text:
Asked by:
Very slow file copy... MAJOR BUG in Win7
Some observations about VERY slow file copy.
1. No one from Microsoft has an answer to this Major Problem.
2. Same drives on same computer (Dell) with different OS (winXP, win7)
a. XP file copy at 60 – 80 MBS
b. Win 7 copy at 400Kbs
3. Same IBM laptop
a. XP file copy at 30 – 50 MBS
b. Win 7 copy at 300 Kbs
4. Same Dell Laptop
a. XP file copy at 40 – 50 MBS
b. Win 7 copy at 320 Kbs
Does MS really think if they ignore this it will go away?
I will NOT ever release this to my user community… Warning to all… there is a MAJOR BUG in Win7Friday, September 18, 2009 5:00 PM
General discussion
All replies
hi all,
I have two machines
first: (faster hardware) HP dc7800 with windows 7. If I copy 1GB from a network computer (XP) with attached USB Drive ~ 1,5min 5-6MB/sec.
16GB more than 24hours !!! 300kb
second: HP Notebook 810 with windows XP SP3: 1GB file copy up to USB Drive - 20seconds - 25MB/sec
I think this is a Windows 7 handshake problem
Windows 7 to Windows 2008 54MB/sec
Windows 2008 to Windows 7 70MB/sec
Monday, January 26, 2009 2:04 PM
- Merged by Ronnie VernonMVP, Moderator Friday, September 18, 2009 8:45 PM Duplicate
You don't say which version Windows 7 (RC or RTM) you are using. I have four computers with Windows 7 RTM, two with x86 and two with x64 and none exhibit the slow file copy you discribe. I think it is premature to say there is a major bug in Windows 7.
What anti virus program are you using?Friday, September 18, 2009 5:13 PM
I do Agree with Mr.CSSEMasEven i have faced and observed this while copying from USB Drives ,Its very slow, I am using RTM windows 7 Ultimate,Initially i though its a USB Disk problem but later i observed with All the devices.Friday, September 18, 2009 6:03 PM
Using RTM on all
Dell = x64
IBM LT = x32
Dell LT = x32
No anti virus on any...
as for premature... just search the web for slow file copy win7... over 100 folks with same issue... and this is at RTM... what do you think the # would be when released to public..
also as for all the posts with the same issue including posts on MS sites... NO MS fix or acknowledgment...Friday, September 18, 2009 6:04 PM
I'm sorry you are having this problem. I can only say that I have not shared your experience and although I have seen some of the posts you mention, there are many that do not seen to have this problem. I hope you find out what is causing it.Friday, September 18, 2009 6:56 PM
I've noticed delays in Windows Explorer file copies as well. For example, copying from my laptop across a gigabit switch to a 2008 r2 box. Small file copies take a long time. It has been intermittent for me, and I havent bothered troubleshooting yet.
Both machines were in-place upgrades from vista sp2 and 2008 sp2 respectivly. NIC drivers up to date on both ends.
If anyone figures anything out, please post here.Friday, September 18, 2009 7:07 PM
Actually, I ran your search and I don't see "hundred of people" complaining. While there are complaints, they are spread among the beta, RC and (a few) for the RTM. On my end, I haven't noticed the problem at all. In fact, quite the opposite is true - copying to and from my network drives or to and from USB drives is faster than Vista and at least as fast as XP. I am sorry you are having a problem but, lacking a real groundswell of others with the same problem, I would hardly call it a major bug. Personally, since you have the problem on three machines I would be most curious about what you are running....StephenFriday, September 18, 2009 7:17 PM
I'm a long time windows user... it's not like I'm trashing MS. But I am pointing out an issue that to me is MAJOR.
It took over 4 hours to copy a VM image that's 5GB…
I could post links here that can show you 100's of users with the same issue… in fact use this post as an example.. Posted at 1:00 PM and 2 users with the same issue. I assume they like me are looking for a solution. Not someone pointing out "It works on my system".Friday, September 18, 2009 7:48 PM
Dell XPS 720 that was built with Vista
Dell Inspiron XPS LaptopIBM T60P LaptopFriday, September 18, 2009 7:55 PM
Perhaps the 3 of you with the issue can talk to each other and look for similarities in chipsets, motherboards, manufacturers, etc. Or just open a support case with Microsoft. Nobody in here will have the resources to track down an issue related to OS level file copy problems but Microsoft.
Anything worth doing is worth doing right. Don't forget to vote!!!Friday, September 18, 2009 8:09 PM
Especially if we aren't having those problems ourselves. Its hard to troubleshoot.
Anything worth doing is worth doing right. Don't forget to vote!!!Friday, September 18, 2009 8:10 PM
For those who have the issue, I think we can probably agree it shouldnt be called a "major bug", but I also dont approve of the attitude of those who are suggesting to call Microsoft. These forums are here for this very reason. Please feel free to post as much as possible about the issue and help eachother where possible.
Now, everyone relax and go have a good weekend!Saturday, September 19, 2009 12:26 AM
How can you say that something as basic and simple as file copy is not major bug? I might agree if drives were 4GB in size but with 200GB drives as the norm IT IS A MAJOR BUG. What would you call a 5GB copy that takes 4+ hours on an x64 quad core 8GB RAM box?
I hope someone from the MS camp sees this and other similar posts and chimes in with some tips.Saturday, September 19, 2009 3:17 AM
Mike, you get what you pay for. Sure, give it a shot trying to figure it out but other than the simple things like trying to find the latest drivers for your chipset and such your chances of fixing it without vendor assistance is almost nothing but a waste of time. If he wants microsoft to help him fix his issues then he should call Microsoft. Its that simple.
IF it is a bug in Windows 7 getting it fixed on his own or even in this forum is almost about impossible. Try the simple things but the advice still stands. If you aren't getting the throughput on the USB hub and you are in other operating systems, get Microsoft involved. They wrote the OS. You will beat your head to a pulp trying to fix this on your own.
Try the simple and move on to more advanced assistance.
Anything worth doing is worth doing right. Don't forget to vote!!!Saturday, September 19, 2009 3:32 AM
I think your right... I've tried my best to figure / resolve it ... I will call MS in the AM.Saturday, September 19, 2009 4:03 AM
Again, no disrespect here at all. You seem like you have tried almost everything though and apart from the small things, we can't help very much with this issue just because of the kind of problem it is. If I was paid for this problem and waiting for a microsoft engineer to call me back I might run filemon and regmon from Microsoft.
I don't really know how this could help though. If you have an Intel chipset (chances are you do), make sure you have the Intel Matrix Storage Manager installed, this has the drivers for your hard drive sata and PATA controllers.
Anything worth doing is worth doing right. Don't forget to vote!!!Saturday, September 19, 2009 4:23 AM
Did you try to:
Uninstall your Storage-device Drivers
and update them?
try 2 things.
-- Uninstall and Clean install the drivers of your Manufacturer-Homepage designed Vista/Win7
-- Uninstall and Clean install the drivers using the MS-Driver-Update
had some minor problems with performance on my 4 year old Sony Vaio that had been solved using the steps above. Now it runs File-Copy @ 30-40 Mb/s partition-to-partition ... and thats all the old hard-drive could get, couse what the hard-drive had been designed for ^^
copy @ my main-system:
150mb/s part-2-part, 280mb/s hdd-2-hdd
copy @ my Samsung Laptop:
80mb/s part-2-part, 150mb/s hdd-2-hdd
no problem at all here ^^...
and if 100 people say "my pc is tooooo slow at copying files and I dont know what to do" its not a major bug... it would be if 20-40% of Beta-Test-Users had the same issues.
I would point to a driver-problem on your side ...Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:27 PM
First, I would like to confirm the following questions:
1. How do you get the result when copying data, via certain application monitoring?
2. Which file do you copy, video, document or other file?
3. Is the speed of copying file always the same, like 400Kbs?
Here are some suggestions to troubleshoot the issue.
1. Copy file in Safe Mode for a test. If the issue persists, please move on the next steps.
2. Perform a fresh installation of Windows RTM without any third party software, and then copy the file again.
3. Try to copy different type of data for a test, such as document.
What's the result?
NovakTuesday, September 29, 2009 8:19 AM
bump!Thursday, October 01, 2009 1:01 PM
I'm experiencing similar problems regarding copy speed.I recreated the situation by follow means:1. Select 100 seperate .mp3 files from one folder2. CTRL+C / Copy3. CTRL+V / Paste in a different folder4. Repeat from step 1, using 10 of the seperate .mp3 files.Results:When using 100 .mp3 files: Speed approximates xxx kb/s.When using 10 .mp3 files: Speed approximates 10-14 mb/s.Friday, October 02, 2009 12:52 PM
Just a thought, have you tried to change your power settings to a Maximum performance power profile? Even desktop PC's have power management applied and CPUs that enter deeper sleep, among other motherboard components.
Anything worth doing is worth doing right. Don't forget to vote!!!Friday, October 02, 2009 1:03 PM
have the same issue.
when copying files, rate about 700 KB /sec.
thought first it is a network issue.
happens also on local machine.
enegery settings at max. performance.
Friday, October 02, 2009 3:08 PM
I have the exact same problem.
I have it on:
Vista SP2 (x86)
Windows 7 RC1 (x64)
Windows 7 RTM (x86)
ALL of those OSes exhibit this problem. I have a folder that is 25.8MB that contains 1595 files that I have been using to test this problem. At first I thought it was a network issue, but as I continued to troubleshoot I discovered that it happens on local file copies as well. Copy speeds range from 248 bytes/sec (WTF!) min to a max of 500kB/sec. When copying large files, transfer speeds are 40-80MB/sec. This problem only seems to exist with large numbers of small files.
How on Earth can I have 5 different computers with 3 different operating systems ALL have the same problem?
This test file folder copies fine (~8MB/sec which is what I expect with so many small files) on Server 2008 and XP SP3. It also copies equally fast over the network from a 2008 server to another 2008 server and an XP SP3 machine.
If I use the 2008 server to "push" the data to a Windows 7 machine, the performance is slightly better (500kB-2MB/sec) but still not great.
I have tried every iteration of copy from local to network from one OS to the next. Some of the OS installs are more "mature" than others. The W7 RTM (x86) install is almost brand new, however - and the only software installed on that computer is Office and Avira anti virus.
The different computers have varying versions of AV software (Avira Antivir, ESET NOD32, Comodo) and all but the W7 RTM machine have the firewall disabled (but since the problem happens locally, we can rule out the network).
Drivers on the computers are as up to date as I can make them. The drive systems being used range from an SAS controller with a 15kRPM drive to a standard SATA 7200RPM drive to a laptop with PATA. ALL have the same results.
If, somehow, this is due to a setting in the OS, it is the DEFAULT setting because on two of these computers (Vista SP2 and W7 RTM) I haven't messed with hardly anything.
I can't believe this problem has been going on for so long without a solution from Microsoft.Wednesday, October 07, 2009 7:52 AM
Wednesday, October 14, 2009 11:51 PM
I hate to be a me too, but this issue needs to be resolved. I tried to copy some pictures from my compact flash reader to my PC and Windows 7 just tanked. Not just the file copy, but everything slowed to a crawl. I did a comparison with a laptop running windows XP. The laptop copied 9.7G of files in 7 minutes. Windows 7 started the copy with an estimated time of 8 minutes. That time just kept on growing. I finally stopped the copy when the time to complete hit 3 hours and 35 minutes.
