Copying files from one network drive to another

[Metspitzer]

A C
\ /
\ /
B

If you're sitting at "B", with Windows File Sharing, it would take
a copy from A to B, plus a copy from B to C, to achieve copying A to C.

But, if you use TeamViewer (or one of a bunch of programs like it), and
remotely control the computers, you could remote into A, and
ask A to transfer to C.

A-----C


B

Years ago, I used VNC (free) and Timbuktu (payware), but there are
a whole bunch of them listed here. I don't bother with stuff like
that on my current computers. My last "remoting in" was quite
a few years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_remote_desktop_software

So with the right software, as long as the machines are powered up,
you could "take control" of any of them.

BTW I always wanted to have VLC installed on my Sister's machines so I
could help her over a hump or two, but I always ended up having to
drive to her house in another state to fix the problem.

Trying to get VLC working with her at the wheel never happened.
PUT THE MOUSE DOWN AND STEP AWAY FROM THE COMPUTER!

 

[Char Jackson]

BTW I always wanted to have VLC installed on my Sister's machines so I
could help her over a hump or two, but I always ended up having to
drive to her house in another state to fix the problem.

Trying to get VLC working with her at the wheel never happened.
PUT THE MOUSE DOWN AND STEP AWAY FROM THE COMPUTER!

If you Google it, be sure to search for VNC. VLC is a completely
different program.

 

[Metspitzer]

If you Google it, be sure to search for VNC. VLC is a completely
different program.

Only I meant VNC..................Maybe that is why we never got it to
work

 

[pjp]

Copying a file from my laptop to a network drive takes more time than
it does to copy a file from one desktop to another because the laptop
is wireless.

Using my laptop to copy a file from one desktop to another desktop can
take days. Shouldn't Win7 be able to just tell one desktop to
copy/move a file to another desktop without the data having to pass
through the laptop?

If you are sitting on the laptop and copying the files from two other
pc's then Yes it's slower. Go and do the copy directly from one of the
two other pcs and I'm sure you'll see a speed improvement.

My laptop just took 9 min to copy a 4Gb file from a desktop unit
(wireless connection on laptop). Same file desktop to desktop takes
under 3 min (both wired to router).

Fo real big stuff, e.g. 30+ Gb (depends upon my patience at time) I'll
often just use an external hard disk and sneakers as it seems faster.

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

[snip]

I don't know how or why you got so sidetracked, but such is Usenet.

I did not get sidetracked at all. I know that it is not done
now, but I work in a field where we create new programs. It could be
done, and it could be useful. Someone who knows about services and
security could write such a program.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

No

Well, in that case, I won't do it

(Thanks - I'm having a bit of fun with this.)

 

[charlie]

Well, in that case, I won't do it

(Thanks - I'm having a bit of fun with this.)

Getting back to the original complaint about the copying speed and networks.

I have an older Maxtor 500G networked drive (Ethernet) that has always
had an interesting transfer speed issue. It was originally used with win
ME, then XP and Vista, then win 7. It's behind a router, and has a
different workgroup name that the default. The router has the usual
switch built in, plus an external daisy chain switch. The method chosen
to copy a file or files to or from it has always had a large effect on
speed. Win 7 and Vista complicated matters a bit, due to the user
related "enhancements". (UAC, etc.)

It seems to be most accessible via it's IP address, which is fixed.
I.E \\192.168.x.xxx\directory Vista and win 7 forced me to muck around
with the drives user accounts, such that they exactly matched user's
names and passwords, something I'd not needed to do in the past.

As I remember there was a big difference in using copy and xcopy with
older win versions. I haven't bothered to get into that again with win
7, as there also is a win home server that does automatic backups, and
can, if I bother, broker file transfers.

 

[Char Jackson]

Getting back to the original complaint about the copying speed and networks.

Speaking of that, there's something about Win 7 that amazes me. When
my network was all XP or a mix of XP and 7, I routinely saw network
transfers moving at 200-400 megabits per second (Mbps), with the lower
end of that range being more typical. The NICs are $10 Trendnet
Gigabit models and most of the drives are 5400 RPM 'green' drives, so
I wasn't expecting more from them.

Later testing with iPerf or jPerf showed that 990+ Mbps was
theoretically possible, so the NICs were capable. I was guessing,
then, that the limiting factor was the 5400 RPM drives.

