Slashdot Mirror
Vista Slow To Copy, Delete Files
Bruce Schneier has said that trying to make digital files uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet. With Vista, Microsoft seems to have done a pretty good job of making premium content files not copyable. Now a few readers have tipped us to a new wrinkle: Vista also makes it very, very slow to copy, rename, or delete ordinary files. Here is a Microsoft TechNet thread on the problem. The Reg reports that Microsoft has a hotfix for what sounds like a subset of the more general problem complained about on TechNet; but they will only give it to customers who ask nicely. And a hotfix is fussier to install than a proper patch.
I realize "The Register" is the "National Enquirer" of IT, but what the heck does this quote in TFA mean: "it's as if you're copying over a 64k link using only 256mb of RAM"
I've used Windows 2000 with only 256M of RAM and it's quite speedy...I've run a remote desktop session over a 56kbps link and although noticable, it's pretty speedy. (and yes, I've copied big files over that link)
How does mixing speed (bps) and RAM (M) work anyway? It's sorta like saying "I've driven my car 50kph with a cat,ferret, and dog in the back seat but when the seat covers are blue it seems really slow"
TDz.
Nowhere in the thread does it mention DRM. Where did the summary of the article come up with this assumption? I am not saying that I would be surprised if this were the case, but random accusations and misleading summaries...we can leave that to the National Enquirer ... or Slashdot.
One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
Egads, what a piece of JUNK.
What in the *hell* is the point of a pretty interface for your operating system, when it won't carry out basic operating system tasks efficiently?
Of course, I'm not *really* asking this question, since we all know that the point of Windows upgrades isn't to improve our experience, but to drive the purchase of new hardware, that will require new software, that will drive Microsoft's numbers up. That being said, this sort of thing is just completely unacceptable. Copying files is amongst the most basic things a computer can be asked to do.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
This just in! An extremely common and necessary file operation takes about 10 times longer to do in Vista on the exact same hardware! Trust me, it's _really_ annoying. Oh, and this is Slashdot, of course there will be an article about every little thing ;-)
WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
With something so basic and fundamental, yes, it will be reported on /. It indicates MS completely blew QA on Vista, which isn't surprising since they were going to ship in Jan come hell or high water. Another delay was absolutely not acceptable, as Vista delays have already made them a laughing stock among some, and more importantly was shaking confidence in others.
I think we will see that rushing out an incomplete and untested product is a sure way remove confidence. Evidently MS hasn't learned from their "only use odd-numbered service packs" mantra that used to exist among many of us. Why was that? Because the odd numbered SPs fixed the issues of the even numbered SPs, including the initial release.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Seems Vista's security initiative paid off. No security-related issues to report so Slashdot begins posting headlines about every little twitch that Vista suffers as a serious issue.
oh for heavens sake. In QA it is impossible to catch everything.
Well QA departments usually maintains a serie of tests and run them on various architectures and measure the time taken by each test. Trying to copy/erase/rename files seems like a basic operation you don't want regression on, so it is probably part of a test. The fact that such a thing wasn't caught on a flag product just amaze me.
Agreed, it should not *too greatly* affect anyone. But you have to admit that when you have bought Vista for a fistful of dollars, probably bought a recent computer to make it work, you have the right to be annoyed when a basic operation is slower than on an older machine, with an older OS.
In fact, on linux, I wouldn't care much and would agree with the "oops, sorry here is a fix" because I didn't pay for that, because the developer wasn't paid to write the soft and wasn't forced to release a fix, so yeah, there is a bias and it has some good justifications.
Also I don't know what kind of uses you have with your computer, but copying or moving 10+ MB files happen all the time. If you are a gamer, a creator, a film/music down... consumer, hell, even if you are a MS Office user, 10Mb is insanely easy to reach.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Sorry but I have to disagree. .NET 3.0 What I really don't like is that Microsoft is making it hard for average people to buy systems with XP on it. They shouldn't be forcing people to Vista since it clearly isn't ready yet.
This will impact any user that copies files to their system. It also looks as if it is a problem with the DRM a "feature" that doesn't benefit the people that actually pay for the software at all.
Also that hot fix is only available to average users that call up and ask for it.
The one thing you have almost correct is that people should have waited until Vista proves it's self. Everybody should wait until Vista proves it's self. I really don't see any reason to run Vista if you are not a developer. The really cool new API is available for XP if you install
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
oh for heavens sake. In QA it is impossible to catch everything, in fact I'm impressed vista works as well as it does considering they rebuilt so much of it.
Remember that Vista has been in development for what, 8 years? You'd expect basic stuff like copying files to work at least as well as it did in previous Windows versions by now...