Watching Paint Dry
-
xcopy in a minimized window would probably surprise you ... :-O
Espen Harlinn Principal Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services AS Projects promoting programming in "natural language" are intrinsically doomed to fail. Edsger W.Dijkstra
-
Please tell me the machines aren't in the same building.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
-
Are you doing a PUSH, i.e. running on Old to move from Old to New or are you doing a PULL running on New to move from old to new. It does make a difference to the speed. Also I have found doing a Copy rather than Move can sometimes be better, then when finished just do a big format or delete on the source machine.
Dave Find Me On: Web|Facebook|Twitter|LinkedIn
Folding Stats: Team CodeProject
-
It might go faster if you copy to a USB hard drive then back again on the other computer, as USB 2.0 is faster than Ethernet.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
Richard Andrew x64 wrote:
USB 2.0 is faster than Ethernet
Not my ethernet - I use Gigabit on all the important sections! :laugh:
The universe is composed of electrons, neutrons, protons and......morons. (ThePhantomUpvoter)
-
Are you doing a PUSH, i.e. running on Old to move from Old to New or are you doing a PULL running on New to move from old to new. It does make a difference to the speed. Also I have found doing a Copy rather than Move can sometimes be better, then when finished just do a big format or delete on the source machine.
Dave Find Me On: Web|Facebook|Twitter|LinkedIn
Folding Stats: Team CodeProject
DaveAuld wrote:
Also I have found doing a Copy rather than Move can sometimes be better, then when finished just do a big format or delete on the source machine.
Yeah, but a delete op on that many files can take hours, too.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
DaveAuld wrote:
Also I have found doing a Copy rather than Move can sometimes be better, then when finished just do a big format or delete on the source machine.
Yeah, but a delete op on that many files can take hours, too.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
DaveAuld wrote:
Also I have found doing a Copy rather than Move can sometimes be better, then when finished just do a big format or delete on the source machine.
Yeah, but a delete op on that many files can take hours, too.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
That is true, but as it is on the old machine, you could effectively leave it running in your loft if you wanted and it can take as long as it wants. easier option, removed hard drive, dismantle to recover strong magnets, then play frisbee with the platters, or use them as coasters, or for target practice. :-D
Dave Find Me On: Web|Facebook|Twitter|LinkedIn
Folding Stats: Team CodeProject
-
In my experience, it's faster if you do a copy followed by a delete (so effectively, a move). Really. /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
-
Please tell me the machines aren't in the same building.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: They're on the same DESK!
I'm so, so sorry.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
-
That's bad, even for WiFi. If you're using WiFi, are both computers near the router they are connected to? Are you sure one of them doesn't have a bad wireless card?
Ethernet, not WiFi. Actually, a transfer rate of almost 3mbs is not terrible on a 100Base-T lan. Well, not terrible considering slow harddrives and forgetting to turn off indexing on the target machine. :laugh: One of these days I'll climb up in the attic and put the Cat-6 cables in.