Along came Win 7, installed on the exact same hardware, and suddenly
I'm seeing 650-995 Mbps, which is amazing to me. Obviously, my slow
drives weren't the limiting factor after all. I may have come to that
conclusion a lot sooner if I had actually done any math, but laziness
stepped in time after time. I don't know what Win 7 is doing behind
the scenes, but these transfer rates are phenomenal.

 

[BillW50]

Speaking of that, there's something about Win 7 that amazes me. When
my network was all XP or a mix of XP and 7, I routinely saw network
transfers moving at 200-400 megabits per second (Mbps), with the lower
end of that range being more typical. The NICs are $10 Trendnet
Gigabit models and most of the drives are 5400 RPM 'green' drives, so
I wasn't expecting more from them.

Later testing with iPerf or jPerf showed that 990+ Mbps was
theoretically possible, so the NICs were capable. I was guessing,
then, that the limiting factor was the 5400 RPM drives.

Along came Win 7, installed on the exact same hardware, and suddenly
I'm seeing 650-995 Mbps, which is amazing to me. Obviously, my slow
drives weren't the limiting factor after all. I may have come to that
conclusion a lot sooner if I had actually done any math, but laziness
stepped in time after time. I don't know what Win 7 is doing behind
the scenes, but these transfer rates are phenomenal.

How do you put up with the overall slowness of Windows 7 in general?
Sure Windows 7/8 has some really nice stuff. But even my Intel Core2 Duo
T7400 (2.16 GHz) running Windows 7 isn't fast enough to compete with XP
running on a Celeron 900MHz underclocked to 633MHz. I am so amazed that
Windows 7 running on a T7400 isn't enough power to be used as a DVR. Nor
is it enough power to run 3D games either. Yet run XP on the same
machine and you have tons of available CPU power left to do other things
at the same time too.

 

[Char Jackson]

How do you put up with the overall slowness of Windows 7 in general?

I'll let you know if I see it. So far, I don't. Windows 7 seems to be
on par with XP on my hardware.

Sure Windows 7/8 has some really nice stuff. But even my Intel Core2 Duo
T7400 (2.16 GHz) running Windows 7 isn't fast enough to compete with XP
running on a Celeron 900MHz underclocked to 633MHz. I am so amazed that
Windows 7 running on a T7400 isn't enough power to be used as a DVR. Nor
is it enough power to run 3D games either. Yet run XP on the same
machine and you have tons of available CPU power left to do other things
at the same time too.

I have to take into account the fact that you have far more problems
than anyone else I've run across, (except for Valorie), so most of
what you're reporting is probably user error. Do you agree?

 

[BillW50]

I'll let you know if I see it. So far, I don't. Windows 7 seems to be
on par with XP on my hardware.

What is your hardware for both systems?

I have to take into account the fact that you have far more problems
than anyone else I've run across, (except for Valorie), so most of
what you're reporting is probably user error. Do you agree?

No, I don't agree Char! I am very observant and see things that many
people miss. Plus I experiment a lot by underclocking and I can see
problems that others can't see because they don't have the skills or the
tools to do so.

 

[BillW50]

What is your hardware for both systems?


No, I don't agree Char! I am very observant and see things that many
people miss. Plus I experiment a lot by underclocking and I can see
problems that others can't see because they don't have the skills or the
tools to do so.

Also you think it is just me. Although people who are apparently far
smarter than you also notices that Windows 7 is slower than XP. This one
video shows Windows 7 GUI is almost 5 times slower than XP, which is
about what I too have found.

Windows 7 GUI slowness - YouTube

 

[Mortimer]

How do you put up with the overall slowness of Windows 7 in general? Sure
Windows 7/8 has some really nice stuff. But even my Intel Core2 Duo T7400
(2.16 GHz) running Windows 7 isn't fast enough to compete with XP running
on a Celeron 900MHz underclocked to 633MHz. I am so amazed that Windows 7
running on a T7400 isn't enough power to be used as a DVR.