One thing I did notice is that copying to my C: drive takes much longer to complete than copying to my D: drive. These are actually the same drives. I have 3 drives that are partitioned into 2 drives. C is Raid 5 and D is Raid 0. The copy from my compact flash reader to my Windows 7 D: drive just completed in the same 7 minutes that my laptop did running windows XP. In the Policies tab for drive C:, Enable write caching on the device is on. Turn off Windows write-cache buffer flushing is off. This is on for drive D:Thursday, October 15, 2009 6:27 AM
I have gotten my C drive to improve quite a bit by doing the following:
Enabled "Turn off Windows write-cache buffer flushing.
Upgraded Intel Matrix Storage Console to version 188.8.131.523
Enable "Volume Write-Back Cache" in Intel Matrix Storage Console.
The transfer rate is now about 26MB/s for the C drive. For the D drive, I get 28MB/s.
The motherboard has an Intel 975x chipset with ICH7R Controller. This is probably the best performance I will get from this thing using Raid 5.
Friday, October 16, 2009 2:10 AM
I hate to be a me too, but this issue needs to be resolved. I tried to copy some pictures from my compact flash reader to my PC and Windows 7 just tanked. Not just the file copy, but everything slowed to a crawl. I did a comparison with a laptop running windows XP. The laptop copied 9.7G of files in 7 minutes. Windows 7 started the copy with an estimated time of 8 minutes. That time just kept on growing. I finally stopped the copy when the time to complete hit 3 hours and 35 minutes.
One thing I did notice is that copying to my C: drive takes much longer to complete than copying to my D: drive. These are actually the same drives. I have 3 drives that are partitioned into 2 drives. C is Raid 5 and D is Raid 0. The copy from my compact flash reader to my Windows 7 D: drive just completed in the same 7 minutes that my laptop did running windows XP. In the Policies tab for drive C:, Enable write caching on the device is on. Turn off Windows write-cache buffer flushing is off. This is on for drive D:
If you stopped the transfer while it was estimating time to complete, then you really have no idea how long it would actually take. Time estimates for various graphics formats, particulaly (but not exclusively) things such as jpgs, bear absolutely no resemblance to reality because of the variable internal compression in those files. It is the same reason a Nikon DSLR seldom gives an accurate indicator of how many more images with fit on a card. Actually the same issue crops up with pdfs, complicated Microsoft Office files, and at least some data bases. It also dates back to Windows XP and earlier - Vista and Windows 7, however, appear to be more conservative in estimating time. I have seen estimates of multiple hours as well when transferring files from CF cards, but in the end the time is much less and (indeed) typically less than XP.
StephenFriday, October 16, 2009 11:55 PM
I have had the same experience. Copying a 32GB drive image file from my Win 7 Pro (x64) machine to a WinXP SP3 machine (32-bit) over my home LAN took over several hours, at a transfer rate of 200-300 kb/sec.Saturday, October 31, 2009 9:55 PM
for all these posts, I'm curious to hear if these were in-place upgrades from another OS, and/or if NIC, chipset and storage drivers have been installed. As you see I had this issue above, but fresh install with ALL drivers solved my issues.Monday, November 02, 2009 2:52 PM
compred to you all, my PC is super duper fast, my external Hard disk can do 70-125Mbps. Thats eSATA HDD, guys it's worth it you can tell. my internal HD can do 50-100Mbps. so it's big difference.
I want to try having Windows instaled on External HD to be superfast. currently 14 Seconds ti shut my PC down copared to Vista 2 to 30Mins, Is Win7 should be This fast???Monday, November 02, 2009 3:38 PM
Transferring small size files take longer as start & end of file writing to HD, Name and Indexing each file tales long
Simple calc
1gb takes 1 minutes as 1 file.
if you split 100 will take 2 mins
if you spilt 1000 will take 5 mins and so on.
Fresh install doesn't solve any probleems e.g. drivers etc unless you currupted your current drivers.
wat you should do is have lest programs e.g. whatever you need. and not install gadgets even if it look good, 2 dys later you wont even see it. no point installing,
My suggestion to all.
1. Install Minimum progs,
2. Download minimum (you have enough you wont use everything in your lifetime)
3. If you have lots of Photos simply put them on external drive Keep C:\ Clean.
(64gb USB Stick maximum £12.00 on E-bay.
4. Keep files Backups (CD,HDD,USB disks do get curropted.)
5. Simply enjoy Win7 great performance
Best of LuckMonday, November 02, 2009 3:52 PM
I have this issue still on my win7 x64 running as guest in vmware workstation 6.5.3
my vista 64bit guest has this issue not.
when copying locally i have an extremly low performance ~700 kb/ sec - 8 MB / sec.
however, 8 MB is still very low peformance for local copy. i mean it is simply poor
and not accetable for a modern os.
i don't want to spend much time in order to do many tests with various setups.
it should work, by default, just like it do with vista or xp.
MS, please, provide not only security patches, perhaps a patch increasing performance.Monday, November 02, 2009 5:52 PM
it should work, by default, just like it do with vista or xp.
There is no such thing as "by default". You must understand that All versions of Windows are shipped with SOME drivers. It is the responsibility of the person who installs the OS to ensure drivers are available for the hardware and OS in question. In your case, you should look into vmware workstation and see that it is supported for use with Win7 and make sure you have the necessary software installed.Monday, November 02, 2009 6:27 PM
On the first page of search results I see that VMware Workstation 7x is the first version of this software to support Windows 7. You should read the release notes before you start placing blame here.Monday, November 02, 2009 6:30 PM
i see some people having exactly the same issue and do not running win7 in a virtual machine.
can i really have the hope it works when updating to vmware workstation 7 ?
Monday, November 02, 2009 8:18 PM
I am not saying yes or no, just merely encouraging the completion of due diligence before posting complaints. It only helps the community when we are detailed and scientific with our posts.Monday, November 02, 2009 8:47 PM
i see this and mostly give all information and support i am able to.
but updating all my virtual machines is simply too much, especially when other reporting this issue for normal installations.
what it want to say is that i don't believe this issue is going when updating to vm workstation 7.
my windows 7 64 bit is running as guest in windows vista 64 bit, with 8 GB memory.
i have also a vista64 guest and a winxp sp3 32 bit guest where explorer and network performance
are good and not compareable to win7.
i have energy option at maximum and changed nothing at UAC settings.
the local performance when copying files is very low as well when copying from / to network location.
i looked at the release notes of vmware workstation. there was not hint related to this issue. ok, they simply emphasize this
version is fitted for windows 7.Monday, November 02, 2009 9:27 PM
Search again swyost. Just because YOU are not having a problem, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It is a major bug not to be able to copy files to and from a network. I would consider file copying one of the basic OS functions, which doesn't work in the RC and you say its not a major bug. I'm curious as to why you even bother posting here. Your posts are condesending and full of useless information. Thanks for being sorry that we are having the problem, that helps alot, what would help even more is if you simply would resist the temptation to post when you have nothing useful to say.Friday, November 13, 2009 1:52 PM
again...useless. Using big words does not make us beleive you know what you are talking about...We are not morons, it should not take 3 days 45 minutes to copy a 2 gig file from the network.Friday, November 13, 2009 1:53 PM
This is a joke. This is a MAJOR bug. I've seen faster file copying on an Apple ][
I had the same problem with Vista and it still exists in Windows 7. I'm willing to ship my computer to MS so they can see the issue themselves.
EDIT: This problem happens using XCOPY to a USB drive as well. No network involved.Monday, November 16, 2009 4:16 AM
It takes me about an 1 hour to copy a 22.8Gb file from my virtual PC to a W7 folder. I was complaining about this in another forum. It sounds like other people here have had more trouble than me.
I've got 4Gb for RAM with 1.5Gb dedicated to the virtual PC. I have an Intel Q9550 CPU.Saturday, November 21, 2009 5:06 PM
Just chiming in to say Windows 7 Ultimate RTM 32 bit appears to copy files quite speedily here...
You may say it's a MAJOR bug because it's affecting you, specifically... Clearly it's NOT a problem that is reproducible in all locations. Perhaps it's a problem with a specific kind of disk subsystem.
As a test I dragged a 1.5 GB file from one (network) drive to another (real computer to VMware virtual machine, specifically) and the copy completed in 2 minutes 8 seconds. 120 megabytes per second is not bad.
For those of you with slow copies, what are your Windows Performance readings for the disks? It might be helpful to know whether that test yields a very small number.
-NoelSaturday, November 21, 2009 5:43 PM
Noel, please try copying created with vitural PC to the phyical PC and see how long it takes.Saturday, November 21, 2009 9:47 PM
I'm not sure I can... At the moment I'm running Windows 7 in a virtual machine. Performance is great, but I'm not sure I can create a virtual PC inside a virtual machine. Sounds like a fun exercise, though. I'll look into it.
Are you using Windows networking between the virtual PC and host system? How is it configured? Is it bridged (i.e., does the Virtual PC look like just another machine to your router)?
-NoelSaturday, November 21, 2009 10:30 PM
It sounds like we are comparing apples and oranges here. I'm running a virtual WXP 32-bit on my W7 64-bit desktop because of some old time peripheral devices that I'm using. The one that generates the big files is video capture device that generates enormous avi files. I need to cut and paste these files into the W7 desktop so Windows Movie Maker can convert them to DVD files and burn them to a DVD.
It's cumbersome, but I'm not going to run out a buy a new capture device when the old one does the job just fine.
I don't think the time problem is caused by a Windows bug. It's probably related to some configuration issue.Sunday, November 22, 2009 12:25 AM
Might I chime in? (hoping I don't regret this...)
I'll even post specs!
C2D E6400 on Gigabyte GA-P965G mobo, 4GB RAM, running Win7 x64.
C2D E7300 on Gigabyte GA-P31-ES3G, 2GB RAM, running Win7 x86.
Both systems have a Gigabit NIC. Server is connected to a Gigabit switch. Desktop, though, has to go thru a 10/100 switch to get to that GB switch (and, after that, to the server.)
Ripped a few DVDs tonight. Tranasferred the final results (each in dvr-ms format) to a share on the server. Each file between 5.25 and 6.5 GB.
Each movie was transferred in about 5-7 minutes.
I'll second the earlier thought that those who are having issues should post full system (and network) specs. Let's see if there are any similarities there.
Oh, and, anyone fall into this camp:
"nVidia chipset, Windows 7 x64, and 4+GB RAM; transfer issues over USB"? There's a hotfix for you, that's discussed in this thread.
[If this post helps to resolve your issue, please click the "Mark as Answer" or "Helpful" button at the top of this message. By marking a post as Answered, or Helpful you help others find the answer faster.]Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:42 AM
(wanted to add this to the above post; but, can't seem to edit it - goes blank. Hmm.)
Oh, and, I would not consider the copy operations I did to be 'slow' - especially with the desktop having but a 100Mb/s LAN connection.
(side note: Oh, how I want to upgrade that wireless router...)
[If this post helps to resolve your issue, please click the "Mark as Answer" or "Helpful" button at the top of this message. By marking a post as Answered, or Helpful you help others find the answer faster.]Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:46 AM
I've had this problem on both Vista and Windows 7.
What I've found is that the problem occurs when there are a large number of small files (1k to 100k) being copied to/from a USB memory stick. It's very annoying having to watch windows struggle to copy data of around 100MB and taking over an hour to do it.
