Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: TeraCopy vs FastCopy vs Windows

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,442

    Lightbulb TeraCopy vs FastCopy vs Windows

    A nice read....





    and are two popular tools designed to speed up file copy/move operations under Windows. We have opposed them in a series of tests in order to determine which runs the job at a faster pace.

    Relying on the option available in Windows operating system is the default choice for most computer users, especially if the file copy/move job involves a small number of items that do not weigh too much. In this case, using a third party solution would not make too much of a difference as the transfer speed gap is not significant.

    Things are a bit different, though, when we’re dealing with large folders containing thousands of small files. We prepared a directory containing 78,125 files spread across 19,530 folders (1.35GB).

    A smaller batch of just 278MB, containing 15,625 items scattered in 3,905, was also used during testing as a verification of the accuracy of the results. For large files, we employed an item of 1.09GB.

    Although the goal for which they’ve been created is the same, these two file handlers come with a fairly different set of features and options available. One aspect setting them apart is blending into the operating system.

    TeraCopy does a better job at this as it can substitute the default solution in Windows altogether. It also creates an entry in the file and folder context menu allowing for easier access to transfer operation. Right-click access is available in FastCopy, too, but by doing this you will have to give up its portability.

    FastCopy's ace up the sleeve though is that it offers multiple file transfer functions; it can be used not only for copy/move tasks, but also for synchronization of data in two locations as well as file destruction beyond recovery.

    Moreover, configuration settings weigh heavy for FastCopy, as they allow you to tweak the buffer and I/O size as well as adjust the transfer speed.

    After several tests using the aforementioned sets of file batches the results were clear as day. FastCopy dominated all challenges as it pushed the files from one location to another on the same hard disk at amazing rates. TeraCopy followed at a safe distance in almost all tests.

    However, in order to determine the efficiency of the runner-up we also put Windows’ tool to the test. As expected, it came in last, but not a shameful third place though, as it was quite close to TeraCopy’s results and it even dealt better with the copying of larger chunks.

    Using the largest set of data (78,125 files in 19,530 folders amounting 1.35GB), FastCopy managed to transfer the items in 5’23’’, which was more than one minute quicker than what TeraCopy accomplished (6’48’’). Windows Explorer was not too shabby on this one as it finished the task in exactly 7 minutes.

    We noticed that TeraCopy spent plenty of time reading the data before starting the actual process (averaged at 40 seconds). But even when only the copy process was taken into consideration, it didn’t beat FastCopy’s worst time.

    Changing the operation mode to moving the items from one volume to another did not alter the ranking; on the contrary, it consolidated FastCopy’s position as leader.

    However, when it came to copying and moving the 1.09GB file, things changed a bit as TeraCopy fell on the third spot totaling 32’’. The difference between FastCopy and the default solution in Windows was set by a very thin line, the former averaging 27.6’’ while Microsoft’s tool clocked in 29’’. The results for move operation were fairly the same and did not affect the ranking for this sort of data.

    Moving the tests to the smaller batch of files (15,625 items in 3,905 folders), the initial conclusion was not altered at all. FastCopy maintained its leading position by copying the 278MB in 39’’, followed by TeraCopy which completed the task a second over one minute; Windows Explorer remained the slowest of the bunch managing to process the data in 1’18’’, double the speed of the leader.
    Conclusion:

    Both and have been created as alternatives to faster copying moving files than what Microsoft bundles in Windows. And it looks like they both succeed in doing their job, recording faster times for completing file copy/move jobs than Windows Explorer as long as no large chunks are involved.

    During our tests FastCopy placed itself at a very safe distance from the runner-up and managed to take the lead in all challenges, even if sometimes this was by a whisker. TeraCopy also showed skills when copying small bits spread across multiple folders, but lost the battle against large files in favor of Windows Explorer.

    Feature-wise FastCopy dominates the contest offering by far more choices to the average user than TeraCopy. However, one clear advantage the latter has over the former is integration in the operating system by becoming the default file copy/move service.

