File Transfer Speed - Partition to Partition

My PC is about 4 years old but running Vista Ultimate x86 SP1. It comes
with dual Opteron 244x2(1.8MHz), 4MB DDR400 and SATA-150. I measured
time to transfer 1048MB file between partitions in a same physical
drive(SATA-150). It took 38.91 seconds. Is this normal? I did the same
measurement on WXP on the same machine(dual-boot system), and it was
18.55 seconds.
Could anyone shed light on the matter of file transfer speed?

2 partitions on the same disk means it has to read and write on 2 DIFFERENT
locations of the SAME disk at the SAME time...

what this means is that the drives "head" that is on a metallic arm has to
go to and forth several times per second
in order to keep up with this.

Now I have seen that vista in general has very slow disk access time. I have
seen this on all kinds of machines...

Furthermore you have the shadow copy of vista doing its crap in the
background making copies of everything!!!!.. a nightmare!

with modern sata II disks with 32 mb cache, the difference is not so
noticeable but its there....

Its noticable in cases just like you did, when dual booting.. XP on my 4
core is about 20% faster in general than Vista (dual boot)



"churin" <churin@new.postalias> wrote in message
news:OUyDc31FJHA.1460@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> My PC is about 4 years old but running Vista Ultimate x86 SP1. It comes
> with dual Opteron 244x2(1.8MHz), 4MB DDR400 and SATA-150. I measured time
> to transfer 1048MB file between partitions in a same physical
> drive(SATA-150). It took 38.91 seconds. Is this normal? I did the same
> measurement on WXP on the same machine(dual-boot system), and it was 18.55
> seconds.
> Could anyone shed light on the matter of file transfer speed?

Theory of Everything wrote:
> 2 partitions on the same disk means it has to read and write on 2
> DIFFERENT locations of the SAME disk at the SAME time...
>
> what this means is that the drives "head" that is on a metallic arm has
> to go to and forth several times per second
> in order to keep up with this.
>
> Now I have seen that vista in general has very slow disk access time. I
> have seen this on all kinds of machines...
>
> Furthermore you have the shadow copy of vista doing its crap in the
> background making copies of everything!!!!.. a nightmare!
>
> with modern sata II disks with 32 mb cache, the difference is not so
> noticeable but its there....
>
> Its noticable in cases just like you did, when dual booting.. XP on my 4
> core is about 20% faster in general than Vista (dual boot)

And Ubuntu is faster than XP, much faster both in file transfer and
Internet speed.

Alias
>
>
>
> "churin" <churin@new.postalias> wrote in message
> news:OUyDc31FJHA.1460@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> My PC is about 4 years old but running Vista Ultimate x86 SP1. It
>> comes with dual Opteron 244x2(1.8MHz), 4MB DDR400 and SATA-150. I
>> measured time to transfer 1048MB file between partitions in a same
>> physical drive(SATA-150). It took 38.91 seconds. Is this normal? I did
>> the same measurement on WXP on the same machine(dual-boot system), and
>> it was 18.55 seconds.
>> Could anyone shed light on the matter of file transfer speed?
>

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:07:04 -0400, churin <churin@new.postalias>
wrote:

>My PC is about 4 years old but running Vista Ultimate x86 SP1. It comes
>with dual Opteron 244x2(1.8MHz), 4MB DDR400 and SATA-150. I measured
>time to transfer 1048MB file between partitions in a same physical
>drive(SATA-150). It took 38.91 seconds. Is this normal? I did the same
>measurement on WXP on the same machine(dual-boot system), and it was
>18.55 seconds.
>Could anyone shed light on the matter of file transfer speed?

Vista is definitely slower than XP when copying/moving files.

SP1 supposedly helped.

I know....Linux is stable, fast and fantastic for network speeds....

HOWEVER Ubuntu isnt compatible with the programs I use, and no one seems
interested in investing money to port them.

That's the main problem of ubuntu and linux...

The opensource versions of programs I use are pathetic....

Of course I could use a MAC that is unix, (BSD) ... Im thinking about
getting a mac.

