
  •  Dave Griffiths wrote:

    No, there is no SQL database, and no index .. there used to be metadata on all files in XP, but Microsoft has had to remove it from Vista due to loss of data. There is now only metadata if a property filter has been written for a particular file type, and the metadata is just encoded into the file itself (generally). In effect this means XP should be slower, but OH NO!

    This is simply a case of very, very poor quality control .. This has to be without doubt the worst bug I have seen in a commercial product .. It affects 3 of the most common operations on a networked computer, and should be the very minimum of testing requirements for releasing an OS.  How did this slip through an alpha, beta, CTP, business release, and then public relase and still not be a mainstream update/fix available 2 months into the wild. 

    I think this sort of *** should go to the Press .. see how quick MS releases an update then.

     

     

    Do you really believe the garbage you spout?

     

    Vista runs a back-end DB to track file changes via an index.

     

    I suggest you do some more research before embarrassing yourself further.

     

    Windows Search (the executable funnily enough is SearchIndexer.exe) is the process that runs to index everything that you choose on the system.

     

    Here's the way it describes itself: "Provides content indexing and property caching for file, email and other content (via extensibility APIs).  The service responds to file and email notifications to index modified content.  If the service is stopped or disabled, the Explorer will not be able to display virtual folder views of items, and search in the Explorer will fall back to item-by-item slow search."

     

    Now unless I'm completely stupid, I do believe it says indexing and property caching, does it not?

     

     

    Tuesday, May 01, 2007 1:02 AM
  • its a pity that no one from MS wants to own up they have a problem!
    Tuesday, May 01, 2007 8:38 PM
  • They called me back today - nice gal agreeing with me that it's a definite issue.  She even said she'd try & arrange for a free "professional" support incident.  I told her I didn't have time to deal with it - & that for all my file xfers, I just do them out of an XP Pro virtual machine - MS Virtual PC 2007 running on top of Vista which is just hilarious to me.  I commented that was pretty sad to have to do that & she agreed.

     

    Tuesday, May 01, 2007 8:54 PM
  • its extreamly sad, I bought a new pc, all new hardware to run vista and its slower than 3.1 over the network for file transfers, i moved back to xp. no fun at all.

     

    the support around this is tertrible. I am a MCSE and a microsoft advocate but im telling everyone i know not to touch vista until they fix this

    Tuesday, May 01, 2007 9:17 PM
  • Just thought I'd chime in and say I'm in the same boat as the rest of you.  Both of us (here at home) were running XP Pro and never had any problems with transfers at all.  Now we're both on Vista Ultimate (volume licensing through work) and we're having the same problems with transfers across the network.  Local transfers and deletes, however, are speedy.  Luckily we don't do many large file transfers between PCs.  All the smaller ones we do are "acceptable" I suppose.  Other than this anomaly we both love Vista.

    Our relevant specs (two identical machines):

    Dell XPS 410 w/dual core 2.6GHz procs
    2GB RAM
    1066 MHz FSB
    Gb NIC
    10,000 RPM SATA drives
    Wired network
    Vista was upgraded, not a clean install

    On another note, there are several of us at work running Vista Ultimate/Enterprise and there no transfer issues within the domain to Win2003 and 2000 servers and even our Longhorn servers.  I'm not sure about Vista to Vista transfers but I haven't heard anyone mention any slowness.

    Tuesday, May 01, 2007 11:31 PM
  • anyone here have PATA drives and have this problem? that's rule out any SATA issues.

    Wednesday, May 02, 2007 9:34 AM
  • I don't have a resolution to the GUI based file copy, but for those of you fed up and need to do something quickly for a LOT of files from one location to another, check out ROBOCOPY from the commmand line (yeah, it's not fun, but it DOES work and it seems a hellava lot faster than waiting on the broken GUI copy/move operation).

     

     

    Wednesday, May 02, 2007 11:00 PM
  • I have the same exact issues as everyone above, to the point where when I try to cancel windows they just remain there, 'canceling...'

