Print 78 comment(s) - last by icanhascpu.. on Sep 6 at 7:08 AM

Windows team manager Alex Simons gives the public a taste of file management in Windows 8.  (Source: MSDN/Microsoft)

The new client consolidates your mess of Windows into a single neat GUI pane.  (Source: MSDN/Microsoft)

You can now get details galore on copy speed and more.  (Source: MSDN/Microsoft)

There's also a new interface for selectively resolving file conflicts.  (Source: MSDN/Microsoft)
All sorts of new additions should reduce pain and clutter when copying files with Win 8

Anyone who's ever had to prepare for a reinstall of their Windows OS -- be it to prepare for an upgrade, or to try to solve technical issues -- is familiar with the pain of slow copies, dealing with at times confusing name collisions, and multiple cluttering Windows.

Microsoft Corp. (
MSFT) is very aware of these issues (in recent years it's increasingly collected remote telemetry data from volunteers to determine what's going wrong and right in Windows).  And in Windows 8, its plan is to offer a dramatically improved file transfer experience.

In a post to the Microsoft Developer Network "Building Windows" 
blog and a corresponding video, Windows engineering team manager Alex Simons shows off the new features.

When executing multiple simultaneous copies, gone are the multiple windows of yore.  You now get a single comprehensive panel.  Each transfer element offers the option of cancelling or pausing the transfer.  For example, if you want to speed up a specific transfer, you can pause your other transfers so the system resources will focus on the targeted transaction.

The GUI element also has an option to provide detailed information on each transaction, including an eye-catching chart of the transfer speed.  The features in the new pane closely resemble those you find in modern browsers for tracking downloads -- and it's a good thing.

Rounding out the improvements is a new option for handling conflicts.  In addition to the replace all and skip all categories found in Windows 7, there's now an option "Choose the files to keep in the destination folder".  This allows for users to select the copy they most want.  This allows you to selectively replace only some files in the destination folder.  You can even double click to open files for further examination.

Microsoft says the new tools will be a valuable addition to Windows 8 as 20 percent of file transfers in previous versions of Windows take longer than 2 minutes to complete.  Further, about 1 in 18 jobs fails, either due to a network interruption or by user cancellation.

The company also acknowledges it's estimates of the remaining time to copy haven't been the best in the past, making it the butt of some jokes in that regard.  Mr. Simons writes, "We’re anticipating that many of you are going to want to know what we’ve done to improve the accuracy of the estimated time remaining for a copy to complete. (This has been the source of some pretty funny 
jokes over the years)."

Microsoft says while approximate 1 out of 200 Windows users use a dedicated copying client -- like TeraCopy, FastCopy, and Copy Handler -- whose abilities may surpass the new additions, for most this will be the first relief from the previous hassle-prone copying.

The team is also working to reduce dialogues labeled by users as "redundant" or "annoying", such as the confirmation of dropping stuff in the recycling bin, or the confirmation of merging folders.

Windows 8 is set to 
release in late 2012 and has been called "revolutionary" by some Microsoft team members and the company's "riskiest" product by Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer.  The OS will be Microsoft's first operating system to support ARM processors, the first OS to incorporate the stylish metro look, and the first Microsoft OS streamlined for a better tablet experience.

If for some reason you feel some of these new features sound horrible, don't worry.  We've heard Microsoft should be conducting 
a public beta testing/feedback phase for Windows 8 early next year, following in the footsteps of the tremendously successful Windows 7 beta.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Im still waiting for
By quiksilvr on 8/26/2011 7:33:48 AM , Rating: 2
This is one thing I never understood. You can just CLICK the Folder icon button and all the folders that are open with names (and visual aid, if you wish) will pop up. I find this more ideal than filling up the taskbar with different folders. And when you set it to "never combine", you risk mixing in other programs (browsers, word documents, etc) into the mix, making it harder to find what you are looking for.

RE: Im still waiting for
By heffeque on 8/26/2011 8:47:46 AM , Rating: 3
I've always wanted a damn PAUSE button.

Every other OS should copy this, PLEASE!!!

RE: Im still waiting for
By Solandri on 8/26/2011 9:17:44 AM , Rating: 3
You can get a pause button right now:

As a bonus, it can do copy-verify (instead of just copy like Windows does). And if any file fails to copy, it won't abort in the middle of a huge copy leaving you wondering what's been copied and what hasn't. It'll finish off the rest of the copy, then present you with a list of which files didn't copy, giving you the option to try them (and only them) again.