Most of the very important apps I use are ported to MAC OSX or there are
very good equivilents.




"Alias" <iamalias@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in message
news:gamaud$9dg$3@registered.motzarella.org...
> Theory of Everything wrote:
>> 2 partitions on the same disk means it has to read and write on 2
>> DIFFERENT locations of the SAME disk at the SAME time...
>>
>> what this means is that the drives "head" that is on a metallic arm has
>> to go to and forth several times per second
>> in order to keep up with this.
>>
>> Now I have seen that vista in general has very slow disk access time. I
>> have seen this on all kinds of machines...
>>
>> Furthermore you have the shadow copy of vista doing its crap in the
>> background making copies of everything!!!!.. a nightmare!
>>
>> with modern sata II disks with 32 mb cache, the difference is not so
>> noticeable but its there....
>>
>> Its noticable in cases just like you did, when dual booting.. XP on my 4
>> core is about 20% faster in general than Vista (dual boot)
>
> And Ubuntu is faster than XP, much faster both in file transfer and
> Internet speed.
>
> Alias
>>
>>
>>
>> "churin" <churin@new.postalias> wrote in message
>> news:OUyDc31FJHA.1460@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> My PC is about 4 years old but running Vista Ultimate x86 SP1. It comes
>>> with dual Opteron 244x2(1.8MHz), 4MB DDR400 and SATA-150. I measured
>>> time to transfer 1048MB file between partitions in a same physical
>>> drive(SATA-150). It took 38.91 seconds. Is this normal? I did the same
>>> measurement on WXP on the same machine(dual-boot system), and it was
>>> 18.55 seconds.
>>> Could anyone shed light on the matter of file transfer speed?
>>

it did help a bit...

but vista was never as fast as xp in file transfers

"Paul Montgomery" <i.m.nonnymous@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:kobtc4lnlklke2p5dma2p3dtr82t88vdfk@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:07:04 -0400, churin <churin@new.postalias>
> wrote:
>
>>My PC is about 4 years old but running Vista Ultimate x86 SP1. It comes
>>with dual Opteron 244x2(1.8MHz), 4MB DDR400 and SATA-150. I measured
>>time to transfer 1048MB file between partitions in a same physical
>>drive(SATA-150). It took 38.91 seconds. Is this normal? I did the same
>>measurement on WXP on the same machine(dual-boot system), and it was
>>18.55 seconds.
>>Could anyone shed light on the matter of file transfer speed?
>
> Vista is definitely slower than XP when copying/moving files.
>
> SP1 supposedly helped.

Theory of Everything wrote:
> I know....Linux is stable, fast and fantastic for network speeds....
>
> HOWEVER Ubuntu isnt compatible with the programs I use, and no one seems
> interested in investing money to port them.

As Linux grows in market share, they will be their with bells on.
Vista's the best thing to ever happen to Linux and Apple.

>
> That's the main problem of ubuntu and linux...
>
> The opensource versions of programs I use are pathetic....

You only have one computer?

>
> Of course I could use a MAC that is unix, (BSD) ... Im thinking about
> getting a mac.
>
> Most of the very important apps I use are ported to MAC OSX or there are
> very good equivilents.

HP is coming with their "Mac" soon it appears. My, the times they are
a-changing and all MS will have left are the Franks of the world.

