Is copying or moving faster?

[NeoN068]

Is it faster to move or copy files? It would be on the same hd but different partition. I always seemed to get different speeds when doing both. Maybe it's just me.

 

[Spec_Ops2087]

moving is faster becasue it just picks the data up and moves it...where in copying it has to COPY it THEN move it while keeping the orgional so I would think it would be slower...but hardly noticable




Spec

 

[alpha_gamer]

oh man, always move, opening the extra window to drag it over can save alot of time with big files, copying can take a long time if you're moving an iso or something like that

 

[NeoN068]

ok cool

 

[NeoN068]

but would i really see any difference?

 

[Spec_Ops2087]

depends on the file size....small files nah you really wouldn't...large files you will see the difference




Spec

 

[NeoN068]

Cool thanks all

 

[engjohn]

actually the way it works is, a copy copies the data. A move copies the data then deletes the data. It is always better/safer to copy the data and the delete it yourself.

 

[NeoN068]

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[FTC]

actually the way it works is, a copy copies the data. A move copies the data then deletes the data. It is always better/safer to copy the data and the delete it yourself.

I would say.... true UNLESS moving within the same partition. In this later case, move does JUST move the pointers to the real data file (the directory entry)... thus being an almost immediate operation regardless of the file size.

Regards
FTC

 

[ThePerfectCore]

actually the way it works is, a copy copies the data. A move copies the data then deletes the data. It is always better/safer to copy the data and the delete it yourself.

Damn, beat me to it.

 

[NeoN068]

well obviously it's faster if you move it in the same partition

 

[shunx]

my memory is kind of vague but I sort of recall that in the Windows 3.1 era, moving files within the same partition would be slow like copying?