Vista Explorer only supports 16'384 File Copy Operations !!!

hello

here the code to genereate a lot of small files. it replicates c:\autoexec.bat into a newly generated dir c:\a with subdirs d1 ... d5, 4'000 repicas in each of those folders.

After running the program (3 files - compile it, start it, push the button, wait til final message after about 1 - 2 minutes) you can copy c:\a to some other location - thats the moment where i (and others) get the error.

Here the command lines (from within command tool, from dir where you put the following 3 files):

PATH=C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727
Csc.exe Form1.cs Form1.Designer.cs Program.cs
program.exe

=== file 1: Form.cs ===
using System.Data;
using System.Drawing;
using System.Text;
using System.Windows.Forms;

using System.IO;

namespace WindowsApplication1
{
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
public string sDir = "C:/A/";
public string sInF = "C:/autoexec.bat";

public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
}

private void buttonErstelle_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
int idt = 0;

int id = Convert.ToInt32(textBoxDateienJeVerzeichnis.Text);
int iv = Convert.ToInt32(textBoxVerzeichnisse.Text);

for (int ivw = 1; ivw <= iv; ivw++)
{
textBoxFeedback.Text = "makeing Directory " + sDir + "D" + ivw;

Directory.CreateDirectory("" + sDir + "D" + ivw);

for (int idw = 1; idw <= id; idw++)
{
textBoxFeedback.Text = "makeing File " + sDir + "D" + ivw + "/F" + (idw + idt) + ".TXT";

File.Copy(sInF, sDir + "D" + ivw + "/F" + (idw + idt) + ".TXT");
}

idt += id;
}

textBoxFinal.Text = "Now drag/drop " + sDir + " with Vista Explorer somewhere else";
}
}
}

=== file 2: Program.cs ===
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Windows.Forms;

namespace WindowsApplication1
{
static class Program
{
/// <summary>
/// Der Haupteinstiegspunkt für die Anwendung.
/// </summary>
[STAThread]
static void Main()
{
Application.EnableVisualStyles();
Application.SetCompatibleTextRenderingDefault(false);
Application.Run(new Form1());
}
}
}

=== file 3: Form1.Designer.cs ===
namespace WindowsApplication1
{
partial class Form1
{
/// <summary>
/// Erforderliche Designervariable.
/// </summary>
private System.ComponentModel.IContainer components = null;

/// <summary>
/// Verwendete Ressourcen bereinigen.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="disposing">True, wenn verwaltete Ressourcen gelöscht werden sollen; andernfalls False.</param>
protected override void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
if (disposing && (components != null))
{
components.Dispose();
}
base.Dispose(disposing);
}

#region Vom Windows Form-Designer generierter Code

/// <summary>
/// Erforderliche Methode für die Designerunterstützung.
/// Der Inhalt der Methode darf nicht mit dem Code-Editor geändert werden.
/// </summary>
private void InitializeComponent()
{
this.label1 = new System.Windows.Forms.Label();
this.textBoxDateienJeVerzeichnis = new System.Windows.Forms.TextBox();
this.textBoxVerzeichnisse = new System.Windows.Forms.TextBox();
this.label2 = new System.Windows.Forms.Label();
this.buttonErstelle = new System.Windows.Forms.Button();
this.textBoxFeedback = new System.Windows.Forms.TextBox();
this.textBoxFinal = new System.Windows.Forms.TextBox();
this.SuspendLayout();
//
// label1
//
this.label1.AutoSize = true;
this.label1.Location = new System.Drawing.Point(13, 13);
this.label1.Name = "label1";
this.label1.Size = new System.Drawing.Size(102, 13);
this.label1.TabIndex = 0;
this.label1.Text = "Files on each Folder";
//
// textBoxDateienJeVerzeichnis
//
this.textBoxDateienJeVerzeichnis.Location = new System.Drawing.Point(132, 13);
this.textBoxDateienJeVerzeichnis.Name = "textBoxDateienJeVerzeichnis";
this.textBoxDateienJeVerzeichnis.Size = new System.Drawing.Size(277, 20);
this.textBoxDateienJeVerzeichnis.TabIndex = 1;
this.textBoxDateienJeVerzeichnis.Text = "4000";
//
// textBoxVerzeichnisse
//
this.textBoxVerzeichnisse.Location = new System.Drawing.Point(132, 40);
this.textBoxVerzeichnisse.Name = "textBoxVerzeichnisse";
this.textBoxVerzeichnisse.Size = new System.Drawing.Size(277, 20);
this.textBoxVerzeichnisse.TabIndex = 3;
this.textBoxVerzeichnisse.Text = "5";
//
// label2
//
this.label2.AutoSize = true;
this.label2.Location = new System.Drawing.Point(13, 40);
this.label2.Name = "label2";
this.label2.Size = new System.Drawing.Size(41, 13);
this.label2.TabIndex = 2;
this.label2.Text = "Folders";
//
// buttonErstelle
//
this.buttonErstelle.Location = new System.Drawing.Point(16, 69);
this.buttonErstelle.Name = "buttonErstelle";
this.buttonErstelle.Size = new System.Drawing.Size(393, 23);
this.buttonErstelle.TabIndex = 4;
this.buttonErstelle.Text = "Generate !";
this.buttonErstelle.UseVisualStyleBackColor = true;
this.buttonErstelle.Click += new System.EventHandler(this.buttonErstelle_Click);
//
// textBoxFeedback
//
this.textBoxFeedback.Location = new System.Drawing.Point(16, 99);
this.textBoxFeedback.Name = "textBoxFeedback";
this.textBoxFeedback.Size = new System.Drawing.Size(393, 20);
this.textBoxFeedback.TabIndex = 5;
this.textBoxFeedback.Text = "(-)";
//
// textBoxFinal
//
this.textBoxFinal.Location = new System.Drawing.Point(16, 125);
this.textBoxFinal.Name = "textBoxFinal";
this.textBoxFinal.Size = new System.Drawing.Size(393, 20);
this.textBoxFinal.TabIndex = 6;
this.textBoxFinal.Text = "(-)";
//
// Form1
//
this.AutoScaleDimensions = new System.Drawing.SizeF(6F, 13F);
this.AutoScaleMode = System.Windows.Forms.AutoScaleMode.Font;
this.ClientSize = new System.Drawing.Size(421, 162);
this.Controls.Add(this.textBoxFinal);
this.Controls.Add(this.textBoxFeedback);
this.Controls.Add(this.buttonErstelle);
this.Controls.Add(this.textBoxVerzeichnisse);
this.Controls.Add(this.label2);
this.Controls.Add(this.textBoxDateienJeVerzeichnis);
this.Controls.Add(this.label1);
this.Name = "Form1";
this.Text = "simmons Vista Explorer Test";
this.ResumeLayout(false);
this.PerformLayout();

}

#endregion

private System.Windows.Forms.Label label1;
private System.Windows.Forms.TextBox textBoxDateienJeVerzeichnis;
private System.Windows.Forms.TextBox textBoxVerzeichnisse;
private System.Windows.Forms.Label label2;
private System.Windows.Forms.Button buttonErstelle;
private System.Windows.Forms.TextBox textBoxFeedback;
private System.Windows.Forms.TextBox textBoxFinal;
}
}
 
I still don't see what the problem is.

Last night I decided to switch over to Xubuntu for a few days to mess with Beryl - which COMPLETELY KICKS ASS I must say - and before doing so I had Vista Ultimate 32 bit installed on an 80GB drive. I needed to back up the data I had on the 35GB partition so I did it in two places: I copied my entire user directory off to the second partition (the remaining space on the drive) and also a second copy (I'm paranoid when it comes to Linux distros, had too many times where GPartEd or GRUB just pooched the whole drive) to a 40GB USB 2.0 external drive.

Total file count: 95,325 files, lots of mp3s, pics, docs, eBooks, all sorts of stuff, and some video files also.

I got exact matches for both after the process was done, soooo... file counts matches, bytesize matched for total size, directories matched, etc. Filesystems are always NTFS so the checksums always matched/never gave any CRC errors.

So I'm not sure what the issue is here, but I just wanted to add my own experience so far. This isn't the first time I've done such a massive copy operation under Vista either in the 900+ installs I've done now for testing purposes (I'm a tester, sue me). I've never encountered a single corrupt file or any issues with checksum/CRC stuff when copying across a variety of methods: partition to partition, partition to external USB drive, partition to external Firewire drive, burn to external USB/Firewire, USB thumb, second physical drive in the same machine, etc.

/me wonders what the big fuss is over...

I'd suspect someone's driver controller and the drivers before I'd suspect Vista itself. If you're using the stock ATA/IDE controllers on most motherboards, especially if it's an Intel chipset, you'll never have issues with the stock drivers in Vista - but anything else like SATA or RAID, especially if they're not made by Intel, well... I wouldn't trust any of 'em myself. Had too many data corruption problems over the years with Promise/HighPoint/Nvidia/ATI/SiS/VIA/Silicon Image controllers and drivers...

But that's just me...
 
Hello bbz_Ghost

thank you for replying. you are a lucky man - it seems to work on your 900+ Vista installations. I am not so lucky - with my 3 Vista installations.

Did you copy with Vista Explorer all your files ? Or did you use some other tools ?

I do have those problems on differnet hardwares - and not only with hard disks.

2 of the machines in trouble are Intel D975XBX2 with all SATA HD's from WD. One other machine is a Barebone. A fourth machine is under installation-work now as i have promessed here - that machine is an old Workhorse with some Asus-Board and Intel Processor - this moment i do not know what exactly Board and Processor are - i just install the minimum and i run my test.

simmons
 
Yeah I did a copy of my entire Program Files folder, over 55,000 files, no problem. Drivers perhaps?

Vista x64 on the system in the sig.
 
what does it means "Vista x64 on the system in the sig." - i do not understand.

I use Vista Business 32 bit - the problem occurs with the Vista provided drivers and also with the newest Intel drivers for my IntelD975BXB2. Same story on Barebone with IDE. As i have also those problems copying from USB-HD to Barbone-IDE, the chance of driver problem seems very limited to me.

In a few minutes i can give Infos about another machine setup.

simmons
 
He means he's running a 64 bit version of Vista ("Vista x64") on the hardware/machines (probably just the desktop PC though) he has in his sig(nature) as listed at the bottom of his post.

Although... for some reason he's got XP x64 listed. :)
 
I wonder if this has something to do with why my vista 64 ultimate rebooted itself outa nowhere when i was transferring about 15gigs from one partition to another :confused:
 
As promised i have set up another system (an Oldie) from scratch - here everything is OK !

Tomorrow i try to analyze - why here OK - why there NOT OK.

Thank you for your help and good Night - i will give you my news, if you like ?

simmons
 
Yes, this is pretty unusual. It would be good to find out the cause.

@ChronoReverse
well I believe your cluster size is 4KB, and I think the bug, here is that its reporting the wrong total filesizes. if there are 32K files and each file is 1KB should not the total file size be 32KB not 352K?

I got your cluster size by total size on disk/1024 to get the units into KB and then dividing by the total number of files.
Cluster size is correct =)

Total size is not a bug since the text file isn't actually 1KB ;)
 
Sounds like a bug which might have been created in the naturlization process of the OS. Personally I've seen this with Windows 98. The Norwegian Version had a number of strange bugs, my family in Norway actually just used the English one because it had fewer problems. It's unforunate that this still might be a problem with Vista, especially when you're naturalizing the OS for the world's second largest economy.

The Norwegian version of XP was fine though. Also, not to put a dent in everyone's testing method, but copying 16K small text files could well produce a different result then copying 16K of a variety of files. If this really is a problem with the naturlized version of Vista then Microsoft should address this immediatly, not being able to copy a measly 16K files is a pretty huge shortcomming when you're dealing with an OS which ostensibly enterprise ready.
 
Sounds like a bug which might have been created in the naturlization process of the OS. Personally I've seen this with Windows 98. The Norwegian Version had a number of strange bugs, my family in Norway actually just used the English one because it had fewer problems. It's unforunate that this still might be a problem with Vista, especially when you're naturalizing the OS for the world's second largest economy.
I was starting to suspect something like that as well.
 
thank you for replying. you are a lucky man - it seems to work on your 900+ Vista installations. I am not so lucky - with my 3 Vista installations.

uh...if its 900+ as opposed to 3....wouldn't that signal a more of a hardware problem than a software? i just wanna clarify before you cry wolf which you've already done...and ppl seem to have plenty of proof against you.

sounds like some FUD to me....
 
this could just be one of those things. Computers have live of their own sometimes:p

I just transfered about 50k files with no problem on my Vista rig running 32bit Home Premium.
 
hello someone who does NOT have my problems

- please give me some UNIQUE indication of your Vista Version, so i can see and compare your naturalization with naturalization of ME and OTHERS (do NOT give me your product ID or some other key, of course ! ). Please tell me, how you got this UNIQUE indication

===

hello markt435

- how many ***Vista's*** did YOU install so far ?

- what means ppl ?

- what means FUD ?

===

thank you all - your "over the ocean de-naturalized and 16KF-degraded" simmons (KF=Kilo Files)
 
ppl = shorthand for people

FUD = fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

i don't have the problem nor do many others it seems. i've installed vista on 3 diff comps and never seen this. so to me that means it might be more of a hardware problem. but i'm probably wrong like usual lol:p

and i have the final version of vista business x64 if thats what you're wondering.
 
Hello to one of the Moderators of this Forum

i am involved in discussions about this issue in 6 different forums (techarena, microsoft, here, windowsbbs, thevistaforums and zdnet.de).

if you wish and if you agree i will try to consolidate the discussion in THIS forum - because here i have found the most active members, the most professional suggestions, and the hardest attacks.

what do you think ?

simmons
 
I don't mean to be directly adversarial, simmons, but have you considered the possibility that there is something wrong in your environment that may be causing this problem for you? I'm not asking you to post specs or system configs because the problem could be as innocuous as a flubbed driver (as previously mentioned) or bad RAM, and the problem could be something as difficult to pin down as some background process or even a problem with the CPU. I don't think you're lying about your experience, but I do think that you and some of the other examples of people you point out claiming this are making far too great a leap for me to not invoke Occam's Razor in this case.

The thing is, we know there are factors that can corrupt files, especially in transit. We even know that Explorer is notorious for making many (some sould say extraneous) checks, re-checks, and re-re-checks between two locations when moving a file (or, indeed, even browsing a directory). However, I don't think any time since Win9x can I say I've heard of Explorer degrading in such a way, or so quickly (16-17 thousand transfers is not much considering the read-writes that take place just during boot, not to mention everyday use). You are presenting us with a scenario that is not consistently repeatable, and as much as I like to participate in forums I don't like to use them as a source of empirical evidence (though I could qualify ChronoReverse's posts with screenshots as the closest to empirical evidence I have seen so far in this discussion).

Not for nothing, but have you attempted systematically (not in groups or randomly) changing out drivers and verifying that all hardware is installed with certified drivers? The aim here is to do as much as possible to verify as "clean" a system as you can before actually repeating the test. The only way to verify this is an Explorer issue is to isolate Explorer as the only mitigating factor, which means as bare bones an install as possible (meaning no 3rd party software).

Also, this 16,384 number makes me highly incredulous, if only because it is a "gigabyte" multiplied by 16 ( 16,384 is divisible by 1024 16 times ). That is far too low a number to have not been caught by research, beta testing, and even those who have had Vista installed since it was RTM late last year. In other words, news of this would be all over the place by now if this was an actual Explorer flaw, if only because it wouldn't take longer than a few weeks to meet that 16,384 limit. It's simply too small a number to be plausible to the many of us who have tested it in some capacity since it was in beta.

I'm bringing all of this up not because I think you're lying, but because I'm skeptical and I believe you are looking for the culprit behind your problem in the wrong place. I would agree that there is some common denominator in the bug you are seeing, but none of the evidence you've presented isolates Explorer as a culprit so far.
 
Now that you have one system that works, it seems to me the core Vista is ok. I'd look to the differences in the one that works and the one that does. In particular the drivers and storage systems. The one thing they seem to have in common is the HDD. Have you tried a DVD<->DVD or ThumbDrive to ThumbDrive copy eliminating the HDD?
 
Hello mket - and all others - and first of all to all of you suffering on the same issue

i think i have found the bug - the probable guilty one ( and that's probably NOT M$ - i'm so sorry Bill ! ) is informed, is verifying, and promessed to feedback very soon to me - as soon as i have this Verification i will inform here.

It's for shure i will tell within the next 12 hours what's going on - what to do - for what to wait.

Please be patient - as act of fairness to a company with a good product.

simmons

P.S.: and probably IT IS a ticking bomb for many of you !!! Re-boot after copying a lot of files (when the chance comes to reach 16'384 Copy-Actions withing the last System Boot)
 
Hello GreNME

thank you for your very good words. Please accept that i have tested, verified, tested and verified again. Hardware was the first thing, isolating one from the other another thing etc. etc.

A the end of the street, i (and also others) can look around the corner - the things behind the corner are clearer. When there are so many streets at the end of the corner, there is always a chance to oversee something.

I have presented to you a way to REPRODUCE the problem with a few of very SIMPLE steps - as i can reproduce the problem in DIFFERENT SCENARIOS. Unfortunatly/fortunatly most of you cannot reproduce the problem with those steps - here i was wrong with my suggestion, sorry.

