So what's the deal with the interminable copies and moves with Vista
Can't MS get anything right? There's something going on in th
background someplace that hoses file and directory transfers *-on th
same computer-*. I turned off the ridiculous indexing for searches, n
luck there. I even tried an external command (mv in Cygwin) and it stil
took too long. I suspect that the files I think are available for plai
old copy and move operations are really some demented abstraction - th
"files" and "Folders" are merely representations of some bizarre M
database scheme. Rather than just talk to the disk sector in the usua
way, a disk request has to first navigate some convoluted maze of reall
useless internal dependencies. Bet it's related to Microsoft's versio
of security. Any ideas

There shouldn't be a problem as long as you don't try to copy to C:\, or to
"Program Files", or to any of the "My xxx" folders.

I have no problems or delays copying/moving files in Vista (same as XP),
never have had a problem. I can also copy to the "My xxx" folders with no
problem. Yes, there is a hindrance to copying to the straight C: or
"Program Files', but why would I want to do that anyway, that is not a place
for everyday files and folders, so I am happy that it asks my permission to
move things there (and I don't). I have seen sources that say to turn off
"Remote Differential Compression" to speed things up, but my RDC is turned
on and my file transfers are plenty fast. Still, you might try disabling
RDC and see if it helps. Here's some stuff about RDC and file copy times:

http://www.vistarevisited.com/2007/1...etwork-part-2/

Control Panel|Programs and Features|Turn Windows Features on or off|uncheck
Remote Differential Compression.


"Dave" <dave> wrote in message
news:3940
[..]

Microsoft has no business telling me how to use my computer. If I want
to move or copy or delete files, I don't need a bunch of warnings and
cautions and "are you sure" or confirms; it's -my- computer! If I screw
it up it's my problem and I promise not to blame Microsoft. But no, they
hit me with their moronic UAC confirmations. File transfers are slow
because the airheads at Microsoft are doing a bunch of unecessary checks
and housekeeping before doing what I want with the file(s).

I've done all the recommended stuff and nothing helps. There's
something going on in the OS that bogs down file transfers on the LOCAL
machine. It's a bug, a flaw, a screw up. While some may think the UAC is
worthwhile or that file indexing is a "good thing", experienced computer
users find it infuriating. Microsoft has done more to promote Linux by
their arrogant "user friendliness" than anyone. It's why I dual boot.

Anyway, Vista is broken is lots of ways, large and small and, true to
form, Microsoft refuses to admit their mistakes and, once again, I have
to figure it out for myself.

Bill Conner;586982 Wrote:
[..]
>
> Anyway, Vista is broken is lots of ways, large and small and, true to
> form, Microsoft refuses to admit their mistakes and, once again, I have
> to figure it out for myself.
>> --
> Bill Conner
> Posted via 'Microsoft Windows Vista Community Forums - Vistaheads'
> ([..])

Hi Bill,

You can enable the built-in Administrator account to have full control
of your computer while logged on with it. This will show you how to
enable it.

http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/67...r-account.html

Shawn

Bill has a couple of misconceptions.

> If I want
> to move or copy or delete files, I don't need a bunch of warnings and
> cautions and "are you sure" or confirms; it's -my- computer!

The thing is, the OS has no way of being sure it really is YOU that wants to
move those files, or some malware dicking around with your data or the OS's
own files. So it asks you to confirm. It doesn't do this all the time;
only in those cases where there could be security implications. In that
respect it's just the same as Linux and MacOSX, both of which use "elevation
prompts" under similar circumstances.

The thing is, if Vista DIDN'T prompt for confirmation, and some malware
vaped your files or your OS, you'd be the first to come to this newsgroup
and complain, wouldn't you?

> I've done all the recommended stuff and nothing helps. There's
> something going on in the OS that bogs down file transfers on the LOCAL
> machine. It's a bug, a flaw, a screw up.

Yes, you are right, but it doesn't affect everyone, hence the confusion in
this thread. Vista is well known for sluggish file transfers over your LAN.
It is also known to suffer slow file transfers on your own hard disk. This
is a lot less common. Presumably it has something to do with your
particular configuration. Anyway, from what I've read MS are working on
both problems.

> File transfers are slow
> because the airheads at Microsoft are doing a bunch of unecessary checks
> and housekeeping before doing what I want with the file(s).