RE: Im still waiting for
By Topweasel on 8/26/2011 10:13:29 AM , Rating: 2
Windows hasn't killed a copy over a single file since Vista came out.

RE: Im still waiting for
By Cypherdude1 on 8/27/2011 3:41:29 AM , Rating: 2
I don't really like the simpler interface of the Windows 7 Explorer. I prefer the Windows XP Explorer interface with the button bar (copy, paste, cut, etc...) and the status bar which specifies how many bytes each folder occupies.

The only way to find out how many bytes are in each Windows 7 folder is to right-click on it and choose properties. Apparently, Microsoft has simplified Explorer to try to appeal to everyone and has satisfied no one.

BTW, I really haven't done any searches yet, but is there any way in Windows 7 to bring back the Windows XP Explorer button and status bars?

RE: Im still waiting for
By bodar on 8/28/2011 9:12:02 AM , Rating: 2
The only way to find out how many bytes are in each Windows 7 folder is to right-click on it and choose properties.

Not entirely true. You can also mouse over it to show size. I prefer to list files in Details View and display the Size attribute right next to the filename. There's some other customizations in Organize > Folder and search options

I disagree that no one is happy. I love the new Explorer, especially Libraries and Breadcrumbs.

Actually there's a 3rd party app that does what you want with Explorer buttons. I can't vouch for it, but it might be worth a shot if you don't like using keyboard shortcuts for Cut/Copy/Paste.

RE: Im still waiting for
By Valahano on 8/28/2011 9:51:59 AM , Rating: 2
There's also an open source Classic Shell extension. Up button, classic start menu, status bar, etc.

RE: Im still waiting for
By Cypherdude1 on 8/27/2011 3:44:53 AM , Rating: 3
Windows hasn't killed a copy over a single file since Vista came out.
I've owned 3.1, 95, 98, 98SE, XP, and now 7. What is this Vista you speak of?


RE: Im still waiting for
By e36Jeff on 8/27/2011 5:54:51 PM , Rating: 5
it was a windows 7 alpha build, not many people have used it.

RE: Im still waiting for
By StanO360 on 8/29/2011 2:21:11 PM , Rating: 2
I had fully updated Vista on a laptop and it worked great. Then I put 7 on it, it was not a dramatic difference, but subtle.

RE: Im still waiting for
By jonmcc33 on 8/26/11, Rating: 0
RE: Im still waiting for
By aharris02 on 8/26/2011 11:07:30 AM , Rating: 2
Right, because pause is clearly the same thing as cancel.

RE: Im still waiting for
By jonmcc33 on 8/26/11, Rating: -1
RE: Im still waiting for
By inighthawki on 8/26/2011 2:06:55 PM , Rating: 3
Oh, so when you copy a 4.5GB ISO file over a slow network connection, clicking stop at 90% is the same thing? Last I checked, recopying 100% of 4.5GB is a whole lot longer than finishing the last 10%.

Your "common sense" statement also doesn't make any sense in any scenario that isn't managed. Ever been to a LAN where you have groups of people all transferring things all the time? Network bandwidth gets thrashed quite heavily if you don't throttle it properly, and nobody wants to stop their 10 minute transfers half way through to let the other person finish his first. Pausing, on the other hand is a completely acceptable solution. I seriously cannot believe you are naive enough to believe there is no use for pausing, or even that you think stopping and pausing are even remotely the same thing.

RE: Im still waiting for
By jonmcc33 on 8/26/11, Rating: 0
RE: Im still waiting for
By inighthawki on 8/26/2011 2:53:11 PM , Rating: 2
I was actually referring to a LAN party, not just a "LAN" connection. You would be retarded to setup FTP connections between people that are going to leave in 12-16 hours, not to mention rebooting and getting new IP addresses. Even on a gigabit network running at full speed you're talking about 40-45 seconds per ISO. Add in anyone wanting to do anything at all on their hard drive, copy a second file, or use the network any further, it will substantially increase. Often the file transfers are much larger, and will easily take 10 minutes each if poorly coordinated. And when people want things quickly, compromises must be made.