    4GB Ram
    Vista Ultimate x64
    Core 2 Duo E6600
    Copying from one SATA drive to another, and from SATA drive to mapped network drive.

    You don't know how frustrating this is. I was hoping that one of the most annoying parts of previous versions of windows (file copies that avoid Yes / yes to all / no / are you sure you want to move this read only file / how about I annoy you halfway through the copy when you've walked off somewhere and decide not to continue) would be fixed in Vista, but clearly they've only replaced these annoyances with an even worse one.

    OSes should get a few things rock solid right, and file transfers are one of those things.
    Friday, May 04, 2007 8:50 AM
  • I am running Vista ultimate on a Dell 1210 (Core 2 2GHz, 2GB). I've only just got. The only things I've done is installed Office 2007 and completed the updates.

    My whole system was responding slowly...menus, Computer, file copy/move, pretty much everything. I turned off the Windows Search via the Services windows and everything is now running great. I have not tried any of the hotfixes.

     

    Rydo

    Monday, May 07, 2007 12:24 PM
  • I'm taking the time to login and post for the first time after reading all 11 pages of this thread...

    I am having the same issues as most people in here...installed the hotfix, disabled indexing, etc.

    It took me 2-3 hours to copy 39GB of files from my laptop to a USB 2.0 external drive.  It is a lot of data yes, but not 2-3 hours worth.

    Awaiting MS's fix,
    Alex
    Monday, May 07, 2007 5:01 PM
  • I don't understand any of your comments.   All I want to do is delete some files and it takes forever.  If this is the best that Microsoft can do, it is really pathetic.  I love Vista but it has so many problems, or at least I do, that I am about to go out and buy an apple.
    Monday, May 07, 2007 5:22 PM
  • I'm having the same problem. Sometimes when deleting files it works fine, but other times Windows will completely lock up for a minute (or even more, depending on the number of files) before doing anything.

    My solution is to stop using Windows Explorer and use an alternative file manager. Vista's Explorer is terrible - I have no idea how it got through beta, or even alpha testing. Another ridiculous problem is that when scrolling up and down through the directory tree using the arrow keys, it will NOT refresh the file listing in the right pane. You need to actually click a directory item with the mouse for it to update. Where exactly is Microsoft getting their programmers from?

    Anyway, even if they fix these bugs, I'm still not going back to Explorer. I'm used to the extra power that my new file manager gives me that Explorer never could.
    Tuesday, May 08, 2007 1:17 AM
  •  

    This is as frustrated I've been with a computer since my first 286-10Mhz back in 1987.

     

    Copying files from media to hard drive, from folder to folder is agonizingly slow. Simply deleting 3,000 files (4GB) was an overnight operation. Unacceptable!

     

    Windows Vista Ultimate (32bit)

    DELL XPS 410

    Intel Duo E6700(2.66 GHZ)

    4GB DDR2 SDRAM

    RAID 0 2X250 GB Drives

    ATI Radeon X1300 256 mb ram

     

    I thought this set up would be blazingly fast.

    Not!


     
    Tuesday, May 08, 2007 2:55 AM
  • I thought I had better put my 2 cent in as well.

     

    I am running a DELL XP2 m1710, Core 2 Duo 2.16, with 2GB Ram and 120 GB SATA HDD.

     

    Video is nVidia 7950 GTX GO (512 MB Video Ram dedicated).

     

    I am currenlty using Vista 32 Bit, but am about to upgrade to 64 bit to see if thats any better on my hardware combination.

     

    I have tried disabling the services, and have tried the hot fixes etc  - everything that everyone has tried, but i still get copy speed of ony 7MB /s to an external USB disk. If i run Kubuntu Linux, which I have done on this machine as well, i get 25-30 MB /s on the same hardware, copying the same data.

     

    Now - I am a dot net developer, so as such need to develop on the MS platform (beleive me if I could get the right tools to develop DotNet on Linux, I'd be there - their dev tools are still nowhere up to spec with Visual Studio - but it is slowly happening), and have to keep up to date with the latest from Microsoft. I also put together solutions for clients, support etc.