I'm running W7 and Windows Media Centre on a Dell PC with AMD Athlon II X4
630 (2.8 GHz) and it is quite happy to record (in SD, at least - haven't got
an HD DTTV adaptor) while another PC is accessing the same hard disk to
watch an SD recording across the network. There are occasional glitches on
that second PC if it uses wireless, but if I connect it by Ethernet to the
router, there's no problem, so it's probably wireless that is the limiting
factor there. And the extra load doesn't corrupt the recording. I've even
(accidentally) left Defraggler defragmenting the drive that I record to
while making a recording and there are no glitches in the recording. That's
with SATA 2 controller and drives.

By comparison, my old XP PC (not sure of the spec) with an ATI All in Wonder
card struggled to record analogue at 640x480. I'm not sure whether it was
the graphics card, the processor, the hard disk or the IDE controller that
was the limiting factor.

Even my laptop (W7, AMD E450 1.6 GHz) with a 5400 rpm SATA/300 (is that SATA
2?) drive will record using Media Centre and the same DTTV adaptor, though I
do get a few dropped frames if I try to defrag the drive at the same time!
Well, when I saw that my desktop coped with this when it I did it
accidentally, I *had* to see how the laptop managed

It seems that Media Centre prioritises the integrity of the recording above
everything else, so it's other things (watching recorded video, refreshing
screen in Word etc) which suffer first when the PC is loaded.

 

[Tim Slattery]

How do you put up with the overall slowness of Windows 7 in general?

Slowness? My computer at work was recently converted from 32-bit XP to
64-bit Win7. The same programs now run *much* faster.

 

[Char Jackson]

What is your hardware for both systems?

The exact details don't matter. The important part is that this exact
system was running XP 32bit and now it's running 7 64bit. There were
no hardware changes made and no discernable difference in system
response times. If anything, it's faster now than it was with XP.

No, I don't agree Char! I am very observant and see things that many
people miss. Plus I experiment a lot by underclocking and I can see
problems that others can't see because they don't have the skills or the
tools to do so.

You remind me of the kid from The Sixth Sense. Like you, he saw things
that most people can't see.

 

[BillW50]

The exact details don't matter. The important part is that this exact
system was running XP 32bit and now it's running 7 64bit. There were
no hardware changes made and no discernable difference in system
response times. If anything, it's faster now than it was with XP.

I never installed Windows 7 x64 and I don't think I ever want too. What
good is it? As it can have problems with x32 applications and always has
problems with x16 applications. I don't think I even own a single x64
application. Hell that means I have to repurchase all of my applications
all over again. Does even MS Office 2000/2003 even come in x64 versions?
And what about all of those 3D games?

Although I have a lot of experience on the same machine between XP x32
and Windows 7 x32. I must have tried both on at least 5 machines now and
the results is always the same.

The one thing I like about Windows far more than any other OS is that
Windows can run more applications than anything else out there. And that
is very important to me. As my software keeps changing all of the time.
Tomorrow I might start using a totally different application for a given
task, for example.

And for over 15 years now, the x32 version of Windows was the one that
could promise this. x64 Windows can't and may never be able to make that
promise, who knows? Maybe when Windows x64 comes close, the new Windows
x128 will be out and steal all of the thunder away.

You remind me of the kid from The Sixth Sense. Like you, he saw things
that most people can't see.

All you have to do is to get off of your lazy ass and find out thousands
who are seeing what I am seeing with an Internet search. Just because
you never saw it doesn't mean it isn't there. Like for example, some
have never seen an Alienware machine. I have five of them myself. And
just because somebody has never seen one, doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[BillW50]

Slowness? My computer at work was recently converted from 32-bit XP to
64-bit Win7. The same programs now run *much* faster.

That is what Char said too. So far I have no interest in x64 ware. As
x32 2000/XP runs extremely fast as it is. Why change something that is
working just fine for? I mean besides making Microsoft happy and all. My
Windows 7 and Windows 8 machines are running x32 too. Although they run
much slower than 2000/XP even on the same machines.

 

[BillW50]

I'm running W7 and Windows Media Centre on a Dell PC with AMD Athlon II
X4 630 (2.8 GHz) and it is quite happy to record (in SD, at least -
haven't got an HD DTTV adaptor) while another PC is accessing the same
hard disk to watch an SD recording across the network. There are
occasional glitches on that second PC if it uses wireless, but if I
connect it by Ethernet to the router, there's no problem, so it's
probably wireless that is the limiting factor there. And the extra load
doesn't corrupt the recording. I've even (accidentally) left Defraggler
defragmenting the drive that I record to while making a recording and
there are no glitches in the recording. That's with SATA 2 controller
and drives.

