I feel that copying with a .bat file is faster than doing it normally. Is this true? If it is how much faster can it be? Can anyone kindly give me some more explanation why it is faster?
nope, it is not faster.
if you take out all other variables (such as running demanding programs while trying to copy stuff) then speed is exactly the same.
start timing from the moment of pressing 'ctrl+v' or double clicking the batch file, under the same scenario with the same file(s) being copied will not result in any speed increase.
Tip: DO NOT waste your time looking for a faster way to copy files, although people would have you believe it, there is no magical method of program free or paid that is suddenly going to improve the speed through algorithms or whatever they claim to use. programs like these are much the same as programs that claim "600% pc speed increase" by 'cleaning' your registry.
so to summarise:
there's no difference in the time it takes to copy other than the process you use, e.g. depending on what you're copying if it's quicker to ctrl+c/v then use that, if it's quicker to make a batch file then do it that way, 9/10 copy/paste will make more sense but some lengthy repetitive tasks can be helped with the batch file method.
hope this helps,
I'll say equal, the data transfer speed will depend on the hardware your PC consist of.
Yes, I'm not sure if it is faster or not but I just felt I was faster when I tried copying the same file to the same hard drive, so I asked to find out if it is true.
yes..it is faster.
Thanks but any reasons why?
batch file copying and windows copying are basically copying through the same interface - windows , so the copy time should be almost nearly equal , it only makes difference when you are using third party softwares for copying.
Thanks for your good answer. It answer my question.
Some relevant articles on alternative file copiers you might find useful are below.
Thanks, but I don't need it.
Directly copying should be faster. Also you Extreme Copy. See the review of best copying softwares here:http://goo.gl/ITniF
There's a certain overhead in copying via Explorer which can make it a little slower than xcopy. If speed is important to you though, you should use a fast file copier such as TeraCopy or (see list on http://www.techmalaya.com/2008/06/11/windows-file-copy-faster-speed/).
Quote "There’s a certain overhead in copying via Explorer which can make it a little slower than xcopy"
Yes, this should answer my question.
using simultaneous threads can do file copy faster
Thanks for your kind suggestion, but I want to compare the speed (transfer rate) between running batch file (xcopy...) vs copy and paste.
Robocopy vs Xcopy comparison and batch files
For repetitively copying the same files, a .bat is faster. But for one-time copying of random files, highlighting and Copy To works faster overall, IMO. If the .bat coding time is included, any speed advantage is lost. The speed of the actual copy process is determined by the slowest interface involved, usually the PATA or SATA.
I mean the transfer rate not easier it is.
I've heard of file copying software such as Teracopy that are supposed to improve copy speeds by using different algorithms. On how a .bat file does that, well it's something I've never heard of. Sometimes a perceived speed increase can be nothing more than a placebo so if you want to determine how 'fast' a transfer actually is, use benchmarks.
I think what you should consider is the speed of your hard disk. Read and write speeds will greatly determine how fast you are able to duplicate or transfer files.
Thanks for your kind answer and suggestion. In fact, I know some of third party software to do the job, but I only want to know if copying files using a batch file is faster than copying is manually via copying and pasting.