Alias
>
>
>
>
> "Alias" <iamalias@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:gamaud$9dg$3@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Theory of Everything wrote:
>>> 2 partitions on the same disk means it has to read and write on 2
>>> DIFFERENT locations of the SAME disk at the SAME time...
>>>
>>> what this means is that the drives "head" that is on a metallic arm
>>> has to go to and forth several times per second
>>> in order to keep up with this.
>>>
>>> Now I have seen that vista in general has very slow disk access time.
>>> I have seen this on all kinds of machines...
>>>
>>> Furthermore you have the shadow copy of vista doing its crap in the
>>> background making copies of everything!!!!.. a nightmare!
>>>
>>> with modern sata II disks with 32 mb cache, the difference is not so
>>> noticeable but its there....
>>>
>>> Its noticable in cases just like you did, when dual booting.. XP on
>>> my 4 core is about 20% faster in general than Vista (dual boot)
>>
>> And Ubuntu is faster than XP, much faster both in file transfer and
>> Internet speed.
>>
>> Alias
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "churin" <churin@new.postalias> wrote in message
>>> news:OUyDc31FJHA.1460@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>> My PC is about 4 years old but running Vista Ultimate x86 SP1. It
>>>> comes with dual Opteron 244x2(1.8MHz), 4MB DDR400 and SATA-150. I
>>>> measured time to transfer 1048MB file between partitions in a same
>>>> physical drive(SATA-150). It took 38.91 seconds. Is this normal? I
>>>> did the same measurement on WXP on the same machine(dual-boot
>>>> system), and it was 18.55 seconds.
>>>> Could anyone shed light on the matter of file transfer speed?
>>>

>As Linux grows in market share, they will be their with bells on.
Vista's the best thing to ever happen to Linux and Apple.

I agree however they (MS) have understood what a big blunder vista was and
are planning to correct most of the problems with windows7.

If they do, then the ratio of win/other users will remain more or less the
same.

It's a monopoly, either its broken down or it falls by its own...




"Alias" <iamalias@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in message
news:gamedf$3qr$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Theory of Everything wrote:
>> I know....Linux is stable, fast and fantastic for network speeds....
>>
>> HOWEVER Ubuntu isnt compatible with the programs I use, and no one seems
>> interested in investing money to port them.
>
> As Linux grows in market share, they will be their with bells on. Vista's
> the best thing to ever happen to Linux and Apple.
>
>>
>> That's the main problem of ubuntu and linux...
>>
>> The opensource versions of programs I use are pathetic....
>
> You only have one computer?
>
>>
>> Of course I could use a MAC that is unix, (BSD) ... Im thinking about
>> getting a mac.
>>
>> Most of the very important apps I use are ported to MAC OSX or there are
>> very good equivilents.
>
> HP is coming with their "Mac" soon it appears. My, the times they are
> a-changing and all MS will have left are the Franks of the world.
>
> Alias
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Alias" <iamalias@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:gamaud$9dg$3@registered.motzarella.org...
>>> Theory of Everything wrote:
>>>> 2 partitions on the same disk means it has to read and write on 2
>>>> DIFFERENT locations of the SAME disk at the SAME time...
>>>>
>>>> what this means is that the drives "head" that is on a metallic arm has
>>>> to go to and forth several times per second
>>>> in order to keep up with this.
>>>>
>>>> Now I have seen that vista in general has very slow disk access time. I
>>>> have seen this on all kinds of machines...
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore you have the shadow copy of vista doing its crap in the
>>>> background making copies of everything!!!!.. a nightmare!
>>>>
>>>> with modern sata II disks with 32 mb cache, the difference is not so
>>>> noticeable but its there....
>>>>
>>>> Its noticable in cases just like you did, when dual booting.. XP on my
>>>> 4 core is about 20% faster in general than Vista (dual boot)
>>>
>>> And Ubuntu is faster than XP, much faster both in file transfer and
>>> Internet speed.
>>>
>>> Alias
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "churin" <churin@new.postalias> wrote in message
>>>> news:OUyDc31FJHA.1460@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>> My PC is about 4 years old but running Vista Ultimate x86 SP1. It
>>>>> comes with dual Opteron 244x2(1.8MHz), 4MB DDR400 and SATA-150. I
>>>>> measured time to transfer 1048MB file between partitions in a same
>>>>> physical drive(SATA-150). It took 38.91 seconds. Is this normal? I did
>>>>> the same measurement on WXP on the same machine(dual-boot system), and
>>>>> it was 18.55 seconds.
>>>>> Could anyone shed light on the matter of file transfer speed?
>>>>