Having said that, I don't believe the problem is restricted to Windows. I've tried the exact same file operation (same set of files to same USB key on same computer) in Ubuntu 9 and it took around the same amount of time.
I guess USB keys may have a problem with file copies where large numbers of small files are involved. I tried with several USB keys and got same result.Saturday, December 05, 2009 7:13 PM
I think i need to repeat myself as i am afraid this issue could going to be lost in space.
I have the slow file copy performance on
a) notebook with windows x64 installed
b) windows 7 x64 as guest on vista ultimate x64 in vmware workstation 6.5.3
on both systems have this issue.
Monday, December 07, 2009 4:38 PM
I've had this problem in Vista and Win7 also. I've search and search and it seems MS hasn't fixed it at all. It is their new copying scheme that seems to be at fault. It takes a while for the system to discover the item before it even starts to copy the file. One solution I've found is to install a free program called teracopy. This program takes over the copying for windows and works a lot faster.Tuesday, December 15, 2009 6:24 AM
This is INDEED a major bug in Windows 7 (left over from Vista). I have 5 machines running Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit clean install. All experience extremely SLOW file copy speeds between each other on my home network. However, this does not happen when an XP machine or Windows 2003 machine is in the mix. A 4.6GB file copy from one Win 7 machine to another takes over 1 hour. However, the same file copy to an XP machine takes seconds...
If you GOOGLE this issue you will indeed see that it is MAJOR!Sunday, December 20, 2009 3:05 PM
No it is not a bug, a bug would show it's head for more than this hand full of posters. (even if 1,000 folks posted here that is just a drop in the bucket of users.
Having installed over 60 win7 pro machines (80 % Dells which shipped with XP / Vista the rest Dells with win 7 Pro some 64 bit but most 32 bit) across a wide selection of networks with all types of USB / NAS / 200x servers there is no BUG in the OS (did need to upgrade a switch and two routers) .
You need to look at the routers / switches / NIC drivers, and stop waiting for some magic fix, which not going to happen.Monday, December 21, 2009 4:08 AM
How to fix this issue:
Disable Superfetch and Remote Differential Compression.
Superfetch can be disabled by;
Going to start > right clicking Computer > Click Manage > Choose Services and Applications > Services
Find "Superfetch" in the list, and right click > Properties > Change "Startup Type" to "Disabled"
Then Hit "Stop" then "Apply"
Remote Differential Compression can be disabled by:
Going to Start: Control Panel > All Control Panel Items > Programs and Features > "Turn Windows Features on or Off"
Uncheck Remote Differential Compression and Click OK.
Restart the computer after these changes.
I found my transfer rate skyrocketed after this.Tuesday, December 29, 2009 9:44 AM
No it is not a bug, a bug would show it's head for more than this hand full of posters. (even if 1,000 folks posted here that is just a drop in the bucket of users.
Having installed over 60 win7 pro machines (80 % Dells which shipped with XP / Vista the rest Dells with win 7 Pro some 64 bit but most 32 bit) across a wide selection of networks with all types of USB / NAS / 200x servers there is no BUG in the OS (did need to upgrade a switch and two routers) .
You need to look at the routers / switches / NIC drivers, and stop waiting for some magic fix, which not going to happen.
Perhaps this is true. However, the issue is no JUST with Win 7 machines at my home. The issue is also with Win 7 machines at my office at MS. It certainly is possible that MS needs to upgrade their network typography internally to support this OS however, I would have assumed they would have prepared for that prior to release.Tuesday, December 29, 2009 2:02 PM
I'm having a similar issue here.
My PC spec: Gigabyte EX58-UD5 / i7 920 / 6x2G / 750w / 1.5T + 1T + 750G + 500G
Windows 7 professional x64, version 6.1 build 7600.
I'm currently copying files from 1T to 1.5T, the speed is incredibly slow. The batch of files is about 250G in size, but there are a tons of small files. There are about 1.58 million files. It is so slow copying small files. Currently it is copying files that are about 30-40k each in size, but it takes about a second to copy each file.
It has been almost 24 hours, and it is still copying...Friday, January 01, 2010 12:47 AM
I am having an identical problem with a brand new Sony VGN-Z58GG, 6 GB Ram and 2 external 2 + 4 TB harddisks connected via a Firewire 800 card, running windows 7 Pro 64-bit.
When I am backing up my 2 TB harddisk using Retrospect 7.6, it takes 2 days for a 60 GB backup.
I gave up on backing up the entire 1,890 GB.
I did not have this problem with my Sony VGN-TZ18GN running vista business 32-bit.
It is unfortunate that MS does not even achkowledge that there is a major issue with windows 7.
I do think, though, that it is the 64 bit technology that creates the issue, as I expereicne also other slowness problems that I did not have with vista business.Friday, January 22, 2010 12:59 PM
Just to confirm the problem does not happen everywhere, all the time...
I have been copying VMware virtual machines, 32 to 64 GB each, through 100 base T Ethernet, from Vista x64 to Windows 7 x64 (pulling from the Windows 7 side). Each time the copy uses consistently very nearly 100% of the Ethernet bandwidth. I have also had no problem copying large groups of small files.
I do have Remote Differential Compression disabled on the Vista system; been that way for a long time.
Those of you copying huge datasets - e.g., terabytes - you do realize that your network, however fast, does have actual bandwidth limitations, right?
Look in your Task Manager, in the Networking tab. If your network connection is running at substantially high percentages (e.g., near 100%) then you have no problem. You are getting all the speed you can.
Rule of thumb: divide your Ethernet speed by 10. That's about how many bytes per second you can transfer. For example, gigabit Ethernet can transfer about 100 megabytes per second tops. 100 megabit Ethernet copies 10 megabytes per second.
Now divide that number into the size of the dataset you are copying. That's about how many seconds the data transfer MUST take. You only have a "slow file copy problem" if the actual time is significantly longer than that.
-NoelFriday, January 22, 2010 2:48 PM
How to fix this issue:
Disable Superfetch and Remote Differential Compression.
Superfetch can be disabled by;
Going to start > right clicking Computer > Click Manage > Choose Services and Applications > Services
Find "Superfetch" in the list, and right click > Properties > Change "Startup Type" to "Disabled"
Then Hit "Stop" then "Apply"
Remote Differential Compression can be disabled by:
Going to Start: Control Panel > All Control Panel Items > Programs and Features > "Turn Windows Features on or Off"
Uncheck Remote Differential Compression and Click OK.
Restart the computer after these changes.
I found my transfer rate skyrocketed after this.
You're the bomb, Stev. Thanks!
My problem: Files were copying/moving/deleting to the SAME hard drive & partition at the same speed as network drives ever since I set up my network. Never had the problem with XP.
Stats: Win 7 Ultimate on 2 computers - 1 Intel & 1 AMD chipset. Networked through LAN cable directly -- no router and no Home Group, just Workgroup. Both connected to Internet separately through wireless router -- not "sharing internet connection." Both have 1Gb Ram and dual core 1.6mhz cpu's. Laptop has 1 hard drive. Desktop has 2. Both computers had the problem.Tuesday, February 02, 2010 3:31 AM
Hi,USB has been really slow in my computer too. This was occurring when I had 8GB ram running 7 64-bit. However when I removed half the ram, leaving only 4 GB, the stability of USB improved greatly, as did the speed of the transfer. I was testing using a large transfer (folder of files which was about 160GB all up), but this kind of thing I need to be able to, as it is how I back up. I was only getting about 45 kb / sec with 8 GB RAM, but had transfer rates of up to 40MB / sec with 4GB ram.Using only 4 GB RAM can only be a temporary fix. Does anybody have any solutions?Thanks in advanced.EDIT:I'll post my computer specs in here just in case:Gigabyte P55A-UD3 / Intel i7 860 @ 2.8GHZ / 8GB Ram (DDR3 1333 in 2GB sticks) / 2 x 1TB WD drives in raid 1 / NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GSIf you need any more info, let me knowMonday, March 01, 2010 1:01 AM
My speeds are about 8-11MB/s on Win 7 Pro x86 with all updated nic, chipset, video drivers, etc and windows updates. Intel 975XBX2, Core 2 Quad 2.4 6600, 2x74GB WD Raptors, Intel Pro 1000 PL nic...connected to a 8 port unmanaged GBE switch (replaced switch and cables too just as a test).
Once I boot into Safe Mode with Networking support, file copying is now working as it should and i'm seeing transfer speeds (60 - 75MB/s - yes MegaBytes), and i've disabled a lot of startup items, antivirus, av firewall, etc, what do you suggest next?
thanks!Monday, March 01, 2010 7:55 PM
I have had this issue for a while now, with Vista and Windows 7.. I have 30 Acer vista machines, all Intel GBT nics using Linksys Gigabit Managed switches...
I can copy the same file on multiple machines, all with the SAME Driver revision, and 1 time it will be 4.5MB/sec, then on another its 95MB/Sec..
It makes NO Sense...
I highly await MS's response to this.Tuesday, March 02, 2010 4:00 AM
Another data point/complaint/cry for help. I posted this on EVGA's Win 7 forum. Reposted here for your entertainment.
Warning. This is just a (mild) rant. I don't really expect a fix, but if one should show up that would be sweet. I think I'm at the mercy of Microsoft on this one.
Generally, I rather like Windows 7. I'm running Ultimate 64 on this 758, and Pro 64 on my ThinkPad. That said, I have to say that network file copy - especially when copying a bunch of small-ish files - really bites. I see similar speeds on the desktop and laptop.
The target of the copy is an Intel entry-level NAS with 4x1TB WD Green drives in RAID 5. Gig-E network. The network seems healthy - all nodes are in full-duplex Gig-E mode. (And watching the network tells me that it isn't even remotely saturated, more like 1%-10% usage.)
The source drive doesn't seem to matter, the 125MB/sec Raptor, the 60MB/sec Seagate, or the 105MB/sec Samsung. Same numbers, pretty much.
If I send a single large file (CD ISO, ~600MB) the copy runs at 30-40MB/sec. Not stellar, but acceptable. If I copy a folder with a bunch of sub-folders and files (my cygwin install: ~6k files, and 600 folders, ~150MB) the transfer starts out bad - max 10MB/sec, more like 5 - and gradually craters to less than 1MB/sec. (Those are big Bs not small bs). Remote deletes also crawl.
That cygwin transfer takes ~210 seconds in Win 7. Horrible. Here's where it gets interesting: I can fire up a VMWare XP client running in Win7 on the same machine and the transfer takes 75 seconds! If I boot Ubuntu on the bare metal, the same cygwin copy takes 60 seconds.
None of those numbers are good. Clearly (?) the multiple small files really take a toll. But - equally clearly - Win 7 truly sucks at handling the situation. I find many on the interweb complaining about the same kind of thing. Transfers that ran reasonably well w/XP just crawl in Vista and Win 7.
I've tried all the "fixes" I can find. Turned of AV and firewalls, disabled remote compression, disabled the media services. Nothing makes a particle of difference. I pretty much ruled out strange interactions with the NAS since using the StinkPad as a target produces similar crappy results (but really screams w/the single file ISO transfer - 80MB/sec or more, proving the network is healthy).
Thanks for listening. I feel better now - but not much.
