Copy to SD card slow in XP but not in 2000

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

If I copy from my desktop folder 2800 mp3 files to my SD card with Windows
XP, it takes me 27 minutes.

If I copy the same 2800 mp3 files that I put into a desktop folder on an old
400MH USB1 computer running Windows 2000 I can copy those files to the same
SD card in 7 minutes.

I tried this experiment with 3 other peoples computers and they could not
believe it. It has nothing to do with the SD card I am using or the card
reader.

You have to try it to believe it. Windows XP has a problem. What it it?

Please help.

Fred
 
You may have a virus scanner running or some other file copy
verification.



| If I copy from my desktop folder 2800 mp3 files to my SD
card with Windows
| XP, it takes me 27 minutes.
|
| If I copy the same 2800 mp3 files that I put into a
desktop folder on an old
| 400MH USB1 computer running Windows 2000 I can copy those
files to the same
| SD card in 7 minutes.
|
| I tried this experiment with 3 other peoples computers and
they could not
| believe it. It has nothing to do with the SD card I am
using or the card
| reader.
|
| You have to try it to believe it. Windows XP has a
problem. What it it?
|
| Please help.
|
| Fred
|
 
No virus programming was running. What file verification protection program
could be running?


Fred
 
there could be a switch in the command line for the Windows
copy command, don't know. But only you have the computer in
front of you, you can check to see that you are getting the
USB 2.0 and not 1.1 or even 1.0, Have you tried other ports,

Which computer did you copy first? Did you format the SD
card or at least defrag it between copy attempts?



| No virus programming was running. What file verification
protection program
| could be running?
|
|
| Fred
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote:
|
| > You may have a virus scanner running or some other file
copy
| > verification.
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > | If I copy from my desktop folder 2800 mp3 files to my
SD
| > card with Windows
| > | XP, it takes me 27 minutes.
| > |
| > | If I copy the same 2800 mp3 files that I put into a
| > desktop folder on an old
| > | 400MH USB1 computer running Windows 2000 I can copy
those
| > files to the same
| > | SD card in 7 minutes.
| > |
| > | I tried this experiment with 3 other peoples computers
and
| > they could not
| > | believe it. It has nothing to do with the SD card I am
| > using or the card
| > | reader.
| > |
| > | You have to try it to believe it. Windows XP has a
| > problem. What it it?
| > |
| > | Please help.
| > |
| > | Fred
| > |
| >
| >
| >
 
I am using copy past commands by right clicking. Where would you see the
/switches if any?
No one has been able to tell me where you can see if you are running CUB1,
1.1 or 2.

I have copied either way and every which way and the results are the same,
bad.

The SD cards have been reformatted.

Remember, I have used other peoples computers to prove my point, and that is
Windows XP is extremely slow copping from hard disk to an SD card. Windows
2000 is not.

I am using small mp3 files from my hard drive and coping them to an SD card.
I have copyied the same files to 3 other friends computers and when I go to
copy them back to the SD card, and I have tried other SD cards it still takes
on the average of 27 minutes verses the 3 to 4 minutes to copy it to a hard
drive.

Like I said, you have to try it to believe it.
 
STG said:
If I copy from my desktop folder 2800 mp3 files to my SD card with Windows
XP, it takes me 27 minutes.

If I copy the same 2800 mp3 files that I put into a desktop folder on an old
400MH USB1 computer running Windows 2000 I can copy those files to the same
SD card in 7 minutes.

I tried this experiment with 3 other peoples computers and they could not
believe it. It has nothing to do with the SD card I am using or the card
reader.

You have to try it to believe it. Windows XP has a problem. What it it?

Please help.

Fred
Click to expand...

Interesting observation. Noticed it as well, when using USB 1.1
hubs or drives. Very slow with Windows XP-SP2, even on machines
running Pentium-D 3.4 MHz CPU's and the i975X chipset. But no
slow speed issues whatsoever with true USB 2.0. Indicates there
is a OS issue (XP) or a hardware issue but USB 2.0 hardware seems
to resolve it.
 
Ghostrider said:
Interesting observation. Noticed it as well, when using USB 1.1
hubs or drives. Very slow with Windows XP-SP2, even on machines
running Pentium-D 3.4 MHz CPU's and the i975X chipset. But no
slow speed issues whatsoever with true USB 2.0. Indicates there
is a OS issue (XP) or a hardware issue but USB 2.0 hardware seems
to resolve it.
Click to expand...

XP and win2k indeed have different implementation of FAT filesystem and
different caching of USB drives, so this is very possible. Interesting.

--PA
 
That is the best and closes answer I have heard yet. It becomes extremely
evident when you have an SD card you need to copy files to using Windows XP.
Oddly enough the new operating (Vista?) has the same problem. Now that we
have established to my satisfaction that the problem lies in the way the
operating systems handle USB drives, what is the solution?

Fred
 
STG said:
That is the best and closes answer I have heard yet. It becomes extremely
evident when you have an SD card you need to copy files to using Windows XP.
Oddly enough the new operating (Vista?) has the same problem. Now that we
have established to my satisfaction that the problem lies in the way the
operating systems handle USB drives, what is the solution?

Fred
Click to expand...

The tipoff to the problem actually came from Windows XP
when the balloon popped up about using USB 1.X devices.
Eliminated USB 1.X as much as possible and switched to
Firewire, wherever possible. Might not be of help at the
moment with card readers, at this moment.
 
What I ment to say with this statement†If I copy the same 2800 mp3 files
that I put into a desktop folder on an old 400MH USB1 computer running
Windows 2000 I can copy those files to the same SD card in 7 minutes.†is
that the old computer running Windows 2000 only had USB1 and still did better
than the new computer running Windows XP with USB 2.
 
STG said:
What I ment to say with this statement†If I copy the same 2800 mp3 files
that I put into a desktop folder on an old 400MH USB1 computer running
Windows 2000 I can copy those files to the same SD card in 7 minutes.†is
that the old computer running Windows 2000 only had USB1 and still did better
than the new computer running Windows XP with USB 2.
Click to expand...

I know what you wrote. I am commenting on the irony of the
fact that switching to Windows XP was not an improvement over
Windows 2000. I had objected to the switch to Windows XP, but
I am just the consultant. When asked for a solution, my only
recommendation was to upgrade the peripherals and management
is footing the costs.
 
You can report this in Vista forums, maybe even bug this against the current
beta..

microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices

--PA
 
Back
Top