"Alias" <iamalias@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in message
news:gamedf$3qr$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Theory of Everything wrote:
>> I know....Linux is stable, fast and fantastic for network speeds....
>>
>> HOWEVER Ubuntu isnt compatible with the programs I use, and no one seems
>> interested in investing money to port them.
>
> As Linux grows in market share, they will be their with bells on. Vista's
> the best thing to ever happen to Linux and Apple.
>
>>
>> That's the main problem of ubuntu and linux...
>>
>> The opensource versions of programs I use are pathetic....
>
> You only have one computer?
>
>>
>> Of course I could use a MAC that is unix, (BSD) ... Im thinking about
>> getting a mac.
>>
>> Most of the very important apps I use are ported to MAC OSX or there are
>> very good equivilents.
>
> HP is coming with their "Mac" soon it appears. My, the times they are
> a-changing and all MS will have left are the Franks of the world.
>
> Alias


And Ubuntu will have Alias - Enough said!

Theory of Everything wrote:
>> As Linux grows in market share, they will be their with bells on.
> Vista's the best thing to ever happen to Linux and Apple.
>
> I agree however they (MS) have understood what a big blunder vista was
> and are planning to correct most of the problems with windows7.

Sure, they care about their paying customers. Pull the other one, it has
bells on it.

>
> If they do, then the ratio of win/other users will remain more or less
> the same.

They won't.

>
> It's a monopoly, either its broken down or it falls by its own...

Since Ballmer took over and started treating the paying customers like
dirt, MS has been falling. After the oil and insurance companies, MS it
one of the most hated corporations in the world.

Alias
>
>
>
>
> "Alias" <iamalias@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:gamedf$3qr$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Theory of Everything wrote:
>>> I know....Linux is stable, fast and fantastic for network speeds....
>>>
>>> HOWEVER Ubuntu isnt compatible with the programs I use, and no one
>>> seems interested in investing money to port them.
>>
>> As Linux grows in market share, they will be their with bells on.
>> Vista's the best thing to ever happen to Linux and Apple.
>>
>>>
>>> That's the main problem of ubuntu and linux...
>>>
>>> The opensource versions of programs I use are pathetic....
>>
>> You only have one computer?
>>
>>>
>>> Of course I could use a MAC that is unix, (BSD) ... Im thinking about
>>> getting a mac.
>>>
>>> Most of the very important apps I use are ported to MAC OSX or there
>>> are very good equivilents.
>>
>> HP is coming with their "Mac" soon it appears. My, the times they are
>> a-changing and all MS will have left are the Franks of the world.
>>
>> Alias
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Alias" <iamalias@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:gamaud$9dg$3@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>> Theory of Everything wrote:
>>>>> 2 partitions on the same disk means it has to read and write on 2
>>>>> DIFFERENT locations of the SAME disk at the SAME time...
>>>>>
>>>>> what this means is that the drives "head" that is on a metallic arm
>>>>> has to go to and forth several times per second
>>>>> in order to keep up with this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now I have seen that vista in general has very slow disk access
>>>>> time. I have seen this on all kinds of machines...
>>>>>
>>>>> Furthermore you have the shadow copy of vista doing its crap in the
>>>>> background making copies of everything!!!!.. a nightmare!
>>>>>
>>>>> with modern sata II disks with 32 mb cache, the difference is not
>>>>> so noticeable but its there....
>>>>>
>>>>> Its noticable in cases just like you did, when dual booting.. XP on
>>>>> my 4 core is about 20% faster in general than Vista (dual boot)
>>>>
>>>> And Ubuntu is faster than XP, much faster both in file transfer and
>>>> Internet speed.
>>>>
>>>> Alias
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "churin" <churin@new.postalias> wrote in message
>>>>> news:OUyDc31FJHA.1460@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> My PC is about 4 years old but running Vista Ultimate x86 SP1. It
>>>>>> comes with dual Opteron 244x2(1.8MHz), 4MB DDR400 and SATA-150. I
>>>>>> measured time to transfer 1048MB file between partitions in a same
>>>>>> physical drive(SATA-150). It took 38.91 seconds. Is this normal? I
>>>>>> did the same measurement on WXP on the same machine(dual-boot
>>>>>> system), and it was 18.55 seconds.
>>>>>> Could anyone shed light on the matter of file transfer speed?
>>>>>