Z.Monday, April 05, 2010 3:09 PM
I had some success recently in speeding up data transfer to external drives (Firewire 800 interface) by changing the "Policies" in the drive properties to "Enable Write Caching". This was speeding up my data transfer quite significantly. Retrospect 7.5 now reaches transfer speeds of up to 760MB/s.Monday, April 05, 2010 5:05 PM
Ok just installed windows 7 pro on 4 pc's. updated all drivers, did all the windows updates. No other programms installed yet. Not even antivirus.
transfering a single pdf file of 30mg. 2.5 minutes on the windows 7 pro 64 bit pc's and 10 seconds on my XP pro 32bit pc. WTF
File transfer from SBS 2003 R2 32 bit 50-125kb
file transfer from win2008 32 bit Terminal server 20-50kb
file transfer from win7p to win7p 11.5 mb
Both the SBS and the Terminal server are virtual machines. could this be part of the issue?
this does seem to be a windows 7 issue or a windows 7 setting issue when pulling files from an older operating system.
Handshake, encryption, compression? I don't know but something is definatly causing a major problem.
Remote Differential Compression, no help
superfetch service disabled, no help
I turned off most of the advances settings on the nic card, no speed increase.
disabled compression settings, allowed 40 and 56bit encryption instead of just the 128, no speed increase. I see nothing related to this in the event logs on either machine.
Stumped for now- hope someone figures it out soon.
GDS26vThursday, April 08, 2010 7:54 PM
Given that two computers are involved, (in GDS26v's case Win 7 and XP Pro), I am wondering if the issue could be interaction between the protocol stacks... Some kind of incompatibility in the protocol choices?
Are you running IPv6 on both machines involved? If you PING the XP machine from the Windows 7 machine do you see IPv4 responses or IPv6? Are the computers bridged on your network, or does the data go through a router?
-NoelThursday, April 08, 2010 11:57 PM
FYI, it CAN work...
Copied a single 527 MB file:
Windows 7 x64 to Windows Vista x64 over 100baseT via COPY command: 48 seconds
Windows Vista x64 to Windows 7 x64 over 100baseT via COPY command: 50 seconds
Windows 7 x64 to Windows Vista x64 via Explorer drag and drop: 49 seconds
Windows Vista x64 to Windows 7 x64 via Explorer drag and drop: 50 seconds
Host Windows 7 x64 to Windows XP 32 bit Virtual Machine on same computer via COPY command: 47 seconds
Windows XP 32 bit Virtual Machine to Host Windows 7 x64 on same computer via COPY command: 48 seconds
Copies between Windows 7 and Vista are via IPv6.
Copies between Windows 7 and XP are IPv4 (for some reason - limitation in VMware's network bridge maybe?)
I have Avast antivirus on all machines. No HomeGroup networking configured.
-NoelFriday, April 09, 2010 12:44 AM
Having the same problem in our office domain which I have directly attributed to Jumbo Packets (aka Jumbo Frames) being turned on (at 9000). When jumbo frames is turned off we do not have any issues. Also when doing the copy in a dos prompt we have no problems, its only while doing the transfer from or to a Windows 2008 R2 x64 machine (with Jumbo Packets turned on) through Windows Explorer that it hangs (freezes and goes at less than 100kbytes a second) on Discovering Items (especially with ascii files for some reason) in Windows 7. Also see the behaviour going between Windows Server 2008 R2 x64 and Windows Web Server 2008 R2 x64. We have onboard Intel 1GB nics and 10GB Chelsio nics and both have the same issue but the Intel to Intel tests are slightly better as they freeze up for a few seconds or more and then transfer as normal while the 10GB freeze almost totally. Once again if we turn off Jumbo packets it all goes back to normal. We have tried turning everything off and on without sucess. Can anyone recommend a simple and easy to use packet analyser tool so that i can capture whats happening during the slowdown/freezes so that I can send it to Microsoft and/or Chelsio and/or Intel?
Also note we are using a HP Procurve switch. I will do some tests directly connected at some point as well. We are on a Windows 2003 SBS domain.Tuesday, April 13, 2010 1:56 AM
I have been experiencing a lot of data transfer speed issues with Windows 7 Ultimate.
We've been performance testing 7 on new and old hardware at my company and every machine experiences the same slowing of data transfer, especially through USB. So far we have built Toshiba R600, Lenovo T500 laptops and HP DC7700 - DC7900 desktops.
Windows 7 USB 2 transfer speeds start at 50mb/s being displayed, then drop drastically to around 4mb/s. Then they decrease in increments of 0.1 mb/s
Wednesday, April 21, 2010 9:51 AM
- 100gb of data transferred to brand new WD Elements external drive took over 18 hours to complete.
Just received a high-end Dell Latitude 8GB Ram, win7pro and have been struggling all day to copy files from my old notebook... the best speed I can get is 1MBPS - intoleratble! I have tried all the workarounds. Dell acknowledges its a major complaint and suggested that I copy the XP computer to a backup drive then from backup drive to new computer. It's hard to imagine that MS just can't figure this one out. I've decided to return the WIN7 machine, will consider an XP downgrade. ( Out of 65 computers in my office, I spend more time trying fixes and workarounds on the four vista/win7 machines than all the others combined.)Friday, April 23, 2010 9:28 PM
I am having a slow file transfer problem from a DVD. 5 TIF files (2.4G total) 2 hours at 228 kbs. This is ridiculous. I have Windows 7 64 bit, AMD Athlon II X2 235e Processor 2.7GHz, and 4GB RAM. WTH!!!!Friday, May 14, 2010 7:54 PM
I have the same prob with win 7. I tried using robocopy for some rather large movies files in cmd on win 7 and transfer speed was much better than using explorer. Any solutions yet??Friday, May 21, 2010 4:27 AM
I built a pc last jun09, installed Vista Ultimate 64bit, I installed a new OS Win 7 Ultimate 64bit--replacing the old. I'm technically savy to be dangerous--as they say--so, could you enlighten me on these different os versions (RC, RTM, the x86, and the x64)? I notice that some program installs go to x86 and others go to regular program files folder. Is this what you talk about when mention x86 & x64?
JD "highly motivated people see the usual in unusual ways," anonymous.Monday, July 12, 2010 8:26 PM
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 00:22:13 +0000, Joey456 wrote:
Slow problem is a common event for Windows user. Microsoft claimed that:"No matter how fast or shiny computers might be when they're new, they all seem to get slower over time."
Where does Microsoft say that? I have a hard time believing that
Microsoft said it and I'd like to see a citation. It isn't my
experience at all, and I don't believe it.
Ken BlakeWednesday, July 21, 2010 12:29 AM
I'm also having the slow file copy issue (as are a few mates). Can anyone here who does NOT have this problem, please post up your specs and build details so that maybe I could try what you've done e.g. what you installed, switched off etc.
FYI, I have even gone as far as rebuilding from scratch on a new stripe set to coax the performance along - but still no joy. Any more of this and I am going to have to stop drinking...Thursday, July 22, 2010 1:43 PM
Similar problem on new Dell Studio XPS 8100 (i7 860 processor & 8GB RAM) Running Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit.
Using Lan Speed Test 1.1 build 97 (Totusost.com) writing 100MB file to HP Proliant Server over 10/100 LAN with new cat 6 cables & Netgear FVS318 Firewall Router then reading.
· Write speed to HP Proliant server 1.00 Mbps & Read 83.11 Mbps
From IBM Lenovo X61 Notebook PC running Windows 7 32 bit & with a slower processor & 4GB RAM
· Write speed to HP Proliant server 51.86 Mbps & Read 81.11 Mbps
· Write speed to NAS 78.43 Mbps & Read 72.81 Mbps
Dell replaced mother board as they thought it was a defective NIC – no improvement. I have tried switching cables in router ports in case there is a bad port and swapping out LAN cat 6 cables – no difference. Turned off Remote Differential Compression – no difference.
As a consequence of this issue it is very difficult to run backups using Shadow Protect Desktop – backup of c drive (just under 70GB) takes 1.5 days plus over 10/00 LAN to NAS v 12 minutes to external HDD connected via ESATA port on Dell.Tuesday, July 27, 2010 12:50 AM
Well, I've been looking over this info and trying to find an answer. There seems to be many more questions than answers. Here's one for everyone to try and see if you can confirm:
If you try copying from an UNLOCKED Win 7 folder (NOT your USER\... folder) to an UNLOCKED folder between two drives, speeds seem to be as expected. When you try to copy a locked USER folder (as in you want to change the default location of your user files), I see a transfer speed averaging about 150Kbs!!!!!! That is BS!!!
MS, please confirm! This appears to be a problem in the way Win 7 is validating the transfer of files out of a locked folder (copy and paste). Way too much overhead?
Can someone else confirm this and hence prove it is a software issue?
BTW mobo:EVGA 790i SLI, Intel Quad 9550 @ 3.2GHz, 4G 2000 ram, RAID 0 for data (not OS)Tuesday, July 27, 2010 4:14 PM
Here is a possible fix Slow Cut Copy and Paste
Go to
- Control panel
- System and Maintenance
- Administrative tools
- Run services shortcut
Once the services program loads find the services called Background intelligent transfer service and stop it also right click on the same service and click properties then change the start value to manual or disabled this should also fix the network problem and USB copy and paste problem.
I am not quite sure if this will work on windows 7. I am running vista but some of the system is similar.PS: This should bring Copy, Cut, and Paste speeds up to a range of 40MB to 100MB per second
Wednesday, July 28, 2010 1:33 AM
As I asked in the other thread, what do we lose if we disable the BITS service? People will try this based on what you've written, then maybe they'll lose something else they relied upon.
-NoelWednesday, July 28, 2010 1:42 AM
After a long battle with Microsoft (would not talk to me initially as my Win 7 64 bit was Dell OEM) I finally got a session with one of their techs after pointing them to the issues raised by many people with different brands of computers but same issue of slow transfer with Windows 7 64 detailed in this forum.
My problem appears to be resolved – write speed to NAS now 80.9 Mbps (up from around 1 Mbps) & server 61.8Mbps (up from 0.54 Mbps yesterday).
Microsoft suggested the following on Advanced Tab of Broadcom NetLink Gigabit NIC:
· Large Send Offload v2 (IPv4) – Disable
· WOL Speed – 100 Mb
In Windows Features
· Tick Remote Differential CompressionWednesday, July 28, 2010 4:13 AM
I also had this issue and I tried every possible fix I could find on it, disable Windows 7 autotune, disable remove diff compression, disable rx/tx offload and nothing worked. Finally I grabbed an old spare Broadcom NetXtreme NIC and disabled both my onboard Nvidia NICs. On the broadcom am now getting almost 10MB transfer, while not anywhere near the 100MB cap of the connection I will now copy my 102GB of data in 3 hours instead of days and days.
This seems to point to an issue with Windows 7 large file transfers and certain hardware, or at least onboard Nvidia NICs. Anyone else have a space NIC they can install and see if it resolves the slow copy issue for them?
My problem was solved by disabling my onbaord NICs and going with a PCI-E Broadcom NetXtreme. Good luck to anyone else having this problem.Wednesday, July 28, 2010 4:20 AM
As a side note I was not happy with the 10mb speed, and the speed occasionally dropped way down to around 1mb. I kicked off the copy using richcopy and I am seeing bursts over 70% of my connection now and it's screaming along.
With my Nvidia NICS richcopy would not even function it was so slow. Windows 7 seems to have a bug with large file copies that is expounded with certain hardware types.