I've no idea, and neither have you, whether this has anything to do with the
tigher security in Vista.

> .......hit me with their moronic UAC confirmations.

Any more moronic that Linux's elevation prompts? You have actually used
Linux, haven't you? And not just prodded around on the desktop?

> Anyway, Vista is broken is lots of ways, large and small and, true to
> form, Microsoft refuses to admit their mistakes and, once again, I have
> to figure it out for myself.

Wrong. As far as I know, MS has acknowledged all the issues you have
complained about.

Frankly this sounds more like a rant than anything else. That's OK.

SteveT

> While some may think <snip> that file indexing is a "good thing",
> experienced computer users find it infuriating.

Not this experienced user. In my XP days I discovered the superb Copernic
Desktop search system, which predated all the other players (Google Desktop
et al) in the desktop search game.

What was new (at that time) was that it indexed the CONTENTS of all your
data files, not just the file names. That made it fabulously effective for
finding that lost document with only half-remembered content, somewhere in a
corner of your hard disk. It searched a vast range of file types, including
emails and browser shortcuts.

Truly, Copernic transformed my experience of XP, and I'd be surprised if
anyone else who has tried it (or one of its many competitors) would
disagree.

Now Vista comes with much the same functionality built in. I'm frankly
amazed that you don't find it useful and would prefer to turn it off.

Do this: click the Start Orb, and just start typing a word - any word that
you think might be in one of your documents. As you enter the letters every
document that contains that string appears instantly in a list. As you type
more letters - thus refining the search - the list shortens. It's
wonderful!

So, I'm all in favour of indexing the contents of my files, and I think the
Vista search facility is STREETS ahead of the half-baked joke of a search
tool in XP. (It isn't better than Copernic, though, it's just about the
same).

I do wonder just how much you really use your PC.....

SteveT

"Bill Conner" <Bill.Conner.33ta0c> wrote in
message news:ta0c
>
> So what's the deal with the interminable copies and moves with Vista?
> Can't MS get anything right? There's something going on in the
> background someplace that hoses file and directory transfers *-on the
> same computer-*. I turned off the ridiculous indexing for searches, no
> luck there. I even tried an external command (mv in Cygwin) and it still
> took too long. I suspect that the files I think are available for plain
> old copy and move operations are really some demented abstraction - the
> "files" and "Folders" are merely representations of some bizarre MS
> database scheme. Rather than just talk to the disk sector in the usual
> way, a disk request has to first navigate some convoluted maze of really
> useless internal dependencies. Bet it's related to Microsoft's version
> of security. Any ideas?

I've recently moved from a 133 MHz processor using Win98 to 1.5
GHz with Vista and all file manipulations in Windows Explorer are much
slower. "Copy and Move Paralysis" describes it perfectly! I can't help
but think of when I upgraded that 133 MHz machine from Win95 to Win98. It
became far less responsive for all tasks, so much so that I called Microsoft
to ask if this was normal. I was simply told that Win98 contained many more
lines of code so that it should be slower. A few years later I installed a
trial version of XP on that same machine, and sure enough it was so slow
that it was unusable. I guess if you want raw speed, go back to DOS and if
you wan the "benefits" of lots more lines of code, than use Vista with
proportionately faster hardware.

UNIX and Linux assume that the user is sandboxed in a little world where
he or she can do the system no harm. This isolation has always been
integral to those OS's and it's always worked as designed. To do
anything potentially harmful on has to get root access, something very
difficult to do for most people. While Linux offers a GUI with all the
same annoying confirmations as Vista, that interface isn't where
knowledgable users spend their time. Most of us prefer the command line
and most Interent facing servers don't even enable the GUI at all.

The problem with Microsoft products is that they are designed to appeal
to less experienced users, people who will use the office suites and
email and the web. They may be adept using some programs but know very
little about the underlying OS. Because of this focus MS assumes that
-all- users require handholding and all manner of lame and annoying
checks to verify even the simplest tasks. Linux let's a user bypass all
that.

Because of the "features" MS enable -by default-, I have to dig through
all manner of "firendly" garbage to manage my system. Granted, this is a
rant but buried therein is a legitimate question: how do I disable stuff
I don't like? The answer seem to be, can't be done.