Why is Alt*p Sal*m*nder so much faster?

[knnknn]

So the only thing I didn't state, was that the files were 10 bytes, sheesh.

No, the main thing that you didn't do AND STILL DIDN'T DO is to compare the speed to AS.

[jjk]

Why k**k** is so much cantankerous ?
Balderstrom tries to help you but no thank since the beginning of this topic.
Perhaps Balderstrom has not AS.

[Postkutscher]

Yes, I think this is one of the reasons why TC is so slow: Because it displays every name.

Exactly. If you want to spare the time on displaying , just hide TC`s window when copiing such a number of files.

Why is Alt*p Sal*m*nder so much faster?

Because it is simple as a stone compared with computer (TC).

[knnknn]

Exactly. If you want to spare the time on displaying , just hide TC`s window when copiing such a number of files.

So instead of actually making TC faster you tell me to hide it?

Hahaha.

Why is Alt*p Sal*m*nder so much faster?

Because it is simple as a stone compared with computer (TC).

What a nonsense.

[Balderstrom]

Honestly KnnKnn, I could care less about your problems with your view of TC's "perceived" speed. You've been nothing but a complete Ass throughout this whole thread.
I'm never going to delete 100,000 10byte files. Let alone 50,000 let alone 25,000, let alone 10,000 of any sized file at one given time.

I did multiple tests previously of 50,000 Files, and with Explorer Delete method enabled, TC functions at about the same speed as ShitSalamander. Give or Take 5 or 10 seconds. To me that indicates there isn't a problem. And you are just an arrogant twit that likes to kvetch.

So go do it elsewhere, where someone might give a damn.

Salamander is a crap program. It went 2 years with no update whatsoever. And it has Bogus marketing on its site comparing it to Total Commander 6.0 that was released 6 years ago. And even the comparison to v6.0 is wildly inaccurate.

[mod]Keep it down. You have no right to be rude to others.

Hacker (Moderator)[/mod]

[Boofo]

2Balderstrom,
kvetch is my new word for the day. I had never heard that one before. Good call!

[petermad]

2Boofo

kvetch is my new word for the day. I had never heard that one before

Maybe because you don't live in New Jersey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kvetch

[Boofo]

2petermad
You would think with all the Amish here in Iowa that that word would be filtering down this way eventually.

[Deckard Cain]

Myself a long time user of TC was confronted with AS via a customer of ours; in the end I gave it a shot because the person in question constantly referred to AS but that 'picknick' ended in a desaster.

As for why AS is faster, you should ask nilOS (sic!), one of the Altap founders. But then he never actually answers questions when it comes to problems ... he only gives off marketing blurbs and yada yada nonsense (avoiding the obvious) like when confronted with questions on how a person could loose content of one complete drive by using AS for example.

File functions can be coded via OS bottleneck, semi-legal cross country or 'hotrod style' via direct FAT manipulation. The latter gives you a 2000 hp car without steering wheel, brakes or airbag and only one gear named fast forward. All is fine until something happens and as Ascrap Salamander in some functions simply dumps *all* security measures and protocols for speed, you get what you paid for: data loss big time.

What happened to us was a power cut during operation, harmless enough under Windoze/TC: startup, disk scan, then warning blurb under Windows. However in our case with AS the system started only with a warning blurb under Windows and did not comment on the 'slipped disk' which in fact was itself not mounted as active drive and was found to be 'unformatted'.

In the end it took a tech guy over 30 minutes to find that the HD FAT was (a) internally corrupt and (b) illegally truncated. The customer was lucky that the backup FAT (accessible by manufacturer SW) could be reset, saving several GB of data. As that was company data it had been backed previously, but some other content on the drive was unsaved and I might add that not every user has the same resources as we had so getting a crashed disk back can be expensive for home users. After knowing the cause/effect, the error was reproduced and AS blacklisted.

Every user with common sense should prefer a good, proven and secure file manager when opted with a flashy but crappy excuse for long and expensive service hours. Even our company that gets paid for dealing with such cases advises people to stay on the safe side as informing customers of possible threats to data integrity is part of our service.

D.C.

[HolgerK]

Why is TC so slow when it comes to deleting many (shift+del) files or copying many small files?

Any chance that you enabled logging for copy & delete operations in TC?
In this special case with 100,000 files @ 10 bytes, the amount of data written to the log file may be a multiple of the copied bytes!

Regards
Holger

[Boofo]

Why is TC so slow when it comes to deleting many (shift+del) files or copying many small files?

Any chance that you enabled logging for copy & delete operations in TC?
In this special case with 100,000 files @ 10 bytes, the amount of data written to the log file may be a multiple of the copied bytes!

Regards
Holger

So you're saying that copying and deleting would be faster with logging disabled for that?

[Clo]

2Deckard Cain

Hello ! Welcome aboard !

• Thank you for this story¦account, it's always good to hear what can happen in such risky handlings…

 Kind regards
Claude
Clo

[HolgerK]

So you're saying that copying and deleting would be faster with logging disabled for that?

Definitely Yes!

I did a test using 100 folder, each with 1000 files @ 10Byte size (first run not measured, so all source files were cached by the system).
Vista x86 / TC7.50pb7:

a) (modal progress dialog) log file enabled:

Code: Select all

	Copy 		241 sec
	ShiftDel	 61 sec 

b) (modal progress dialog) log file disabled:

Code: Select all

	Copy 		221 sec
	ShiftDel	 48 sec 

c) [Background] log file enabled:

Code: Select all

	Copy 		166 sec
	ShiftDel	 52 sec

d) [Background] log file disabled:

Code: Select all

	Copy 		147 sec
	ShiftDel	 37 sec 

e) using explorer method:

Code: Select all

	Copy		190 sec
	ShiftDel	 33 sec

Vista is known for his relative slow copy operations, so may be the impact of disabling the log file in XP is more noticeable.

Regards
Holger

[Clo]

2HolgerK

Hello !

…In this special case with 100,000 files @ 10 bytes, the amount of data written to the log file may be a multiple of the copied bytes!

• You are totally right ! And it's worse in French (and German, and other languages I guess),
since i.e. here only the word “Delete :” (Supprimer :) takes 11 bytes “as is” as plain text, +date, + path in the log file…
…actually more, it's UTF-8 in TC 7.5.

 KR
Claude
Clo

[Boofo]

2HolgerK,

I run XP Pro SP3. Other than the log file for Copy/Move/Creat Shortcut, what other log file operations are good to uncheck?