Actually, I'm not going to answer your question but I'd like to repeat it.
I got so enthusiastic upon reading posts here that I downloaded the tool and tested it myself. My findings didn't live up to my expectations, and I didn't post here in order not to disappoint others, but I really timed the copy operations using large and small files on my SATA2 7200 drive and from SATA2 7200 to USB 5400. It's not that I found no difference but in some tests Dopus was faster then TeraCopy.
Please note that this is my own observations (findings), others may experience something different but I really don't know why.
Well, on my IDE only system, I saw a marked improvement using TeraCopy.
And from the posts of others, they too saw this same dramatic improvement.
Would you try testing the speeds just using one drive? Copy a large file, let's say a file that is about 700M from one directory on any of your SATA2 drives, to another directory on that same drive, using TeraCopy. Time how long it takes. Then do the same exact thing, but using Opus's built in copy function.
My initial reactions were based on a couple of quick tests using large files on my SATA2 drives, and they did seem to bear out Oblias' results.
However, since Leo's last post, I decided to be a lot more stringent in evaluating my results. I have now carried out a series of tests, mostly with large files, some from one folder to another on the same drive, some from one drive to another on the same PC, and some from a network node to my PC, some from one network node to another, and finally a collection of files, small and large from one network node to another.
The upshot - for me there is almost no difference between DOpus and TeraCopy, with one exception. In the (relatively rare) case of repeating a copy, between two folders on the same drive, DOpus took advantage of caching, and the result was almost instantaneous, whereas TeraCopy took the same time to repeat a copy as it did initially.
So, to quote another response from Greg, "I think you are all looking at Emperor's New Clothes:)" Yes, Greg. I think you are right.
Then it would seem that TeraCopy does not give a particular advantage to folks with SATA2 drives.
Perhaps it is of use only for us folks with IDE drives? I re-ran my tests, and still see a performance increase of at least 60%, and most of the time, up around 75%.
Oh well, speaking for myself only, it is still of value, and most definitely worth using. At least, until I can get a laptop with a SATA2 drive in it, rather than the one I have with an IDE drive.
Seeming like this part of the topic could be split off and moved to the Cofeeshop or Support forum...
Anyhow, the copy queue functionality alone is reason enough to give it some attention. And running multiple separate copy operations at the same time time to and fro against the same drives in serialized/queued fashion should yield obvious "overall" performance benefit... But all on it's lonesome I just don't see how TC could be doing anything crazy to make a single large file copy to and from the same drive (IDE/SATA/SCSI, whatever...) any faster than Opus.
I'm trying a test now on my laptop (but unfortunately, it's also got a SATA2 drive, though 5400 rpm) with a 579 MB ISO image.
I copied the same file to the same target folders with Opus and then TC 4 times in a row for each app, and while there was some variation, they both averaged out at around 54 seconds. On one of the copies Opus was faster than TC by about 3 seconds, and in another back-to-back copy TC was about 7 seconds faster than Opus...
Maybe there IS some buffering things that TC might be doing differently on IDE drives, but don't have a way to test that... sounds fishy to me.
ERROR MESSAGE when trying to use TeraCopy on DOPUS button
==============================================
Windows cannot find '<?xml.' Make sure you typed the name correctly.....\
==============================================
Anyone get this and more importantly, how can I fix it??
T.I.A.
sigmundtheseamonster, see the sticky post at the top of the Buttons & Toolbars forum, called How to add buttons from this forum to your toolbars, for instructions on what to do with he XML.
Are there any known speed issues when using TeraCopy to move/copy files to or from mapped network drives? I've just installed TeraCopy 2.0 b4 from their homepage and I'm getting slow transfers to and from my mapped network drives. When copying a 700MB file to the mapped network drive I'm getting 2.0 MB/sec and when copying a 700MB file from the network drive to a local drive I'm getting 8.5 MB/sec. The network is 100 Mbit, when I use Windows Explorer to move files I get 11-12MB/sec constant (measured using the "Network Utilization" gadget for Vista). When I do a copy on my local drives (either from one local drive to another or a copy to and from the same local drive) I'm getting very good speeds.
My details:
OS: Windows Vista Home Premium 32 bit
Directory Opus version: 9.1.1.7.3307 (installed today, no updated available)
TeraCopy version: 2.0 b4
This is exactly the sort of thing I have been looking for to use with Opus. No more blocking the lister with a progress window, and everything is queued.
The only problem I have is that Opus does not seem to update network drives when file actions are taken with TetraCopy.
It's an issue that also affects other programs. For example, if I unpack an archive with WinRAR from the context menu Opus does not update the lister to show the extracted files. If I press F5 it is refreshed and the files appear.
It only happens on network shares. It makes no difference if they are mounted with drive letters or just accessed by UNC path.
See Changes to folders are not always detected in the FAQs. If you still have problems please create a new thread for them in Help & Support as it's not really related to these TeraCopy buttons.
I just discovered TeraCopy here and I'm so grateful to this forum. It's a great tool and I will use from now on, on my large file operations. I do see a speed difference when copying/moving SATA/USB.
For me, a 3:30 min operation with DOpus, takes 3:00 with TeraCopy.
Are you sure TeraCopy is configured to copy the same information? e.g. Copying file attributes & timestamps can have a significant effect on copy speed with a lot of files.
No I didn't pay attention to the file attributes & timestamps. I didn't touch anything. Just using the default settings.
After a while I'm also noticing that sometimes TeraCopy when moves files, doesn't delete the small source files. It doesn't happen all the time. But sometimes par2 files rest behind.
I checked, TeraCopy keeps the original timestamps and attributes and is still faster for me. (But that little bug of not deleting small files is strange!)
