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.Īfter several tests using the aforementioned sets of file batches the results were clear as day. Right-click access is available in FastCopy, too, but by doing this you will have to give up its portability.įastCopy'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. It also creates an entry in the file and folder context menu allowing for easier access to transfer operation. TeraCopy does a better job at this as it can substitute the default solution in Windows altogether. One aspect setting them apart is blending into the operating system. For large files, we employed an item of 1.09GB.Īlthough 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.
#Alternatives to teracopy verification#
We prepared a directory containing 78,125 files spread across 19,530 folders (1.35GB).Ī 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. Things are a bit different, though, when we’re dealing with large folders containing thousands of small files. In this case, using a third party solution would not make too much of a difference as the transfer speed gap is not significant. 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.
#Alternatives to teracopy series#
We have opposed them in a series of tests in order to determine which runs the job at a faster pace. FastCopy and TeraCopy are two popular tools designed to speed up file copy/move operations under Windows.
0 kommentar(er)