    By contrast, FastCopy is limited to placing shell extensions in the context menu and the operation is not completed as seamlessly as in the case of TeraCopy.

    Regarding transfer speed, FastCopy is definitely the choice regardless of the type of files you choose to copy from one place to another.
    Source:

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    49
    seems like they made a mixup either in the graph or text regarding Teracopy and Windows moving the single file. Regardless, it looks like FastCopy is much better than either. i've been using teracopy for a while, and i really like how well it integrates with windows, but i will definitely have to give fastcopy a try and see if the speed gains outweigh the ease of integration issue. Thanks for sending along this information!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    India
    Posts
    244
    Thanks for the info sir.I have used Tera copy before but after seeing the results must try Fast copy.;DD:

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    16
    Im using the Pro version of TeraCopy, works great

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    131
    currently using pro here myself for Teracopy.. must say..noticed it went up from 16mbs or so from the free one to nearly 30mbs or so.... didn't pay attention if that was a feature of upgrading to pro..but must say it appears faster.. also wondering if above tests were used with free version as well.. if so.. then if using pro, would take a guess that the numbers would be differently drastically..

  6. #6
    Which version of Windows was this tested on? I know Tera Copy has horrible performance on Win7. Seems the developers of TC aren't too keen to update their software anymore.... 2.2 has been in beta 3 status for about 4 months now.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    274
    FastCopy's GUI is not too good, IMHO. It is as if it were not meant for newer generation of Windows.
    Last edited by corker; 18-01-11 at 02:32 PM. Reason: wrong grammar

  8. #8

    Speed Comparison on Windows 7

    Fast Copy 2.06 vs Tera Copy Pro 2.2 beta3 vs Win7 (64-bit) vs Directory Opus 9.5.5 (64-bit)

    Environment: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
    Copying to a different Hard Drive
    Small files count: 14065 (size of 12 Gigs in total)
    Medium files: Several files ranging from 350MB - 700MB per file (total size 8 Gigs)
    Large files: Several files ranging from 3Gigs to 8 Gigs per file (total size 31 Gigs)

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Windows 7 Ultimate (64-bit)
    5 min 45 sec - Small files (12 Gigs)
    2 min 7 sec - Medium files (8 Gigs)
    8 min 3 sec - Large files (31 Gigs)

    FastCopy 2.06
    4 min 20 sec - Small files (12 Gigs)
    2 min 3 sec - Medium files (8 Gigs)
    8 min 2 sec - Large files (31 Gigs)

    TeraCopy Pro 2.2 Beta 3
    7 min - Small files (12 Gigs)
    2 min 40 sec - Medium files (8 Gigs)
    10 min 29 sec - Large files (31 Gigs)

    Directory Opus 9.5.5 (64-bit)
    6 min 31 sec - Small files (12 Gigs)
    2 min 9 sec - Medium files (8 Gigs)
    8 min 22 sec - Large files (31 Gigs)

    Conclusion:
    TeraCopy: Can’t match Win7 copying speed. It's only usefulness now is its extra features. Pity, because it was very good on XP.
    Windows 7: Very good copying speeds, but suffers when copying lots of small files.
    FastCopy: Wins in every category!! Not as pretty as the others, but it gets the job done the fastest and has lots of extra features.
    Directory Opus: Can’t match Win7 copying.
    Last edited by zordon; 24-01-11 at 11:04 AM. Reason: Couldn't paste an excel file

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    120
    Still using TeraCopy 2.12 with WinXP

    Never gave a problem, always handy while transferring large files, no need to baby-sit the PC thru the entire transfer process

    Start the transfer process and let TeraCopy do its thing, any file that cant be copied is shown in the dropdown menu

    Life would be hard without this piece of great software

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Raghav View Post
    Still using TeraCopy 2.12 with WinXP

    Never gave a problem, always handy while transferring large files, no need to baby-sit the PC thru the entire transfer process

    Start the transfer process and let TeraCopy do its thing, any file that cant be copied is shown in the dropdown menu

    Life would be hard without this piece of great software
    Same here. Been using Tera copy for a long time on XP

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •