Vista Runs Out of Memory While Copying Files

ta bu shi da yu writes "It appears that, incredibly, Vista can run out of memory while copying files. ZDNet is reporting that not only does it run out of memory after copying 16,400+ files, but that 'often there is little indication that file copy operations haven't completed correctly.' Apparently a fix was scheduled for SP1 but didn't make it; there is a hotfix that you must request."

Comments

XP did this too I think.

[LoudMusic]

I seem to remember in 2004 copying 1600+ trip pictures that were 2MB each from an XP laptop to my XP desktop and it failing to complete and displaying no errors. That's the only time I've ever seen Windows do that though. It used to happen a lot with Mac OS 7.x and 8.x. To the point I would copy one folder at a time and check the contents as I went. OS X fails to recalculate folder sizes in the List view.

Oh, speaking of calculating folder sizes in list view, does Vista do this? There is a handy add-on for XP called Folder Size but it doesn't work with Vista. The author claims he went through some hassle trying to get it to work with Vista but he doesn't say WHEN he went through the hassle, so I figured maybe Microsoft would have added that feature.

Everyone should use Folder Size if they're using XP. It's really nice. Especially if you use Macs on a regular basis as well.

Vista sucks

[tomstdenis]

But unlike you guys, I don't need any specific reason to hate it. The entire picture of Vista [and Windows in general] is just sick. Aside from gaming [which Linux distros are technically capable of] there is really no advantage over the properly selected Linux distro. And being that I do more than game, it's an easy choice to use pretty much any Linux distro over XP or Vista.

Tom

Re:That's OK then

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

Your ubuntu linux box is probably just rearranging inodes, while the windows box (vista I presume) is likely creating shadow copies so that you can arbitrarily roll back your filesystem after you do something stupid.

You're comparing apples to..candied apples. Yeah, they're both the same thing kinda, but one does other stuff too and you shouldn't blame the candied apple for being worse for your weight.

windows is by all means a horrible OS, I really don't like it, but I've been running it for the pats few years because I don't have a mac and nothing that runs on x86 is what I'd consider desktop worthy, and I was tired of 'making due' with the limitations that running linux on the desktop imposed on me. Mostly missing out on a lot of software that I like (Photoshop, Vegas, the official aim client that STILL has more features than gaim/pidgin, foobar2000, etc). On top of that theres still the games I spend a non-trivial amount of time playing that while some can be ran with hacks like Wine, you're still going to be second class and frankly I don't want to have to wait for a wine update every time theres a game update breaking compatability, or worse getting banned by anticheat that wine doesn't properly support (HL1's VAC had this issue several times).
Yes theres a lot of really nice open source "linux software". Except it all runs just as fine on windows if you want it (gnu toolkit, firefox, vim, mplayer, nmap, etc).

Then theres the hardware support.. Linux's sound system is horrid. If I'd open quake3, one of the rare native games, the sound would be fine.. except that it would lock the sound card. Now after an hour of fragging, I hear every one of gaim's sounds that happened back to back for the next 3 minutes. Joy. Run a sound daemon to queue it in software like windows does internally? Okay. Except..now the sounds in quake are desynced along with fps spikes due to artsd having to handle so much real time sound it wasnt designed for. Speaking of sound, getting my 4.1 audio just wasn't an option on my soundcard at the time, making that investment pretty much worthless.

Then on top of that.. lets try and get my dual video cards working. In windows, you just..plug them both in and boot it up. Even runnng 1x nvidia 1x ati worked fine for me when I needed to. In linux.. unless its a card with dual outputs designed for it, you're not getting two monitors working independently. Yeah, your window manager will let you do some worthless virtual desktops, but I'm sorry if I can't see the window at all times I might as well just minimize it.

I'm sure linux has probably gotten a little better on some of those fronts, but even if so its still just playing catchup and not providing a reason to switch, and I know its not catching up on software.