RE: Im still waiting for
By jonmcc33 on 8/26/11, Rating: -1
RE: Im still waiting for
By inighthawki on 8/26/2011 3:44:56 PM , Rating: 2
1. Was just a single example of many situations where "pause" is applicable.

2. In other words you realize my second point was right so you use an excuse as pathetic as pretending that "childish name calling" is a valid reason to stop reading a post. Not sure what kind of "high class" people you must hang out with to never hear someone say that word. I apologize if that offended you or something.

RE: Im still waiting for
By Samus on 8/26/2011 4:42:24 PM , Rating: 2

RE: Im still waiting for
By JediJeb on 8/26/2011 2:44:08 PM , Rating: 3
I was backing up some data files across our network in the lab yesterday and noticed that in 3 days we generate 10,900 files on one piece of equipment. It isn't so easy to cancel that somewhere in the middle then try to figure out where it stopped and where to begin again when there are multiple levels of embedded folders in the mix. Pause would be much better than cancel when I try to move a months worth of those files.

RE: Im still waiting for
By jonmcc33 on 8/26/11, Rating: -1
RE: Im still waiting for
By Captain Orgazmo on 8/26/2011 5:20:20 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, only morons needs OS features that are convenient and intuitive. Down with GUI! Long live DOS!


RE: Im still waiting for
By thurston2 on 8/27/2011 10:20:15 PM , Rating: 1
Looks like dailytech has picked up another asshole.

RE: Im still waiting for
By mmt050 on 8/28/2011 6:53:37 PM , Rating: 2
I develop enterprise web applications and only one of my eclipse workspaces has about 9, 000 files in it. Aaand this has been checked out of an SVN repository, so it does also reside on a kind of a file server. Imagine if I want to copy one (or more) such workspace(s) to a USB drive, it takes between 15-20 min. What do you have to say about such a scenario?

RE: Im still waiting for
By inighthawki on 8/26/2011 9:05:50 AM , Rating: 2
It still requires clicking on the folder icon to view them though. I like to be able, at any point in time, to look at the taskbar and know everything I have open, and that includes more than just explorer. I often have multiple instances of explorer, visual studio, adobe reader, etc open all at once, switching between them very often. It simply increases my productivity to always know where every window is, and this is my #1 complaint about OSX and its dock menu, which cripples me in the same way.

RE: Im still waiting for
By cknobman on 8/26/2011 9:23:13 AM , Rating: 2
Wow talk about unnecessary clutter though. One of the best things about Windows 7 was the new taskbar and how it removed the unnecessary crap and how hovering over a single application/folder icon will show you a preview of every single instance open (not to mention the preview isnt static but active so you can actually see if it is doing something). This allows me to easily see, without maximizing the item, what instance I want to pull up or what is going on with a particular instance.

And you want to go back to the dark ages?? As a fellow developer I just don't understand this.

RE: Im still waiting for
By quiksilvr on 8/26/2011 9:28:12 AM , Rating: 2
Same. One click for more organization and less errors sifting through multiple files until finding the right one seems much more arduous to me.

RE: Im still waiting for
By inighthawki on 8/26/2011 9:35:10 AM , Rating: 2
Well it's really the same fundamental problem I have with OSX's interface. I cannot look at the screen and know what windows I have open. It takes extra work. I have never found myself "sifting" through files, windows, etc. I've always known exactly where everything was.

RE: Im still waiting for
By inighthawki on 8/26/2011 9:30:39 AM , Rating: 2
This allows me to easily see, without maximizing the item, what instance I want to pull up or what is going on with a particular instance.

This is my point. I can already do this without even so much as moving the mouse. I just have to glance down at my taskbar and I know already what each thing is. I like this for the same reason that web browsers have tabs and now just one big button that says "All tabs here" with previews as you hover over. It makes it easy to find the one you want with NO extra work. To each his own, but I just think that the old taskbar was more productive. Sure I can have as many open windows without it becoming more cluttered, but I don't have to perform extra work or take extra time to find what I'm looking for.

RE: Im still waiting for
By NellyFromMA on 8/26/2011 10:16:20 AM , Rating: 2
No sense talking them out of it. I too can have multiple Visual Studios, numerous Explorer folders open, various RPDS, etc.

Having them all appear under on icon on the taskbar is awful for me. At home, I probably could get by with it, but even then I don't prefer it.