By comparison, my old XP PC (not sure of the spec) with an ATI All in
Wonder card struggled to record analogue at 640x480. I'm not sure
whether it was the graphics card, the processor, the hard disk or the
IDE controller that was the limiting factor.

Even my laptop (W7, AMD E450 1.6 GHz) with a 5400 rpm SATA/300 (is that
SATA 2?) drive will record using Media Centre and the same DTTV adaptor,
though I do get a few dropped frames if I try to defrag the drive at the
same time! Well, when I saw that my desktop coped with this when it I
did it accidentally, I *had* to see how the laptop managed

It seems that Media Centre prioritises the integrity of the recording
above everything else, so it's other things (watching recorded video,
refreshing screen in Word etc) which suffer first when the PC is loaded.

Oh man! My experience over and over again is the Media Center is a real
CPU hog. I have XP Media Center too, but I never installed it. Just
basing my experience with Windows 7/8 Media Center. Wait I do have a
Dell with XP Media Center too, but I never used that Media Center for
anything.

And I have used a KWorld TV tuner from 2001 for many years and it could
keep up with XP if you had at least 533Mhz Celeron. They claimed you
needed 800MHz minimum. But I didn't need that much for my systems.
KWorld never updated the drivers or the software more than a year. So XP
SP2 became a bit unstable and SP3 was unusable. So I bought two
AVerMedia TV tuners. And they work with XP, Vista, Windows 7, and Windows 8.

They are perfect with XP using the AVerMedia software. Under Windows 7
and Windows 8, the AVerMedia software works too if absolutely nothing
else is running at all. Which is impossible since the OS itself jumps
from idle from time to time and can screw it up. And that Media Center
is far worse. As 30% of the time the recordings are crap. Meaning it
might be ok for 7 seconds, but misses frames for the other 3 seconds.
And I can depend on XP to do an excellent job, but not Windows 7 or 8.

 

[Char Jackson]

I never installed Windows 7 x64 and I don't think I ever want too. What
good is it?

You want others to try to convince you? Why should we? It's just an
operating system. You already know, or can easily find out, its pros
and cons. If you need it, go ahead and use it. If you don't need it,
rest assured that no one will lose a minute of sleep as a result of
your decision.

As it can have problems with x32 applications and always has
problems with x16 applications. I don't think I even own a single x64
application. Hell that means I have to repurchase all of my applications
all over again. Does even MS Office 2000/2003 even come in x64 versions?
And what about all of those 3D games?

I don't know where you got the idea that you had to run 64bit apps on
a 64bit OS. You've always claimed to be sharper than that.

My recommendation, if you want it, is to avoid Windows 7 at all costs.
Heaven forbid you would find out it's not as slow, clunky, and full of
eye candy as you'd like to believe. It's easier to sit on the sideline
and hurl insults.

 

[BillW50]

You want others to try to convince you? Why should we? It's just an
operating system. You already know, or can easily find out, its pros
and cons. If you need it, go ahead and use it. If you don't need it,
rest assured that no one will lose a minute of sleep as a result of
your decision.

It would be wise for you to do some more reading about Windows 7 x64. So
you don't continue to make so many more mistakes about it. Here is a
start.

64-bit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit

I don't know where you got the idea that you had to run 64bit apps on
a 64bit OS. You've always claimed to be sharper than that.

That isn't what I said Char. I said Windows x64 doesn't run all 32 bit
applications. And Windows x64 doesn't run 32 bit applications in native
mode, but rather in emulation mode called Microsoft WoW64 Technology.
And what often foils 32 bit applications from running under Windows x64
is when the 32 bit application contains some 16 bit code. No problem for
a Windows x32 OS though, as they are designed to handle it.

My recommendation, if you want it, is to avoid Windows 7 at all costs.
Heaven forbid you would find out it's not as slow, clunky, and full of
eye candy as you'd like to believe. It's easier to sit on the sideline
and hurl insults.

I've been running Windows 7 since June of 2009 Char, so it is a bit too
late to follow your advice now. I have been too exposed to it and
probably more than most here. And I already have been exposed to this
Windows 8 for a couple of months now.