3 ms·
On XP - perhaps, but on Windows 7 and up FastCopy and TeraCopy are both slower than or marginally comparable to robocopy, which is a built-in bulk copying tool.
by eps 13y ago
On XP - perhaps, but on Windows 7 and up FastCopy and TeraCopy are both slower than or marginally comparable to robocopy, which is a built-in bulk copying tool. Microsoft did an amazing job with it in W7, robocopy is really damn fast.
- InTheSwiss 13y agoI have used Robocopy to move over 300TB of data round recently and not a single error. Robocopy is at UNIX level stability. Really a kick ass tool.
- cpbotha 13y agoAre you sure about that? It's hard to find benchmarks, but things seem to point in the direction of fastcopy still being faster. See e.g. http://www.sepago.de/e/helge/2011/05/17/fastcopy-free-file-copy-tool-runs-circles-around-explorer http://www.sepago.de/e/helge/2011/05/17/fastcopy-free-file-c... (robocopy comparison at the end) Would be great to see benchmarks of course! :)
- eps 13y agoYeah, positive. Just ran a quick test copying 3GB .iso from local HDD to USB3 drive. fastcopy - 152 sec (average of 3 fastest runs out of 4) robocopy - 65 sec Incidentaly, tried the same with my backup program and it's 62 seconds, faster than both.