Ever since I moved from XP to Win7 (a few years ago), I switched from Windows’ built-in copy-paste function to a small freeware called TeraCopy ( http://codesector.com/teracopy ). Although I am comfortable with Win7, I found the new search / file copy features in Win7 to be inferior to the XP way.
I can probably rule out AV checking. I use Microsoft Security Essentials, and my experience has been positive.
I keep my backups in multiple media / devices. So, before file copy into the USB Flash drive Cruzer, I did an identical copy-paste into my Western Digital external hard disk 1 TB, which took around two hours. That was one-third the time for the copy to the Cruzer.
Also, I have copied files into an earlier SanDisk Flash drive 64 GB. Naturally, the copied volume was about half of the copy into the new Cruzer 128 GB. But, the copy happened significantly faster.
So, wondering whether about 6 hours for a 100 GB copy operation is ok or not.
As to NTFS format, I had probably read somewhere years ago that pendrives work faster if these are NTFS. All my pendrives (including the previous SanDisk 64 GB) are NTFS. And, the copy speed is better in all those.
Also, I have always done quick format … old advice from a technical guy.
The default is not intented for 128GB drives with 100GB uploads.
“As to NTFS format, I had probably read somewhere years ago that pendrives work faster if these are NTFS”
Certainly you know that not everything you read on the Internet is correct. Think about it, if that were true don’t you think flash drive manufacturers would manufacturer their drives with it so they would run faster? The drives start as FAT32 super floppy format for a reason. No MBR, no partition table, no logging of IO, no backup FAT.
There are 3 ways to format a flash drive to NTFS; quick format, full format, cnvrt format. I have seen where the full format is faster than a cnvrt format. Whether faster than a quick format I don’t know, but a cnvrt doesn’t take long.
I realise now that there is only a “Quick format” option, and neither “Full format” nor “Cnvrt” choices. I was not aware of “Cnvrt”, but was surprised to see only the “Quick format” available.
In your screen shot you will see an option near the bottom of the window titled “Quick Format” that is checked. Guess what type of format you get when you uncheck that option.
As for the CNVRT option I meant CONVERT. Sorry.
From a Command Prompt window enter: HELP CONVERT
And to actually convert a drive you would enter: CONVERT driveletter: /FS:NTFS
In your screen shot you will see an option near the bottom of the window titled “Quick Format” that is checked. Guess what type of format you get when you uncheck that option.
As for the CNVRT option I meant CONVERT. Sorry.
To convert a drive, in a Command Prompt window you would enter: CONVERT driveletter: /FS:NTFS
If I remember correct, XP probably showed both “Quick Format” and “Full Format” as choices explicitly provided. Was the Format window layout tweaked a bit in Win7 (or maybe Vista)?
Thanks for the link on CONVERT. Will explore later, at a hopefully less busy time.
By the way, Aumha used to be one of my favourite knowledge site years ago, especially on the occasional security issues faced by me. It seems that their forum is closed now.
They have now advised : “… I would like to inform you that as per the ATTO screenshot that you provided to me in your last email, it is concluded that flashdrive is defective and needs to be replaced …”. Any opinion please?
Also, just wondering since my Flash drive is USB 2.0, does it work slower if I plug it into USB 3.0 port of my laptop?
"They have now advised : “… I would like to inform you that as per the ATTO screenshot that you provided to me in your last email, it is concluded that flashdrive is defective and needs to be replaced …”. Any opinion please?"
Wow!! Nice.
"my Flash drive is USB 2.0, does it work slower if I plug it into USB 3.0 port of my laptop?"