I suggest using Richcopy, it's free and fast.Wednesday, July 28, 2010 4:27 AM
As I asked in the other thread, what do we lose if we disable the BITS service? People will try this based on what you've written, then maybe they'll lose something else they relied upon.
I am not a master of BITS however after reading this:
I would guess that transfers will no longer use "idle" bandwidth so your applications you are running in the fore ground will be more impacted by a transfer. For me, this is fine. I want the transfers to complete ASAP and can handle a bit of slowness with other applications.
It might make sense that the method for determining "idle" bandwidth returns different results on what is actually idle with differing hardware vendors. In either case, I am just going to run the NetXtreme card. I used to have a rule of no onboard nics, it looks like I am going back to it.Wednesday, July 28, 2010 4:37 PM
Is anyone from MS watching this thread. I can't believe that transfering a file (1GB) from HD to USB should take 5 minutes.
Hey, I get the OS for free from school so what do I care, but I'm curious why in over a year no one has resolved this very real issue.Friday, July 30, 2010 10:10 PM
Brand new HP Pavilion dm3, Win 7 Home Premium (64bit), AMD Athlon Neo X2 dual, 4GB RAM, 250 gb ATA harddrive, all MS updates to today, drivers all updated.
Very slow transfer speeds (846kb/sec) for files from my Patriot USB pendrive to a new folder on the root drive. Had this issue with Vista on my Dell desktop and junked that for XP - feel like doing the same for this.
Have tried the various suggestiosn above and nothing makes any difference.Tuesday, August 03, 2010 2:13 PM
Have you tried changes on the NIC - worked for me was getting less than 1Mbps to server drives and NAS now, after changes getting around 60-80 Mbps on 10/100 Lan (Netgear FVS318 router/firewall) which is a vast improvement.
Microsoft suggested the following settings on Advanced Tab of Broadcom NetLink Gigabit NIC:
· Large Send Offload v2 (IPv4) – Disable
· WOL Speed – 100 Mb
In Windows Features
· Tick Remote Differential CompressionWednesday, August 04, 2010 7:37 AM
Hi Derek:
Tried your suggestion and it worked!!!
I recently setup a new system for a client with Windows 7 Pro (64-bit) O/S and thought it would be great to migrate all of their apps and data in almost an instant by creating a Virtual Hard Drive image of their old system and linking it to a VPC session. After setting up Windows 7 in record time, it has been 5 days of pure tourture to optimize VPC session to access the client's data on a secondary partition. In the VPC session it took almost 2 minutes for the context menu to appear and almost 15 minutes to open a 26KB MS Excel worksheet. A folder transfer of Microsoft Sysinternals Suite from a mapped drive of the local D: Driver in the VPC session took almost 35 minutes.
This issue was replicated in both Windows XP Mode and non-Windows XP Mode and included several other modifications, updates and hotfixes posted on the internet.
After making the changes listed in your responses, I am very relieved to say, everything appears to be A-OK.
I strongly advise anyone reading this thread and experiencing similar problems with their VPC sessions to attempt the following suggestion from Derek, before they attempt any other modification:
> Microsoft suggested the following settings on Advanced Tab of the Network Adaper Card Properties:
> Large Send Offload v2 (IPv4) – Disable
> WOL Speed – 100 MB
> In Windows Features
> Tick Remote Differential Compression
Additionally, I would like to add that you should reboot the system after making the above changes AND it is not necessary to disable the Background Intelligence Transfer Service (BITS) and Superfetch services. Tested and confirmed disabling these two (2) services are not necessary for this fix to work.
Again a biggie thanks to everyone for their contribution and to Derek Sydney for his persistence and determination to get a valid workaround solution from MS.
- Gigabyte H55M-S2H (Onboard NIC, Realtek PCIe, GBE Familly Controller),
- EVGA GeForce 210 512MB DDR2 PCI-E 2.0 Video Card
---------Monday, August 09, 2010 12:10 AM
I ran Windows 7 Backup all day and night and it was only at about 60% (of ~50GB) and so I stopped it.
After removing remote differential compression, it seems much faster now (at 14% after only about 10 minutes). I didn't disable superfetch as it is used for ReadyBoost.
Thanks for the tip, stev!Tuesday, August 17, 2010 7:03 PM
Pentium II 266, 768MB RAM, UFS2 Geom Mirror, FreeBSD 8 - RELEASE i386
USB Copy (5MB files, 190MB) : 15 seconds
AMD Athlon X2 5000+ BE (OC'd 2.91GHz), 4GB RAM, NTFS - RAID 0 Stripe (nVidia), Windows 7 64-bit Professional
USB Copy (5MB files, 190MB) : 2 minutes 30 seconds
AMD Athlon X2 5000+ BE (OC'd 2.91GHz), 4GB RAM, ZFS - RAID 0 Stripe (nVidia), PC-BSD 8.1 - AMD64
USB Copy (5MB files, 190MB) : 8 seconds
Yep, there is a problem.
** Copy to LOCAL hard disks.Saturday, August 21, 2010 12:42 PM
Here is a possible fix Slow Cut Copy and Paste
Go to
- Control panel
- System and Maintenance
- Administrative tools
- Run services shortcut
Once the services program loads find the services called Background intelligent transfer service and stop it also right click on the same service and click properties then change the start value to manual or disabled this should also fix the network problem and USB copy and paste problem.
I am not quite sure if this will work on windows 7. I am running vista but some of the system is similar.PS: This should bring Copy, Cut, and Paste speeds up to a range of 40MB to 100MB per second
The Background Intelligent Transfer Service (BITS) is what is used to download Windows Updates. Don't disable that.Monday, August 23, 2010 9:42 PM
I'm a long time windows user... it's not like I'm trashing MS. But I am pointing out an issue that to me is MAJOR.
It took over 4 hours to copy a VM image that's 5GB…
I could post links here that can show you 100's of users with the same issue… in fact use this post as an example.. Posted at 1:00 PM and 2 users with the same issue. I assume they like me are looking for a solution. Not someone pointing out "It works on my system".
I agree with CSSEMas this is a major problem and as such should be dealt with by M$ with some degree f urgency!Wednesday, September 15, 2010 3:24 PM
I experienced this same problem with Windows Vista:
With over 700 postings and half a million views I'd say it is a major bug shared with Vista however I have not experienced this Windows 7 except for copying from within a virtual PC (XP Pro) to the host drive (Win 7 Ultimate 64bit). I still get a major delay in explorer when clicking on a folder with more than about 30 video files, the green progress bar takes 20 to 30 seconds before the folder contents are listed, detail view not thumbnail view is being used.
Windows 7 Ultimate, Gigabyte EP-45-UD3R mainboard, Intel E7500, 4GB Corsair RAM, 2xWestern Digital 1TB Caviar Black HDD, Nvidia GT9600
SteveWednesday, September 22, 2010 10:16 AM
Seems to exist, as well, in Windows XP. I copied 6 1GB files from an internal hard drive to a USB 2.0 connected external hard drive, took about 15 minutes! Then plugged the external drive in to a shiny, new Windows 7 Sony notebook and transferred said files to the internal drive...this took about a minute. Both have fast, new 64 bit processors (the XP machine runs a Phenom II triple core 720 on a Gigabyte mobo and the Sony notebook has an Intel Core i3; both have new SATA II drives). I just dragged the 6GB file folder from one drive to the other (both 7200 RPM terabyte drives) on the XP machine and it says "64 minutes". Unbelievable. Makes me crazy...this thread and others show no solution.Wednesday, September 29, 2010 3:41 PM
I don't know if this is still a active problem for everyone or not but this fixed my windows 7 host slow file transfer speed to my Virtual PC (XP)
Go to control panel
Got to network & Internet
Go to Change advanced settings
Under file Sharing connections
check enable file sharing for devices that use 40 or 56 bit encryption
Save changes
Good luckWednesday, October 13, 2010 7:53 PM
I've been having the same slow USB copy problem under Windows 7 64 bit Ultimate. When i copy files from my computer hard drive to a 2 TB USB external drive transfer speed starts at around 30 MB/sec and drops down quickly to around 3 MB/sec. Thus, backing up my files (large or small) to that drive takes forever.
I am using an HP Pavilion dv6-1253cl laptop that has only USB 2.0 ports. The laptop is practically new, as well as the hard drives (those are newer). This is what i've tried so far:
- The hard drive has always been connected directly to the computer (no hubs in between), and i've tried all ports with the same results.
- I've tried uninstalling all the USB devices and reinstalling them at startup. All USB drivers are updated.
- I've also tried two different 2 TB drives (a Hitachi and a Seagate) with the exact same slow copy speed.
- I've also disabled the Remote Differential Compression but that didn't help at all.
- I've also disabled (temporarily) the background intelligent transfer service but, again, no improved transfer speed.
- My antivirus is McAfee, but disabling it does not improve transfer speed.
- I've also tried copying the files while booted using safe mode but, again, no improved transfer speed.
- I've also tried TeraCopy but, yet again, no improved transfer speed.
- In device manager, using any policy won't change things, copying is still painfully slow.
It's worth mentioning that both external USB drives work just fine when copying files to/from an XP computer.
This definitely looks like a MS Windows 7 defect. This is a problem Microsoft needs to look into, as copying files is fundamental OS function.Thursday, October 21, 2010 4:59 PM
I must be at least the 101st person by now...
Brand New Dell Latitude E5510 Client Win7 32 bit3 Gigs
Dell T300 2008 R2 Server 64 bit 12Gigs
A folder with 8 directories and 25 files = 208MBs
Destination can be a UNC or a mapped drive
User can be full admin or standard user login doesn't matter
copying in windows explorer from desktop to server stops at different completion points, but never completes and copy window stays on screen.
Can copy all the individual files no problem.
Same network drop and same logged on user on a XP box works super fast.
Whos idea was it really to be a windows 7 PC...?
Since there is no error that pops up, there is no error code. I have to kill the task.
This is a major problem can MS create a forum for actual tests that we can perform and report our findings..Monday, October 25, 2010 11:10 PM
Things are said over and over and then there's me, saying the same! (so if you're the kinda person that gets irritated easy please don't read)
I'm currently copying roughly 2 GB of documents from one partition on a USB drive to another partition same drive and the rate is commonly 229 KB/s. Its a lot of files and Windows (Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit) identifies and specifies the number of "items" being moved. I bring up Windows Task Manager and a 3rd Party Program titled: Bitsum Technologies ProcessLasso, and have Microsoft's Sysinternals Process Explorer/Monitor around if needed, don't yet.
I must say that a fresh install of Windows 7 has rates of 40-60 MB/s, regardless of the drive, type, connection, it's fast and stays fast throughout.
Windows Vista wasn't quite a match for it, maybe I got 10 MB/s with it under similar conditions (fresher install)
But after installing a ton of programs including eset's Nod32 Anti-Virus and Diskeeper Corporation's Diskeeper Trial, current to 2010, I try to spot the processes that are peaking during the transfer and have found both of these to spike at times, along with Microsoft's System Indexer, but, but, but, but, Windows Desktop Manager and the Explorer processes themselves seem to have the problems within them.
Before long ago, I used Symantec's Norton WinDoctor and it always found lots of problems to fix, always, just use your copy of Windows and it would generate registry related error's daily, as it seemed to be part of the way the operating systeme 'operated'.