It's a preference thing.

RE: Im still waiting for
By Topweasel on 8/26/2011 10:18:15 AM , Rating: 2
Some people I support has so many applications and folders open that you have to scroll down on the start menu in XP to see them. Also without grouping you end up with the application buttons getting smaller and smaller losing the immediate visibility of the description. How is that helping you out. You don't even have to click to see the windows in Windows 7, all you have to do is mouse over it. Alt-Tab will also show the window, and windows-tab (which shows a much larger side angle view).

All of them are much better options then cluttering the start bar.

RE: Im still waiting for
By NellyFromMA on 8/26/2011 10:43:42 AM , Rating: 2
I mean, not that I feel like I have to justify my work flow, but needless to say, if I choose it, it probably is helping my out quite a bit, no?

Again, it boils down to preference. I don't want to have to click to mouse over to have an effect of viewing a window to narrow down which one I want, I can get that narrowed down just fine. I do expand the taskbar to two lines, which is done a lot better in Windows 7 than in XP if that sheds any light.

If the taskbar does become too full I think the applications that have high amounts of windows do group, but usually they are autosized in the taskbar just fine. The top row doesn't have to match the bottom size, its not a uniform grid.

Just saying, it enabled me to be way more productive than the extra clicks and mousing over just to determine what window I want. Also, I have two monitors so more things are up at once, so thats a factor too I suppose. Couldn't work with only one ever again!

RE: Im still waiting for
By Topweasel on 8/26/2011 11:19:26 AM , Rating: 2
Not saying it doesn't help, and not that you have to justify your work flow to a complete stranger on the interwebs but because you chose it doesn't mean it makes it more productive for you. Some times things are quicker and easier, but take a little time to get used to, but lots of people once they get comfortable with a system no matter how simple the learning curve is they refuse to go through it. Sometimes people just need to leave their comfort shell once in a while.

Also this may not apply to you but most people are visual people and reading the folder descriptions would actually take more time to find the folder they want that way then mousing over to a spot that doesn't change and seeing each fold and moving the mouse a mere inch or two and selecting the folder they want. It also makes it easier to close the windows you no longer need.

RE: Im still waiting for
By inighthawki on 8/26/2011 11:38:19 AM , Rating: 2
In regards to your comment before this one, I can understand that if people really have enough windows open that you need to scroll on the taskbar, then grouping them becomes highly beneficial. Once you have that many windows, it becomes unproductive regardless of how you organize it.

But more to the point, I would just like to point out that I actually use both methods. On my desktop at home, I use the never combine option to show the text labels for reasons I've mentioned above. On my several year old laptop, though, it has limited horizontal screen space so I actually use the normal layout, since it gets crowded quite quickly. I have used it quite extensively too, and as long as my goal is not productivity, I don't mind it at all, and it works. But as a person who has used both a decent amount, I find not combining them is far more productive.

RE: Im still waiting for
By Valahano on 8/26/2011 10:54:36 AM , Rating: 2
I remember the window buttons by their position in the taskbar and grouping doesn't go well with this at all for me. I always turn it off.

I never consider my numerous windows in the taskbar as a clutter. I mean, if they are there, I need them for some reason.
At my workstation there are usually around 30 windows open - there's plenty of space to list them all at once on a vertical taskbar.
At home I rarely hit 10.

Since there's a certain order in the taskbar (oldest windows are first), for me it's very easy to navigate and pick windows quickly.

Anyway, I'd say that "full view" and "grouped view" are both necessary - to each his own. There's nothing outdated or uber-modern in any of the approaches.

RE: Im still waiting for
By NellyFromMA on 8/26/2011 10:14:08 AM , Rating: 2
"you risk mixing in other programs (browsers, word documents, etc) into the mix, making it harder to find what you are looking for."

I don't think so... I run this exact same setup at work and, like in WinXP, they are grouped by application still.

So, All explorer windows are grouped. How is that mixed? I can't even rearrange them out of grouping if I wanted to?

To each their own. At home I have a SLIGHTLY different setup (Big Taskbar items instead of small) but I enjoy not having all of the applications items appear as a single item that I then have to click to see a list of things. Its just not that useful for some people personally.

It's more for the people who enjoy less clutter, which is good for those that enjoy that.

"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki