My best peformance tweak yet (Replace Explorer)

[ravingmad]

Well I've been running Windows 7 since Beta 1. Beta 1 was great, Beta 2 great, RC great but since the final code there is most definitely some problems with the way Windows Explorer performs in the final code particularly on X64 systems. Simple operations like cutting and pasting files can drastically slow down your machine and you can see from my specs I certainly do not run a piss willy machine by any standards.

Regardless of any tweaks I've tried, copying and pasting files, copying files over the network and a "simple" thing like emptying the recycle bin can turn out to be a real time waster of note. The problem is that copying and pasting files is actually a very simple process but somehow Microsoft engineers found a way of complicating this in the final code.

I work with massive graphics files ranging from 500mb to 3.5Gb in size and moving them around is a royal pain. Simply trying to move 3 x 1Gb files can see explorer snap up 4-6 Gb of memory and hold that memory ransom for up to 15 minutes. Then the actual cut and past operation involved can take a good 10+ minutes to complete and after that explorer still holds the memory ransom for an extended amount of time. I've tested this on 3 machines now all running Win 7 x64 and they all show the same behaviour and I've noticed a lot of people complaining about it in Microsoft's technet forums only to be met with denialism.

Well the problem DOES indeed exist and I finally found a way out of it. That is to completely stop using Windows Explorer. I did a lot of reading prior to choosing an explorer replacement and after several hours of reading blogs and forums I decided to try DirectoryOpus and boy was I surprised or shall I say shocked. I was able to move 15 files with a total size of 27 Gb from one drive to the next in a matter of approx 12 minutes without as much as 30-70mb of a memory footprint being used by this application and no after effect of memory being hogged. How on earth is is that they can get it right but Microsoft cannot? I then tried copying files over a network and the speed of that is about 500% faster than copying them through Windows Explorer, again ... how can they achieve this and Microsoft not? I am thrilled I found this program it is a total lifesaver and I will personally never rely on Windows Explorer ever again, can't believe it actually took me so long to find it, I've been pulling my hair out for months since the RTM of Win 7. The application is certainly not cheap but the cost for me is recouped with the time it saves me in one day.

I love Windows 7 but there is most certainly some serious flaws in the way Microsoft deals with files in Windows Explorer on Win 7 but I certainly do not have time waiting for a solution or a service pack. Everything else functions 100% at full speed and this OS running on an Intel SSD is so snappy it has to be seen to be believed which is why you can imagine my dismay at the speed of copying files. Anyhow I had to share this info as I have had such a frustrating few months losing valuable work time waiting for files to copy and I KNOW there are many others out there who will jump at a way of speeding their file copying up. I most certainly do not know or work for the manufacturer of Directory Opus but can only commend them on a sterling product and recommend this to others, I would have killed to find a post like this in the last 7 months of searching forums for a solution to the file copying problems.

 

[Everlong]

I've read a few things about replacing explorer and how it can improve speed, but not actually tried it. I'll have a look and see for myself.

 

[Everlong]

I do also have to say I don't understand where you're coming from when you say too much RAM is used. I've never seen Windows use that much. I tried now and tried copying about 80GB worth of files to my second hard drive in 3 seperate copies, and about 200-300MB max was used.

 

[chev65]

Absolute rubbish IMO> completely untrue.

 

[pparks1]

Yeah, I honestly don't recall seeing problems like this at home or in the office.

 

[vavud]

DirOpus

Dear 'RavingMad'

I agree with you that Windows 7 is slow at copying/moving files. I'd like to hear how you got Diropus to perform so fast? Maybe you work for them?

It took me 20 minutes to copy 33gb from one drive to another using diropus?
:shock:

 

[pparks1]

I was able to move 15 files with a total size of 27 Gb from one drive to the next in a matter of 2 minutes

Wait a second...I cannot believe I didn't catch this the first time.

27GB in 2 minutes is 13.5GB a minute. 13,500MB divided by 60 seconds per minute is 225MB/s. What type of hard drives are you using to get that kind of performance??????

I'm sorry but there is something wrong with your facts and figures.

 

[zzz2496]

I was able to move 15 files with a total size of 27 Gb from one drive to the next in a matter of 2 minutes

Wait a second...I cannot believe I didn't catch this the first time.

27GB in 2 minutes is 13.5GB a minute. 13,500MB divided by 60 seconds per minute is 225MB/s. What type of hard drives are you using to get that kind of performance??????

I'm sorry but there is something wrong with your facts and figures.

He's on Intel SSD, those things ARE FAST. Anyway, ravingmad - I tested your claims using my own system (you can see that mine is way below your specs). I do see an increase of ~500MB memory usage when copying large files (I use Linux ISOs, around 4.5GB to 4.7GB each), each and everyone of them are using around 400-500MB of memory, and each is copying at the max speed of my HDDs (around 50-70MB/s, nothing if you compare it to SSD). I think, you've installed something that's "scanning" everything that's "Disk" related, probably an Anti Virus with active/real-time protection active, and that's running along explorer... I suggest you take a hard good look at resource monitor when you copy files, see what processes takes more disk time in disk tab, and on the memory tab, what took those gigabytes of RAM. It's all there, all you need to do is see it.

zzz2496

 

[pparks1]

He's on Intel SSD, those things ARE FAST.

I know the Intel SSD's are fast..as I have one in my box. But while it can read blazingly fast, it's also got to get it onto the other drive...which will be the slow part. And even if it was going to another Intel SSD...they only write between 70-100MB/s at best...so I still say something is very fishy.

 

[win7clutz]

I'd have to agree that ravingmad has another problem that he hasn't been able to identify... My specs are a close enough match to his that I should have similar problems and don't. I do a lot of video stuff and are frequently moving 4.7 files with no problems... Of course if he's just stroking DirectoryOpus that's fine also...

 

[zzz2496]

He's on Intel SSD, those things ARE FAST.

I know the Intel SSD's are fast..as I have one in my box. But while it can read blazingly fast, it's also got to get it onto the other drive...which will be the slow part. And even if it was going to another Intel SSD...they only write between 70-100MB/s at best...so I still say something is very fishy.

Well, I don't really care about the details... the fact is - the OP has problems with his rig when he copies things. If the facts doesn't add up, but still "understandable", I'd ignore it. BUT the fact that he said it's consuming 4-6GB of memory, that's totally bull crap. I copied a lot more than his and I see a jump of ~500MB. Maybe it's my Harddisk that's too slow, so RAM doesn't have to cache as much, I don't know - I don't have Intel SSD (way too expensive over here). but 4-6GB for 1 GB of file???? Copying the file over to RAM will consume around 1GB + some overhead for pointers, not 4-6GB. There is something that's suspiciously WRONG in his rig. I suspect an AV went berserk... Or some storage driver optimizer of somekind...

zzz2496

 

[pparks1]

Well, I don't really care about the details... the fact is - the OP has problems with his rig when he copies things. If the facts doesn't add up, but still "understandable", I'd ignore it. BUT the fact that he said it's consuming 4-6GB of memory, that's totally bull crap.

My thinking is that he is affiliated with the software package he is touting and might be posting some misleading information to convince others they too have a problem and should also buy the software he is peddling.

Since his file copy times seem to be way off what is likely possible, I highly doubt his RAM usage is accurate as well. That's the point I am making.

 

[zzz2496]

Well, I don't really care about the details... the fact is - the OP has problems with his rig when he copies things. If the facts doesn't add up, but still "understandable", I'd ignore it. BUT the fact that he said it's consuming 4-6GB of memory, that's totally bull crap.

My thinking is that he is affiliated with the software package he is touting and might be posting some misleading information to convince others they too have a problem and should also buy the software he is peddling.

Since his file copy times seem to be way off what is likely possible, I highly doubt his RAM usage is accurate as well. That's the point I am making.

Hmm... that makes sense too (he got something to do with DO's company?)... I used Directory Opus back in XP days, it's quite good, but nothing special IMHO. I prefer KDE's new Dolphin File manager feature wise over ANYTHING out there, too bad it's not very stable today, and the looks - it's just horrible .

zzz2496

 

[win7clutz]

I just did my own little test of Directory Opus.
From SSD1 to SSD2 using DO, 4.08 gig folder took 1:09.57 to copy.
Same test using Windows explorer took 33.04 secs. Less then half the time!
Something seriously wrong with ravingmads conclusions…

 

[zzz2496]

I just did my own little test of Directory Opus.
From SSD1 to SSD2 using DO, 4.08 gig folder took 1:09.57 to copy.
Same test using Windows explorer took 33.04 secs. Less then half the time!
Something seriously wrong with ravingmads conclusions…

Which is why I suggested him to check his resource monitor, see if anything spikes up in Disk/Memory tab...

zzz2496

 

[pparks1]

I just did my own little test of Directory Opus.
From SSD1 to SSD2 using DO, 4.08 gig folder took 1:09.57 to copy.
Same test using Windows explorer took 33.04 secs. Less then half the time!
Something seriously wrong with ravingmads conclusions…

Yeah, that comes out to 59MB/s using 1 and 123MB/s Both seem far more reasonable.

 

[MacGyvr]

I notice the OP's post says to "stop using Internet Explorer". Does he realize there is a difference between Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer?

 

[Casca]

Seven months of searching for a solution? Must have been browsing with Windows Explorer.

 

[Heywood]

I spend lots of time on the computer and don't care too much for Windows Explorer. I've had a lifetime license for "Total Commander" for a long time, and use it in preference to Windows Explorer. Granted, it may take a while to learn to use it well, but for me it was worth the effort. It does much more than Windows Explorer. I'm sure others may find it not to their liking, but I get my operating system when I update to a new computer and It takes me some time to get the feel of a new operating system while finding and deleting all the trial versions and come-on junk added by the company peddling the computer. So far I like Windows 7 well enough, but then I partition the drive first thing to add two more partitions, install "Total Commander" and "Open Office", and strip the thing down to way I want to use it. The hardware update gives me as much speed as I need, I suspect because I don't install all the latest and greatest wonderware to be found online.
Still, I like this forum because it keeps me up on what I'm missing out on, as well as educating me about the software I must use. Actually I'd be lost without Total Commander for Windows, Firefox for the Internet and Karen Kenworthy's "Replicator" for my network.

 

[ravingmad]

I notice the OP's post says to "stop using Internet Explorer". Does he realize there is a difference between Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer?

Simple typo mate .. you know I meant windows explorer and NOT internet explorer.