     

    How can Microsoft possibly expect us to recommend Vista, and the latest and greatest of what Microsoft thas to offer, when this is what they give us.

     

    There are many features that are fantastic with Vista, but these core OS problems like this one in particular, is really causing such negative press, and causes major problems for things like, oh - you know - backing up your files on a regular basis... perhaps the need to copy a large file for a client  - they seriously see this *** and say - my older XP machine works better than that - I'll stick with it. The worst was when I was asked - you are seriously expecting me to use this ***! I thought you know what you were doing.

     

    Can Microsoft please offer some assistance to the people who have to work the front line here trying to support this ***. Pull your finger out and release a solution (patch - whatever) to this problem so that we can spend time doing our job, rather than scouring the web daily trying to find the elusive answer to this MAJOR problem.

     

    We pay for our software - we expect it to work, or at least if there are problems, acknowledge them and fix them.

     

    Its also not a good look when our customers ask -  why is this so slow, and we cannot give them a definative answer or solution, rather all we can do is shrug and say - were still trying to resolve it. 

     

    Food for thought - I hope that Microsoft is listening - there are a lot of really Peeved customers out there who are looking for alternatives. Mac and Linux WILL take your customer base if you dont listen and act!

     

     

    Tuesday, May 08, 2007 10:31 AM
  • Well, I am having the same problem. I tried to move 4 GB and never finish. Very annoyed.

    I have read in internet that despite the message "calculating time...." Vista is copying the files in background. Information in http://rinconwindows.blogspot.com/2007/04/sobre-el-nuevo-motor-de-copias-de.html

    Sorry, it is in spanish. If you don't speak spanish you can use an online translator.

    do you note this?

    regards.

    Tuesday, May 08, 2007 11:47 AM
  • I've gotten insanely slow speeds as well.

    Tried to CUT (not copy) and paste a 125 meg Directory (52,938 files) and it calculated over 2 hours.

    I'm on a Dell 2GB Ram, 2.5 gHz, 160GB hard disk.
    Vista Ultimate.

    Do you know how annoying it is to compile a project that creates a hundred'ish MB's of DLL's and compiled files in vista using .NET and release it in a Test Folder?

    Thursday, May 10, 2007 1:35 AM
  • Don't really care WHY (handles, etc).

    It is a BUG and should be fixed. 

    If there are any MS reps lurking around, fess up and cut the BS.

     

    Thursday, May 10, 2007 9:23 AM
  • This indeed fixed it for me !increased spead from 300 Kb/sec to 9.5 Mb/sec over a wired Network.The Hotfix works fine so far.I'm using custom build PC Mobo : ASUS M2N32 WS PRO2 x 500 gig SATAAMD A64 X2 5200+2 gig memoryExternal PB Netstore 3500 on DHCPwhere it used to say 18 hours or so it now gives minutes.currently copying 26 GB from PB netstore to Vista machine :  Approx 1 hour.will now try to set the winsearch back to enable and get UAC back on.will see if this has an impact on performance.
    Thursday, May 10, 2007 5:26 PM
  • Roddles says: "Food for thought - I hope that Microsoft is listening - there are a lot of really Peeved customers out there who are looking for alternatives. Mac and Linux WILL take your customer base if you dont listen and act!"

    Do you really think that Mac and Linux will take the customer base? Mac - probably not, and Linux????? I don't think most people even know how to turn on Linux. You are saying something that really is so far fetched it can't even be taken seriously. This is an empty threat. There are novice users out there living with this issue that don't even know it's an issue. Yes, it's a BIG problem, no doubt. And yes, you are right about your point that we cannot with a clear conscience recommend Vista to our clients because of this and other compatibility problems, but yikes, saying things like Mac and Linux WILL take your customer base is not food for thought.

    I am not ready to put Vista in my customer's network environments. I WAS ready to put Windows XP Pro in place right away, however, and I was happy that I did. Vista is a different animal. Most of us who read the forums as developers and consultants have the same opinion. Don't give this to your customers yet. Even if they ask for it - as some of mine have done. Then they won't look at you and say "I thought you know what you were doing!"

    But I'll tell you what... if you recommended that your Microsoft based networking customers use a Mac or Linux, you'd get an even more flabbergasted look from them. Mac and Linux are not going to take them away, don't worry. No one can provide an answer for you right now as to why you put Vista in your customer's hands so early. But, shortly, MS will come up with the patch, like they always do and this issue will go away.
    Thursday, May 10, 2007 7:51 PM
  • So what you are saying is that Microsoft have released an operating system that is not fit for customers to use for serious business use. I don't think that Microsoft would appeciate that comment. Microsoft are pushing this as a serious business platform right now - to be used by everyone - right now, not a year or so down the track. Apart from these bugs, from what I have seen of Vista, its far superior to any other Windows release and will do well, but these issues are causing so much greif at the moment, that it realy is souring the experience for MOST people.

     

    As it stands, I dont put Vista on their networks - I recommend they remain with and install XP for them.

     

    I also don't keep my head burried in the sand. I investigate and try out alternatives to Windows to see what else is going on. So there may well be a real threat to Microsoft from Linux and Mac. It may not be immediate, but its growing. Of course if you only look as far as windows, you wouldn't see this.

     

    And where did you get the idea that this was a threat is beyond me - its a fact - if you dont listen to your customers, and really tick them off, they will go elsewhere to do business! simple fact - not a threat.

     

    My clients wanted to see what the fuss with Vista was about. Its difficult to sell Microsoft Technologies if they dont work properly. If they want to see it, I am not going to say - no - i dont think you should look at it yet, I will show them what is available at this point in time. If Microsoft havent got it together yet - then thats their problem. I am not going to try and cover up problems or make excuses. My advice to all of my customers at the moment is "Stick with XP".  But - some of them have also begun asking about Linux and Mac as alternatives - thats why I made the comment. Yes - people can think for themselves and start asking questions. They are not as dumb as some may think.

     

    Many of my clients core business systems run on Windows, hence the recommendation to stick with XP. But, one of my clients has a system that is quite old, and is looking at re-developing. They are asking questions about alternatives to Windows and what they would need to do to develop their core business systems in something that will run cross platform so they are not tied into one OS.

     

    If they are doing this, and they are considering these options when making decisions about the future of their IT directions in their companies. That is just one of my customers, a drop in the ocean so to speak, but how many other customers of people are doing this as well? The ground swell will not come from the big businesses, but rather lots of smaller ones.

     

    Incidentally  - how many people out there actually install windows themselves? Yes you have the technically minded ones who do it themselves, but they are also capable of installing Linux. Most of the time a great majority of people get someone to do it for them - same goes for Linux. So, once installed, turn on the PC and - hey presto, you have turned on Linux! Gee - that was hard wasn't it.

     

     

    Saturday, May 12, 2007 12:15 AM
  • Oi. read every post in the thread. I'm about to try these hot fixes myself. First, sign the 'petition':

     

    x64 Ultimate

    Athlon 3800+ (2.4ghz) 2gig ram

    Nforce chipset

    gforce 7300 PCIX16

    2 internal 7200 rpm drives, 200 and 80 gig, slew of external hd's. Not using readyboost atm.

     

    Typical transfer rates of 200-400k/sec

     

    Similar situation on my notebook,

     

    x86 Ultimate

    duel core T2300 1.66ghz processors

    1 gig ram, 1 gig readyboost

    60gig 7200rpm drive

    intel onboard graphics

     

    1.6meg/sec copy/paste in place

     

    Saturday, May 12, 2007 4:43 AM
  • being x64 i can't try the random hotfix.. disabling Windows Search brought my speed up a few mg/sec.. takes a minute to copy 1 gig folder .. took 3 minutes to empty a 2.5 gig recycle bin.. wasn't enough of an increase though to not have my search index running.