I think that installs of Windows that aren't fresh just keep doing this. I've battled this from Windows XP to Windows 7. I've used 3rd party apps like 'TeraCopy' and 'BurstCopy' and they seem to address the problem when they work and they've been more buggy or disfunctionable with Windows 7 than ever before, just downright don't work. I've used a Microsoft Research app called 'RichCopy' but was as slow at copying.
There's a Microsoft tech who speaks in this very post as to using 'SafeMode' and 'Fresh Installs' and wants to know about AV Software and the like, he knows what we all already know, the more you use the OS, the more degraded it becomes and less efficient. The one's who defend Microsoft can argue with you 'till your both blue in the face, it's fact, it transends the version of NT your using, drive types, USB, Serial ATA, ATA, network, it's the OS, it's unable to self-repair itself, and although I've come across a Microsoft app called 'RegFix' the only real 'fix' is to reinstall Windows, the OS degrades and stays that way for the most part and we all know that 'they' know all about it and have known and yet sit that software package on retail shelves anyways, no one's pretended the problem doesn't exist and it's definitely NOT up to us to fix it, it's been their (eluding) problems for at least a decade now and despite all the advances in technology and development, continues to be.
You know, when we saw Bill Gates exit the company formally or whatever he did, I've always felt short-changed because it's still an issue and he's not around like he was to do anything about it or I've felt like it's beyond his capabilities so he left with unfinished work.
my specs:
Dell Inspiron 1525 Intel Dual CPU T2370 @ 1.73 GHz, RAM=2.00 GB, 250 GB Serial ATA HDD,
1 TB External HDD Enclosure, Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate, NT 6.1Tuesday, November 02, 2010 7:28 AM
to Novak,
as tested over and over again, roughly 10 installs per year, fresh clean installation of Windows produces superb file copy/transfer rates,
works beautifully, only it doesn't remain that way nor provides us a way to keep it 'that' way, probably should for what people payTuesday, November 02, 2010 7:35 AM
I have a new Toshiba Portege r705-p35 with win7 home premium. Can not copy from xp to a share drive in win7. Can not log in to the xp share. All win7 to xp transfers slow down and then end in the error that the network name is no longer valid.
Tried disabling Superfetch and Remote Differential Compression. Tried Large Send Offload v2 (IPv4) – Disable. Only have this option on the gigabit eithernet adapter (Intel 82577LC Gigabit Network Connection. Do not have WOL Speed. Have neither options on the wireless adapter (Intel Centrino Advanced-N 6250 AGN or Microsoft Virtual WiFi Miniport Adaptor).
I've transferred numerous files xp to xp and xp to linux. I can transfer one or two files at a time. Then it hangs up. Even at one at a time over and over it eventually fails. I would have thought that file sharing in Win7 would be working by now?
Don't really want to reinstall the OS on a laptop that's only one week old. I've already loaded a bunch of ____ on it that would need to be reinstalled. Who'ld pay for that? On the other hand the laptop is not much good without my files. I wouldn't need it then would I?
KMSTuesday, November 16, 2010 3:40 AM
I tried to make a vbscript to test explorer file copying. I can't get default overwrite to work though, and it doesn't work well with profiles. I get 46 mbps the first time, but then 363 mbps the 2nd time, etc.
strSource = "C:\program files\spssinc\*.*" strTargetFolder = "c:\program files\spssinc2" Set objShell = CreateObject("Shell.Application") set ofs = wscript.createobject("Scripting.FileSystemObject")
'avoid object required error if not ofs.folderexists(strtargetfolder) then ofs.createfolder(strtargetfolder) Set objFolder = objShell.NameSpace(strTargetFolder)
yestoeverything = 16 'doesn't work time1 = timer objFolder.CopyHere strSource, yestoeverything time2 = timer totaltime = time2 - time1 set of = ofs.getfolder(strtargetfolder) size = of.size wscript.echo "size " & size & " time " & totaltime & " mbps " & size*8.0/1024.0/1024.0/totaltime
Thursday, November 18, 2010 5:07 PM
- Edited by JS2010 Friday, November 19, 2010 4:48 PM
Maybe the windows 7 on my NEW Toshiba Laptop is a beta version and Microsoft is using us to determine how we like it so that they will release Windows 8 this way and say they did it with customer input.
Microsoft How do I copy from an XP share to Win7 without timing out? I have a lot of _____ (I'll pre edit my own script) to move before I even can start working on my new Win7 laptop.
If you haven't guessed, I'm not one of your non paying customers that downloaded Office2010 and told you that I liked it as I was still using 2003 and very happy with that. But I do need my OS to see and play happily with existing SHARE DRIVES. Notice they are not called UNSHARED DRIVES. Please post how we deal with this.
Friday, November 19, 2010 12:22 AM
- Edited by Kurt Sanger Friday, November 19, 2010 12:25 AM I wanted to enable notification. But that option is no longer available.
I have the same problem.
OS is Windows 7 ultimate 64bit version on a 2 years old Compaq notebook. Copying files to/from CIFS shares over wireless connection is less than 10kB/sec. While copying over wired network is ok. Windowx XP professional on a 5 years old notebook has no this problem.
Prior to Windows 7, I used Vista Home 32bit version on the newer notebook. The default installation also has the slow file copying over wireless problem. Changing the MTU from 1500 to 14xx for the wiress connection solved the problem for Windows Vista. But the same trick no longer works for Windows 7.
It is shcking that the problem has been existing for so long and there is still no solution.
The irony is that Linux smb client works well.Monday, December 06, 2010 9:07 PM
I could be the SMB 2.0, but i haven't disabled it yet.
I've tried everything else above with no go.
C Drive -> USB 16gb Verbatim
Some days it work some it doesn't, i get thinking it was my Thinkpad doc messing with it, or my usb ports power wasn't enough.
Large files HANG at 45 or 20 secs (depends on size) I copied 175mb no problem, 633 mb ( hangs at 20 secs )
Reboot had the same result, but some days, no problems. BAM!
I DUNNO! and i'm a system admin.Thursday, December 16, 2010 10:03 PM
How to fix this issue:
Disable Superfetch and Remote Differential Compression.
Superfetch can be disabled by;
Going to start > right clicking Computer > Click Manage > Choose Services and Applications > Services
Find "Superfetch" in the list, and right click > Properties > Change "Startup Type" to "Disabled"
Then Hit "Stop" then "Apply"
Remote Differential Compression can be disabled by:
Going to Start: Control Panel > All Control Panel Items > Programs and Features > "Turn Windows Features on or Off"
Uncheck Remote Differential Compression and Click OK.
Restart the computer after these changes.
I found my transfer rate skyrocketed after this.
Greetings All.
I have windows 7 enterprise on a lenovo thinkpad T510. When doing file copies the system becomes almost completely unuseable.
I have applied the changes as mentioned above and I have seen my transfer rates to USB increase from 17MB/sec to roughly 22MB/sec
Also I noted previously my hard drive light was pretty much constantly lit whilst doing copies from local disc to USB, now it flashes and comes on for a few seconds and then goes off again.
I can also say that I am now able to use the system whilst doing a file copy, which is also a great improvement.
Gerhard Wessels Bytes Connect MCITP: Enterprise Messaging Administrator 2010Saturday, December 18, 2010 6:06 AM
Very strange "solution":
100 MBit/sec network
Windows Server 2003
XP desktop
Win7 desktop
file size: 900MB
In the last days I disabled Remote Differential Compression, rebooted, changed other parameters as proposed, rebooted ... - without
any success.
I did the following tests:
Copy Server -> XP (poll from XP desktop) better than 2 min as expected
Copy Server -> Win7 (poll from Win7 desktop) 18 min
Win 7 network speed was set to Auto Negotiation, but the display was 10 MBit only, an explanation for the slow transmission
Next I set the speed to 100MBit manually and - o wonder - the transmission took 1 hour!
After reboot it was 2 hours 40 min.
I set the speed back to Auto Negotiation and copied the file within 1 min.
After reboot it was still 1 min, but what will be tomorrow?
It looks like there was a parameter fixed when network speed was switched forth and back, but I have no idea whitch parameter it is.
Maybe this will be a hint for further investigation.Wednesday, January 12, 2011 4:18 PM
I'm having the same problem since Vista on a variety of machines/disks.
I did some tests (see also http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en/itprovistasetup/thread/7c1a5822-63ee-4758-82be-1c21da781bf2)
I run a few traces of events (using Process Monitor) and the reason seems to be some random incredibly slow reads which can pause the process for up to about 5 minutes.
My last test case was copying 22 ~250MB (abt 5GB total) files from an external disk in a firewire port, to another external disk on a usb port. Here I used drag/drop with explorer. The copy starts smoothly taking about 20 seconds per file, BUT at t0 + 2:49.818 it took 320 seconds (that's 5 minutes!) to read 1MB from the source (IRP_MJ_READ, reflected in the following FASTIO_READ). Similar delay and operation at t0 + 12:12.157. The usual duration for this operation is about 0.1 second. This obviously delayed the copy by about 10 minutes... If the amount of data you copy is large, more such delays will be introduced. Yesterday I noticed 6 such delays in a test of 20 150MB files using robocopy. Obviously I have better things to do than running such tests...
Similar delays happen with diffferent disks, different machines, different port combinations etc. One intriguing thing in my case is the delay, which seems fairly constant at around 300 sec each time. There seems to be no other process accessing the disks at that time, but in any case a delay of 5 mins is much too much.
The trace result is here: http://cid-d3baf26d86ffdf27.office.live.com/view.aspx/.Public/FSTrace.xlsx
@MS: Please either fix this or at least change the op name from FASTIO_READ to SLOWIO_READ...Thursday, January 20, 2011 11:50 AM
Also have the same issue. Oh MICROSOFT????Thursday, January 20, 2011 6:37 PM
They already got everyone's money what the hell do they care?
Solution is to not use a Microsoft product...that is obvious. Look at the performance of my Pentium II with a FREE and OPEN operating system writing to an "out of date" file system (UFS2 for those that care). I'm certain my Huawei with Android 2.1 writes to an SD card faster than my new Windows 7 "beast".....that "beast" runs far better on ZFS on PC-BSD too. Oh and copy time of the same files to ZFS RAIDZ with four 320GB WDs took two seconds. GUI is KDE kind of like how M$ copied.
Thank the lord that I got my copy through MSDNAA. Oh and OSX doesn't suffer this issue either. Now that I think about Mac OS 6.0.8 doesn't, QNX doesn't, DOS doesn't, any Linux distro is free from this issue...oh and so is Android.Wednesday, February 02, 2011 6:22 AM
These posts go back nearly 2 years. It's time for Microsoft to step up and fix the problem.
Because it is a SERIOUS PROBLEM!
I'm now spending 1Hr to load my BI application that was taking 10 Minutes.
The difference is XP Pro 32bit on a five year ThinkPad now running Windows 7 64bit on a new W510 ThinkPad I7.Thursday, February 03, 2011 4:15 PM
I wish Microsoft would just own up and admit there is a real problem other than assuming it's the users fault.
I work in a University environment and I constantly have to transfer files from our servers to our desktops (XP and Windows 7). When I do backups onto external hard drives, I have to hook up my external to an XP machine rather than my Windows 7 one cause it ALWAYS takes much longer (at least 4 times longer).
Just today I had to transfer 14GB of data off our server (Server 2003 I believe) onto our external. At first I plugged the external onto my Windows 7 x64 computer and it was estimating 3.5 hrs at first and then just kept going up from there. By the time the estimate got to 4.5 hrs, I cancelled it and moved the external to my XP machine. Transfer of the 14GB folder went down to 50 mins. Same server, same network, same firewalls, same ports. Only difference is Windows 7 on a more powerful machine vs. an out-dated XP machine.
Oh, and I already tried the superfetch and remote differential compression stuff. Didn't do jack.Tuesday, March 22, 2011 10:23 PM
Hi All,
Good to hearthat this problem can be solved.
I found a solution in this site. http://social.technet.microsoft.com/forums/en-US/itprovistadesktopui/thread/30c9c7f3-2cc4-426a-9db9-885086ff183e/
It works for me. The solution given by Al Iguana (27-Mar-2007), i also pasted the same solution below which i copied from that site (Solved in WIN 7 64 BIT for me).
Fixed it though. I went into : Control Panel / Programs and features / and unchecked "Remote Differential Compression".
Thanks to Al Iguana
G.VijayFriday, April 01, 2011 4:58 AM


text:
Patna blasts: Ranchi cops try to establish Imtiaz-IM terror links
Jharkhand police have rushed a team to Bihar to interrogate Imtiaz Ansari who was arrested in Patna. His house in a Ranchi suburb was raided on Sunday following the serial blasts ahead of Narendra Modi rally, which left six dead.ranchi Updated: Oct 28, 2013 22:53 IST
Jharkhand police have rushed a team to Bihar to interrogate Imtiaz Ansari who was arrested in Patna. His house in a Ranchi suburb was raided on Sunday following the serial blasts ahead of Narendra Modi rally, which left six dead.
Additional director general of police SN Pradhan said, "Imtiaz was probably running a training centre in his Dhurwa house under the guidance of Jharkhand Indian Mujahedeen chief Mohammad Tehsheen Akhtar alias Monu." Tehsheen is the vital link from whose Samastipur (Bihar) resident IM founder Yasin Bhatkal was arrested a couple of months ago.
A senior official not authorised to speak to media said Tehsheen shared family ties with Imtiaz. Hyderabad serial blast attack accused and IM founder, Yasin Bhatkal was picked up by the NIA from Tehsheen's Samastipur residence in Bihar a couple of months back.
The official added that after Bhatkal's arrest, Tehsheen shifted base to Jharkhand and got active spreading the banned outfit's activities.
"We are investigating on the basis of leads from our Bihar counterparts. Raids are being carried out on the information being provided by them to us," said Pradhan.
Since Sunday evening, Ranchi police have carried out raids at 20 different places in the city and suburb. The NIA team joined them on Monday morning.
Jharkhand director general of police Rajeev Kumar said, "We will be interrogating Imtiaz with the help of our Bihar counterparts. A Jharkhand police team led by Ranchi city-SP Manoj Ratan Chotey will leave for Patna shortly."
Police confirmed on Monday that a raiding team from Patna had arrested in all four suspects from the city identified as Imtiaz, Tarique, Taufique and Mohmmad Naoman. All of them hailed from Dhurva locality in the city suburbs.
Meanwhile, the police have decided to hand over the explosive powder recovered from Imtiaz's residence to the NIA. It is yet to be established whether the same explosives were used in the Patna blasts.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
This week, the year-long celebration of Mike Gorman and Tommy Heinsohns 30 seasons continues as the Boston Celtics will honor the tandem with a special pregame ceremony before Wednesday nights Celtics-Pacers game.
During the ceremony, Celtics CEO and co-owner Wyc Grousbeck and captain Paul Pierce will present commemorative Celtics jerseys with the number 30 to Mike and Tommy on center court. Comcast SportsNet will have live coverage of the presentation and special features throughout its telecast.
On Friday at 7:30 p.m., Comcast SportsNet will debut 30 Seasons of Mike & Tommy, a special retrospective on their broadcast career. 30 Seasons of Mike & Tommy will relive their best highlights and signature calls; include a candid sit-down in which Mike and Tommy interview each other; and tributes from celebrities, players and NBA dignitaries. The special will also feature segments on their beginning, the Garden, the '90s, Tommy vs. the referees, Tommy Points, I love Walter, Got It, and their 1,000th game.
Fans can leave a message for Mike and Tommy on our 30 Season of Mike & Tommy page or on Facebook.comcsnne.


text:
Berlitz: Australia Pocket Guide Paperback
by Berlitz
Part of the Berlitz Pocket Guides series
From dazzling Sydney and the stunning Great Ocean Road to the majestic monolith of Uluru, Australia has much to tempt the visitor.
Berlitz Pocket Guide Australia is a concise, full-colour travel guide that combines lively text with vivid photography to highlight the best of Down Under.
The Where To Go chapter details all the key sights in the country, while handy maps on the cover flaps help you find your way around, and are cross-referenced to the text.
To inspire you, the guide offers a rundown of the Top 10 Attractions in Australia, followed by an itinerary for a Perfect Tour of the country.
The What to Do chapter is a snapshot of ways to spend your spare time, from catching a rugby match and snorkelling on the Great Barrier Reef to exploring the citys' lively markets and finding the best nightlife.
The book provides all the essential background on Australia's culture, including a history of the country and an Eating Out chapter covering the country's diverse cuisine.
There is also an A-Z of all the practical information you'll need to make the most of your trip.
- Format: Paperback
- Pages: 256 pages, illustrations (black and white, and colour)
- Publisher: Berlitz Publishing Company
- Publication Date: 01/10/2014
- Category: Travel & holiday guides


text:
Oakhurst Dairy Farmers
Oakhurst maintains an unwavering commitment to quality, integrity and stewardship—values that have helped to support our dairy industry and keep our pastures green. We share these values with the dairy farmers who produce our milk and uphold our high quality standards. As you travel through Maine, look for these dairy farms that exclusively produce milk for Oakhurst.
- Aghaloma Farms
Knox, ME
- Battle Ridge Dairy Farm
Canaan, ME
- Bissell Farm
Charleston, ME
- Broadcrest Farm LLC
Ripley, ME
- Cole Farm
Sidney, ME
- D. Suga & Sons Farm
Vassalboro, ME
- Doak Farms
Monroe, ME
- Farrand Farms
Norridgewock, ME
- Fisher Farm
Sabattus, ME
- Flaggy Meadow Farm
Gorham, ME
- Fortin Farm
Albion, ME
- Fourthgen Farms, LLC
St. Albans, ME
- Gold Top Farm
Knox, ME
- Halledge Farm #2
Windham, ME
- Harrison Farm
Arundel, ME
- Hemond Hill Farm
Minot, ME
- Jasumi Farm
Knox, ME
- Jones Farm
Unity, ME
- Lambert Farm
Norridgewock, ME
- Libbyland Dairy
Corinth, ME
- Mantor Farm
Madison, ME
- Maple Lane Farms
Charleston, ME
- Martin Farm
Corinth, ME
- Miller Farm
Leeds, ME
- Mineral Spring Farm
Windham, ME
- Mower Farm
St. Albans, ME
- Noyes Farm
Albion, ME
- Paine Farm
Madison, ME
- Pearson Farm
Albion, ME
- R. Smith Farm
Norridgewock, ME
- R.E. Hemond, Inc.
Minot, ME
- Ray Farm
West Gardiner, ME
- Rocky Ledge Farm
Biddeford, ME
- Scott Farm
Garland, ME
- Silver Maple Farms Inc.
Albion, ME
- Simpson Farm
Corinna, ME
- Springdale Jersey Inc.
Waldo, ME
- Stevens Dairy Farm
China, ME
- Stoneridge Farm
Arundel, ME
- The Wright Place
Clinton, ME
- Thomas Jersey Farm
Dover-Foxcroft, ME
- Veazland Farm
Corinna, ME
- Velgouse Farm
Kenduskeag, ME
- Wide Ruin Farm
Newport, ME
- Williams Farms, Inc.
North Anson, ME
- Winny-Knowl Farm
Windham, ME


text:
MCSO arrests man after two bodies found in burned-out home
Maricopa County Sheriff's deputies have just announced that they have arrested a man in connection to two bodies that were found in the rubble of a burned-out home in Surprise.
Officer Chris Hegstrom with MCSO says Anthony Fimbres faces two counts of second-degree murder.
The fire broke out early Saturday morning on Jomax road, near 155th Avenue.
Flames engulfed the home and fire investigators located a body after the fire was extinguished.
Today, sheriff's deputies announced a second body had been discovered.
"With the structure having burned completely to the ground, we have to go through every bit of rubble to try and determine what it was, what caused this, what the nature of this was, whether this is an arson investigation, or whether it wasn't. Those are all things we need to try and figure out."
The identities of the bodies haven't been released. At this time it is still unclear if they died in the fire or in another manner.


text:
Giants closer Wilson out with inflamed elbow
Giants closer Wilson out with inflamed elbow
ATLANTA -- Giants closer Brian Wilson is expected to be sidelined for at least two days with inflammation in his throwing elbow, manager Bruce Bochy said Wednesday. Wilson received the diagnosis from Dr. James Andrews during a Wednesday trip to the famed orthhopedist's office in Pensacola, Fla. Bochy said that Wilson felt some discomfort in his elbow Monday night, when he allowed three ninth-inning runs and blew a save opportunity in the Giants' 5-4 loss to Atlanta. Bochy added that Wilson still didn't feel right Tuesday, prompting his visit to Andrews, who performed Tommy John elbow surgery on the right-hander in 2003. Andrews' examination verified that Wilson's ailment was not serious.
"It showed just a little inflammation," Bochy said.Bochy sounded confident that Wilson will encounter no long-term ill effects but noted, "We didn't want to risk putting him back out there without getting evaluated." Wilson was due to rejoin the Giants in time for Wednesday night's game against Atlanta.
"I'm sure he's going to want to pitch tonight, but we'll give him a couple of days off -- two or three days," Bochy said.Wilson, a three-time National League All-Star who began this season on the disabled list with a strained left side, has a Major League-high 162 saves in the last four seasons. This year, Wilson has converted 35 saves in 40 chances, though he has fallen short of his previous standards in other statistical categories. His 1.491 WHIP (walks and hits per inning pitched), 5.2 walks per nine innings and 1.68 strikeout-to-walk ratio are his worst since his 2006 rookie season. His average of 8.7 strikeouts per nine innings, while respectable, pales alongside his corresponding figures from 2010 (11.2), 2009 (10.3) and 2008 (9.7). The reigning World Series champions already have been beset by injuries that have affected their lineup, bench, starting rotation and bullpen. Right fielder Carlos Beltran (right hand) and right-handed reliever Sergio Romo (elbow) are on the 15-day disabled list. Second baseman Jeff Keppinger is stymied by a right wrist injury. Third baseman Pablo Sandoval and right fielder Nate Schierholtz are hobbled by bruised right feet. Outfielder Aaron Rowand (strained left side) is limited. No. 5 starter Jonathan Sanchez is nursing a sprained left ankle.
Chris Haft is a reporter for MLB.com. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.


