TeraCopy is much slower than Windows Copy

[G73S]

I bought TeraCopy a while back thinking it is going to increase my transfer speeds but actually, my Transfer speed went down by about 50%

I used to copy files to my external HDD @ 100 to 110 MBS but TeraCopy copies them @ 60 MB/S

I tried playing the options to use System Cache but that didn't change a thing

Is this app bad? anyone has any experience with it?

 

[ninaholic37]

Maybe your external HDD is getting old/cluttered? Try reformatting it.

 

[G73S]

Maybe your external HDD is getting old/cluttered? Try reformatting it.

uhhh no, it's new.

and I'm not complaining that my HDD is slow. I'm saying, with Tera copy the transfers are much slower as opposed to the Windows native copier

 

[Fardringle]

The copy speed "ESTIMATES" in many programs are usually wrong because they are just estimates. Take a large folder (or a really large file) and copy it using both methods and time how long it takes to actually copy the files to the external drive. This will give you a real measurement of the copy speed.

To answer the original question, Teracopy is usually (but not always) significantly faster than copying with Windows Explorer.

 

[Phynaz]

I've never had much luck with it.

 

[lxskllr]

The copy speed "ESTIMATES" in many programs are usually wrong because they are just estimates.

 

[cabri]

Copy time estimates are based on a snapshot of how fast a given data block transfer has taken vs the amount of data left to transfer IF that transfer rate holds steady.

 

[G73S]

Hahaha! pure class!!

 

[Kaido]

Regardless, the pause/skip (and log) features are amazing, especially if it encounters a file it cannot copy for whatever reason.

 

[code65536]

I've written my own custom file copy utility in the past. You're not going to beat the Windows' file copy, because that's highly optimized. But you can come close if you optimize it right--I was able to get 90%+ of the performance with mine. The biggest and easiest gain comes from doing the I/O in large blocks.

If you use alternate file copy, you're going to be doing it for the features at the expense of raw performance. (Though TC's rates are lower than what I'd consider acceptable.)

 

[Mushkins]

Regardless, the pause/skip (and log) features are amazing, especially if it encounters a file it cannot copy for whatever reason.

That's a big one right there. Nothing's worse than copying an entire directory of thousands of files, and having it hit a "file is in use" and it craps out the whole remainder of the transfer instead of skipping it. Then you don't know what copied and what didn't.

 

[Dahak]

Now this is without any real test but just going by memory/what it seems.

For anything below windows 8 (7,XP), I find teracopy faster than the native file copy

For windows 8 I find it to be about the same, as they reworked it in 8.

And for the reasons that Kaido mentioned to

 

[KillerBee]

Its almost like that cartoon was made before this thread ever existed
also wonder who is the actual author?

 

[Dahak]

Its almost like that cartoon was made before this thread ever existed
also wonder who is the actual author?

its a XKCD comic
http://xkcd.com/612/

 

[William Gaatjes]

HA ! :biggrin:

 

[RampantAndroid]

I've written my own custom file copy utility in the past. You're not going to beat the Windows' file copy, because that's highly optimized. But you can come close if you optimize it right--I was able to get 90%+ of the performance with mine. The biggest and easiest gain comes from doing the I/O in large blocks.

If you use alternate file copy, you're going to be doing it for the features at the expense of raw performance. (Though TC's rates are lower than what I'd consider acceptable.)

Robocopy beats it any day of the week, as long as you let it have parallel copies, especially if dealing with a lot of smaller files.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

That's a big one right there. Nothing's worse than copying an entire directory of thousands of files, and having it hit a "file is in use" and it craps out the whole remainder of the transfer instead of skipping it. Then you don't know what copied and what didn't.

Beyond Compare baby

 

[RampantAndroid]

Beyond Compare baby

xcopy and robocopy both allow you to copy only newer files, AFAIK.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

True, but BeyondCompare is a very useful "super-tkdiff"

 

[nikunjpatel]

if you have adobe software than open any software like
adobe premier, or adobe photoshop or adobe media encoder then copy anyone
and look your copy speed.....
it amazing

 

[Blue_Max]

It also depends on what you're copying. It's much, MUCH better at copying my folder of nearly 100,000 teeny-tiny files, but large files like video would have very little improvement.

 

[JimmiG]

TeraCopy became popular during the Vista era because of the slow file transfer speed in that OS. With Win7 and especially 8 and above, there's no real performance benefit. However some of the advanced features are quite handy in certain situations.

 

[Makaveli]

I still use teracopy on Windows 10 but for its other features not for speed!

 

[HexiumVII]

Teracopy was amazing in XP days, nothing came close. Especially useful is when you copy more than 1 operation, XP would do it concurrently and thrash your hard drives making it way slower, while tera would wait. Also would show transfer rates. It was still useful in Vista, as vista had terrible estimates. 7+ though they fixed that and each new version of tera got worst and worst. The lastest beta has a GUI revamp, but i really hate it. With 8 and up you get almost the same info and features as tera that made it so good. I think its just too much for the dev to rebuild and get all the bugs out with the new security in windows. But it was great and i'm thankful to the dev in the early days.

 

[Berryracer]

Teracopy was amazing in XP days, nothing came close. Especially useful is when you copy more than 1 operation, XP would do it concurrently and thrash your hard drives making it way slower, while tera would wait. Also would show transfer rates. It was still useful in Vista, as vista had terrible estimates. 7+ though they fixed that and each new version of tera got worst and worst. The lastest beta has a GUI revamp, but i really hate it. With 8 and up you get almost the same info and features as tera that made it so good. I think its just too much for the dev to rebuild and get all the bugs out with the new security in windows. But it was great and i'm thankful to the dev in the early days.

it's been in BETA for more than a year. I think the developer is enjoying our money for a crippled product that doesn't work anymore and doesn't support the latest OS. He is taking his own sweet time.