    I looked for similar posts in the vista community forums.. very pretty but rediculously slow for a tech support forum :/ can't find anything in there. I suppose while i'm waiting for this to get fixed i should get on the ball and upgrade to seta drives.
    Saturday, May 12, 2007 5:20 AM
  • For me also!!!

    This is the worst thing I have seen till now...in Vista.

    It said that it will take 15 days to copy 3 GB file from HDD to a maxtor backup drive...enough said!

    Bye...vista...xp for me.
    Saturday, May 12, 2007 7:44 AM
  • Yes, I only get this when copying files locally from one of my IDE drives to another IDE drive. Copying to my SATA drive gives me no trouble at all and I get a healthy 40-50MB/s transfer rate.

     

    This is with the hotfix installed, Windows Indexer disabled and all other suggestions from this thread implemented.

     

    Can anyone else confirm they are also having problems when copying to IDE drives but not to SATA drives?

    Sunday, May 13, 2007 11:10 PM
  • I've implemented the hotfix, disabled the Indexing service etc. None of the suggestions have done anything to allieviate this problem.

     

    I can confirm that I only get the extremely slow copying process when copying from one IDE drive to another. Copying to a SATA drive works perfectly every single time and gives me a ~40MB/s transfer rate. Can anyone else confirm they have the same circumstances?

    Sunday, May 13, 2007 11:35 PM
  • I've implemented the hotfix, disabled the Indexing service etc. None of the suggestions have done anything to allieviate this problem.

     

    I can confirm that I only get the extremely slow copying process when copying from one IDE drive to another. Copying to a SATA drive works perfectly every single time and gives me an approximately 40MB/s transfer rate. Can anyone else confirm they have the same circumstances?

    Sunday, May 13, 2007 11:40 PM
  • Some of my own statistics.  I have a DELL M90 with an Intel 82801GBM/GHM SATA controller and a Fujitsu MHV2120BH hard 120GB hard drive.  My test file was 1.52 GB.  Copy from one folder to another on the same drive gave me 10.5 Mbps file transfer rate.  Copy to my server (which has a SATA drive) produced only 4.0 Mbps file transfer rate.  The switch through which my copy traffic transferred was running at 100Mbps.
    Monday, May 14, 2007 12:24 AM
  • I am having the same problem:

     

    3.8gb of files (11000 files)

    from 2k3 server (file server)

    to sony vaio vgn-sz48gn with 160gb hdd, 2gb 667 ram, core2duo 7200

     

    total time to copy files was about 4 hours.

     

    I have disabled differential file transfer. I am running all the latest drivers,

     

    I never got under 23 min 20 sec to go (with about 100mb of files)

     

    The copy speed is a joke. I used another machine in the office running xp with the same spec on the same nw patch and did the transfer in a couple of minutes.

     

    What is going on here? Should I sneakernet files from now on?

     

    btw hotfix was no good either.

     

    CPU is running at 3% and ram is 51% loaded with basc apps running only (a couple of rdp sessions and antivirus - norton)

     

    Fix this damn thing so I can do my work, either that or pay me for my time to complete tasks you told me I could do faster (even the same speed would be nice).

     

    Groden.

    Monday, May 14, 2007 1:39 AM
  • Yo Bill seriously this is a huge issue, come on this product has been in production for 7 months now, and this thread is 4 months old. While the discourse here is not always on track, the issue is VERY legitimate. While I have the fortune of not paying for Vista (x64 for me) I had received it threw a few extra copies for the office I would be highly irate, hell I am already irate and I am not a paying customer! This is pathetic people, I suggest calling your local paper and generating bad press, headlines 'Avoid Microsoft flagship product, Defective by design' I got the local tech guy at least aware of the issue, lets all do the same, took 20 min of my time to get him on the phone...