text:
Steven B.wrote a review of Six Six One Evo Pressure Suit on January 21, 2012
great suit
Brought the suit out to a gravel pit for some 11 foot drops in 80 degree weather, when riding downhill and standing around it was extremely comfortable, but got a little warm when climbing or riding though deep sand. After a couple of drops i pulled the chest and spine protector out of it and rode a couple of miles it was no hotter than a reg t-shirt. The arm and shoulder pads stay firmly in place while riding, the chest protector could be a little beefier but it will work. In all this suit is perfect for me, it is light enough without the chest and spine to ride cross country in yet has enough protection with the chest and spine to get stupid with.


text:
DataGridView.RowsDefaultCellStyleChanged Event
.NET Framework 2.0
Note: This event is new in the .NET Framework version 2.0. Occurs when the value of the RowsDefaultCellStyle property changes. Namespace: System.Windows.Forms
Assembly: System.Windows.Forms (in system.windows.forms.dll)
Assembly: System.Windows.Forms (in system.windows.forms.dll)
/** @event */ public void add_RowsDefaultCellStyleChanged (EventHandler value) /** @event */ public void remove_RowsDefaultCellStyleChanged (EventHandler value)
This event occurs when a property of the DataGridViewCellStyle returned by the RowsDefaultCellStyle property is set to a new value or when the RowsDefaultCellStyle property is set to a new DataGridViewCellStyle with at least one property value different than the previous cell style object.
For more information about handling events, see Consuming Events.
Windows 98, Windows 2000 SP4, Windows Millennium Edition, Windows Server 2003, Windows XP Media Center Edition, Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, Windows XP SP2, Windows XP Starter Edition
The .NET Framework does not support all versions of every platform. For a list of the supported versions, see System Requirements.


text:
When new applications are deployed without a common identity infrastructure, security decisions are often made in an ad hoc manner by developers and system administrators. Line-of-business managers cannot ensure that the right people see the right content at the right time. Managers must enforce security policies centrally and apply them locally. Security policies define how users are identified or authenticated, and also which users are authorized to access specific information.
Some services or transactions require stronger forms of authentication than others. For some applications, a name and password might be sufficient. Other applications, for example, those that enable high-value financial transactions, can require increased levels of security. These stronger levels of security can be in the form of a digital certificate and personal identification number (PIN), depending on the information and transactions involved.
Authorization to view certain uniform resource locators (URLs) should be restricted to different sets of users based on the users roles. When roles change, changes to privileges should be propagated across all systems. For example, when an employee changes departments or leaves the company, information about that user should be modified or deleted across all accounts immediately. Inconsistent processes for account deactivation is one of the major security risks that enterprises face every day. When you develop applications with your own individual security and access controls, OpenSSO Enterprise provides a centralized security policy and infrastructure to mitigate the risks from both internal users and external threats.


text:
Hallowed Hell House
How I left behind a Christian childhood to adore Halloween.
The year was 1989, and I was a jack-o'-lantern. Wearing the costume equivalent of footed pajamas and a hat with a stem and felt leaves, I gripped my dad's hand as we walked down the carpeted hallways of our apartment building. I remember the weight of my plastic candy bucket as I held it outstretched toward Frankenstein's monster, witches, and ghosts sporting penny loafers and house slippers. Later that night, I sorted through my sugary loot and decided that Halloween was my favorite day of the year.
The following year, I was a witch. I wore a cape and striped tights. I trick-or-treated with my dad, adjusting my pointy black hat and practicing my cackle before we knocked on each door. I sunk my teeth into spider-shaped cookies alongside my neighborhood friends while our parents chatted and the flicker of crudely carved jack-o'-lanterns cast shadows against the wall. I bobbed for apples with a princess and a Ghostbuster, unaware that this Halloween would be my last.
Something changed in the months that followed. My parents started going to church again. They rededicated their lives to Jesus and became followers of the Word of God. They weren't merely "religious." They became devout. We attended church every Sunday and spent Wednesday nights at prayer meetings. My Disney VHS tapes were replaced by The Greatest Adventure series. My dad started listening to gospel music instead of jazz, and my mom got rid of her Nefertiti necklace in order to adhere to the Second Commandment. They explained that all of this would bring us closer to God, that it would allow for us to guard our ears, our eyes, and our hearts from worldly distractions and sin. Their reignited passion for Jesus meant that I would attend Christian school. It also meant that Halloween was no longer a day of fun. It was unholy, pagan, a doorway to the occult.
Their reignited passion for Jesus meant that I would attend Christian school. It also meant that Halloween was no longer a day of fun.
Soon after, I started kindergarten at a Fundamentalist Baptist school. I learned the pledge to the Christian flag and memorized Proverbs by writing them in cursive. As September eased into October, there was a division among my classmates: those who would spend the 31st as trick-or-treaters and those who would not. Before that I assumed all Christians had the same stance on Halloween — it was a blasphemous day. When I asked my parents about it, they reminded me that not everyone lives according to God's will. "Their ways are not our ways," my mom said before quoting Philippians 4:8. Despite what they told me, I still didn't see any harm in carving pumpkins or going out to trick-or-treat.
The next day, my dad handed me two cartoon Tracts, "Boo" and "The Devil's Night," telling me in a warm but stern voice, "This is why."
Both books recounted the history of Samhain, an ancient tradition described as "a night of terror," filled with "human sacrifice" and "death demons" that could only be warded off by the light of jack-o'-lanterns. "Satan loves Halloween," read "Boo" "[It] draws little kids into his camp." I put down the comics and sighed. My parents and teachers are right, I thought. Halloween was evil, which meant that I couldn't love it anymore.
For the rest of elementary school, I spent Halloween at late-night worship services. I sang hymns and read Bible verses about righteousness and the importance of being set apart from "the world." When friends offered to share their trick-or-treat candy with me, I declined, using the moment to share with them the true meaning of Halloween. I told them that their deeds glorified the devil and that their actions put them in league with him and his followers. Each year when the streets filled with trick-or-treaters, I silently bowed my head and prayed for their immortal souls. Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.
Each year when the streets filled with trick-or-treaters, I silently bowed my head and prayed for their immortal souls.
Despite my pious passion, my distaste for worldly distractions faded as junior high drew nigh. Being a proselytizing outsider since kindergarten had taken its toll on me. After years of Christian school, Bible study, and going to church from sunrise to sunset, I'd had enough. I was tired of being a square and tired of not being able to go to the same movies and listen to the same music as my non-Christian neighborhood friends. The looming threat and immortal danger of secular culture made it all the more fascinating to me and eventually, like the Old Testament's Eve, I reached for the forbidden fruit.
By the time I was in eighth grade, I had developed a crush on a mall goth and fallen in love with "the darkness." I hid copies of Stephen King novels behind my Bible during study hall, started watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and drew hexagrams on my homework. I listened to Antichrist Superstar instead of hymns. I became a backslider, and my parents noticed. They attempted to shake some sense into me. So that Halloween, I was dropped off at church to attend a hell house, the evangelical version of a haunted house, with my youth group.
I became a backslider, and my parents noticed.
Squished beside my church friends, I pressed my forehead against the minivan's backseat window as we drove through winding country roads toward a mega-church that our youth pastor, Stretch, enthusiastically swore had the best hell house in the state. Once we were inside the gymnasium-sized sanctuary, Stretch waved his arms to get our attention. "All right, kids," he shouted. "Follow me!"
I fell in line with the rest of the group as he led us into a dark room. Then I heard the click of the door. Eerie music swelled as an angel appeared. She told us that she would be our guide, that we would witness the horror of a life without God. "Remember," she told us, "the wages of sin is death." She led us to a series of rooms where we watched a girl and her boyfriend drink beer, a group of kids play with a Ouija board on All Hallows Eve, and a group of jocks take hits from a communal bong. I rolled my eyes.
"Remember," she told us, "the wages of sin is death."
Then our angel guided us toward the last scene of the play, her crooked wings tilting with each step. The final destination was a red-lit room. At each corner stood men wearing monster masks. They hissed as we passed them, their hands gripping plastic whips and Styrofoam chains. We were reunited with the pot-smoking jocks, the boozy lovebirds, and the Ouija-board-toting campers. Their faces were covered in soot, and their hands were shackled.
Nearly in unison, they bellowed, crying out for their parents, pleading for salvation. "Behold, the fruit of the flesh," the angel stated, gesturing toward the shackled sinners. Soon after, the devil emerged. Painted red from head to hoof, he stalked through the room, laughing at his prisoners. "Welcome to Hell," he shouted, walking closer to the audience. "Your God can't save you now! It's too late!"
As he inched near us, the girl beside me started to cry. Our angel kneeled beside her. "Remember," she whispered, "we are called to be in the world but not of it. Resist the devil and he will flee." She stood, the lights came on, and we were ushered out of the room into a parking lot filled with concession stands, youth pastors, and pamphlets on the dangers of drugs, sex, and Halloween.
I sat on the ground, eating funnel cake with my friends as Stretch devoured a hot dog. "So, did you guys learn anything?"
"So, did you guys learn anything?"
During high school I became a full-blown doubting Thomas, and, as my mom would say, I hardened my heart toward God. I listened to death metal and hard-core, watched R-rated movies without guilt, and ate my meals without saying grace. At this point in my life, the divine love of Christ didn't feel like it was powerful enough to soothe the sting of my teen angst. I got sick of turning the other cheek and following the golden rule. For years I'd put up with racist behavior from classmates and prejudiced judgment from my teachers. My faith had been a source of hope—but it had begun to leave me feeling hollow and cold. I hung up my halo, and Halloween became a catalyst. It wasn't just an act of rebellion, it was self-preservation.
A decade later, I'm standing in line at a crowded Spirit Halloween Superstore. "The Monster Mash" plays in a loop from a crackling pair of speakers. I place a glow-in-the-dark plastic skull, a tube of black lipstick, and a bag of witch fingers on the counter. I smile at the cashier before asking if they have a student discount. They answer, no. After making my purchase, I head back to my apartment to help my roommate cover our walls in fake spiderwebs and orange string lights. We listen to The Exorcist soundtrack on vinyl and discuss our plans for costumes. That weekend, I dress as a zombie one day and Wednesday Addams the next. I go to parties, eat candy, and drink beer out of plastic skull cups until the witching hour. On my way home from the subway, I spot a Tract on the ground. It's printed on orange paper with a clip-art image of a witch on a broomstick hovering above its title, "The Truth About Halloween." I pick it up, brush it off, and smile before cramming it into my bag between candy wrappers and a plastic hand.
Dianca Potts is an assistant at Lenny.


text:
- Home
- Education
- Handbook
- Almanac
- Publications
- Shop
- About
- Get Involved
HUNTSVILLE MALE INSTITUTE. Huntsville Male Institute was chartered on March 16, 1848, when the board of trustees of Huntsville Male and Female Institute separated the male and female departments. Samuel McKinley, superintendent, planned to develop the school into a seminary patterned after northern colleges. It operated until 1850, when it was absorbed into Austin College.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:William Franklin Ledlow, History of Protestant Education in Texas (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, 1926).
Image Use Disclaimer
All copyrighted materials included within the Handbook of Texas Online are in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 related to Copyright and "Fair Use" for Non-Profit educational institutions, which permits the Texas State Historical Association (TSHA), to utilize copyrighted materials to further scholarship, education, and inform the public. The TSHA makes every effort to conform to the principles of fair use and to comply with copyright law.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
The following, adapted from the Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition, is the preferred citation for this article.Handbook of Texas Online, "Huntsville Male Institute," accessed November 23, 2017, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/kch17.
Uploaded on June 15, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association.