     

    My only guess as to Microsoft attitude, and actions (i.e. nothing effective) is that it has to do with the shiny new DRM 'features' in Vista (I have read some stuff about this, but it all seams speculative) Basically they can't fix the speed, and make sure all the big happy media conglomerates are happy also(not to mention there own interest here)... I think Bill's customers are the big corps and screw the little guy... who cares if his file copies are slow, so long as we know what he is coping, and is paying for every copy....... screw the customer, screw fair use, screw the world, just save the stock holder....... least that is how this whole thing is making me feel, I could be off base here, but nothing else makes sense, how do you fundamentally break an OS so bad that file copies.... the most basic of operations are broken, and not be able to respond quickly to it? In other news, there was a recent DRM break that was fixed in 3 days and was deemed so important that MS didn't even wait till patch Tuesday!

     

    Just unbelievable, I guess that is what happens when you have monopoly powers. You don't need to actually listen to your user er... customer base. My attitude is now if you want it fixed, the only way to do this is to hurt there pocketbook, and frankly at best we can just hope to hurt how fast there pocketbook fills up, Make some noise, let EVERYONE know to avoid this FUD being pushed on us, at least until the most basic of concerns can be addressed, some one ordering a new PC, offer to assist to move there existing XP license to the new PC excreta, okay fellas?

     

    As a long time MS fan (back to Dos 2.x) I have lost faith. Sorry for the rant, but this just reeks.

    Monday, May 14, 2007 7:11 PM
  • I just wanted to say...that I have tried everything...in this section..till yesterday (May 13 2007) and none of it worked.  On top of all this (as if this is not enough), there is another issue that prevents USB drives from being removed safely...

    I have tried my best to work with Vista ....did not work...so, gone back to XP...and all my problems are gone.  Vista was more stable than XP (for me...)and does have some good features...but enough is enough..no more of slow copies, wireless issues, USB issues, printer issues, huge resources requirement issues...
    Monday, May 14, 2007 7:38 PM
  • anyone tried running process monitor, see what else is going on?
    http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/utilities/processmonitor.mspx


    Tuesday, May 15, 2007 9:31 AM
  • Hi all,

     

    I think I may have stumbled upon a possible cause for this one. I have been suffering from exactly the same problem with the result that I could no longer work effectively at my job. Last night I finally had enough with Vista and started the long slow process of preparing to re-install XP. Whilst doing this I disconnected the slave drive from the IDE 0 channel. As soon as I'd done this, transfers between the internal IDE and SATA drives ceased to be a problem with very high transfer rates. No issues with "calculating time" and all that rubbish - instead performance like I used to enjoy with XP. And before you ask, yes the two IDE drives were correctly jumpered as slave and master.

     

    Now this may just have been a coincidence but I can't ignore it. For what its worth - I think this issue might be something to do with Vista's ability to handle multiple IDE drives on a single IDE channel. 

     

    Graham

    Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:01 AM
  • Hi All

     

    Just thought i would add to this

     

    I have no issue with moving, deleteing or copying files

     

    A few people have mentioned it being an issue with >2GB ram, I have 4GB....

     

    I deleted a folder (300mb) just now to test and it was instant,

     

    The only time i see a slowdown is unzipping using 'windows compressed folders' wizard - and god is that slow.!!!! (7zip works fine)

     

    full system specs

     

    Windows Vista Business x64

    core2duo e6400 @ 3.2ghz

    Gigabyte P965-DS3 Mobo

    4GB OCZ RAM @ 800mhz

    768MB Nvidia 8800GTX

    Audigy II Platinum

    4 x 250GB WD SATAII 3G Hard Disks (db spaces)

    1 x 160GB Seagate PATA Hard Disk (Vista)

     

    Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:22 AM
  • now this IS interesting.

     

    i have the issue as you may well know and the hotfixes dont help. and i have a single SATA hard disk. however, my DVD-RW is on channel 0 on the IDE port.  tonight i will remove the cable from the DVD drive and see what happens...if anyone else can confirm they have something other than a hard disk on IDE port 0, and remove the drive and test again then we can prove or disprove this theory.

     

    i do honestly think it has to be something stupid like this.......

    Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:38 AM