And believe me, personally i can bypass easily this problem - with 1000 alternatives. It's for those that i am helping to come around, and it's for the community that i will help to solve a potential very big problem.

So i agree with almost anything you have written to me ( what i do NOT see as an attack ! ) - but my decision to go that way was coming after lots of investigations.

And my decision for those forums came after many many frustrating attempts to get contact or even help from Microsoft !!!

simmons
 
Here's a test file containing 23,328 empty TXT files inside 2,940 folders.

RAR archive (inside another RAR archive):

http://powerofb.com/test.rar

FYI, Vista had no trouble copying these folders on my notebook (Windows Vista Home Premium RTM EN-US, OEM). Explorer took about 125MB of memory and 2 minutes at 100% CPU to do it (1.73GHz Dothan, 1.25GB DDR, Hitachi 60GB 5400RPM Notebook Drive).
 
Thank you bsoft

good for you - maybe you will NEVER have this problem - others will, i bet !

I reproduce the problem ANYTIME and EASILY !

Soon (until 20:00 GMT i hope) i will tell here, what situation / condition must be met.

simmons

(lunchtime now in Zurich)
 
JFYI:

The link is down, bsoft... I'd be interested in trying that "test" again now that I'm back on Vista Ultimate. Thanks...
 
To all of you involved in this thread who have experianced problems OR have tested on this issue, please post one of the following statements - as soon as possible:

A) i do ***NOT*** have those problems, i ***DO*** use Kaspersky
or
B) i do ***NOT*** have those problems, i do ***NOT*** use Kaspersky
or
C) i ***DO*** have those problems, i ***DO*** use Kaspersky
or
D) i ***DO*** have those problems, i do ***NOT*** use Kaspersky

After verifying, i will give you all the details.

simmons
 
Hello GreNME

thank you for your very good words. Please accept that i have tested, verified, tested and verified again. Hardware was the first thing, isolating one from the other another thing etc. etc.
I don't think you're doing what I was saying. I believe that you are testing and re-testing, but I believe that, at some point in the process, there is a step that you are taking that others have not that is leading to this problem. I am only judging from what I've read so far, but if you were isolating things, beginning with a bare OS and only the necessary hardware, you have given no indication that you've been doing so. You sound more like you ran into the problem, reinstalled everything, ran into the problem again, reinstalled everything, rinse, repeat. That is not the same thing as what I explained.

A the end of the street, i (and also others) can look around the corner - the things behind the corner are clearer. When there are so many streets at the end of the corner, there is always a chance to oversee something.
Metaphors aren't very helpful here, especially when you are using metaphors to say those of us who are skeptical are unable to see things clearly. I suggest we stick to literals here before we fall into the bad habit of mixing metaphors to the point where discussion becomes useless.

I have presented to you a way to REPRODUCE the problem with a few of very SIMPLE steps - as i can reproduce the problem in DIFFERENT SCENARIOS. Unfortunatly/fortunatly most of you cannot reproduce the problem with those steps - here i was wrong with my suggestion, sorry.
Have you considered the possibility that, since others cannot reproduce the problem with your simple steps, the problem is indeed not reproducable in the scenario you present? Occam's Razor again, the most probable reason that others have not been able to reproduce your problem is because the scenario you give to reproduce the error is not what caused the problems you are experiencing.

And believe me, personally i can bypass easily this problem - with 1000 alternatives. It's for those that i am helping to come around, and it's for the community that i will help to solve a potential very big problem.

So i agree with almost anything you have written to me ( what i do NOT see as an attack ! ) - but my decision to go that way was coming after lots of investigations.
You do see that many others in this thread have performed the very same experiement to the level of much higher multiples than your original 16,384 copy operations, do you not? Can you posit in the least why this is so? Can you tell us how you came to the realization that the number of copy operations was 16,384, which just happens to be the number of megabytes in 16 GB (I do not find such a number coincidental)? You say you are trying to help solve what you perceive as a huge problem, but every explanation or supporting claim you have given thus far has raised more questions about your claims than it has actually supported the original thesis of Explorer failing after 16,384 copy operations. Your main supporting claim is that others have said they've experienced similar problems, but so far no reliable means of reproducing the error have surfaced. Consensus among a few is not compelling enough information to support your allegations thus far. I'm open and willing to find out more, but I need more evidence than "other people have seen it as well, though not everyone can reproduce the error" as your evidence.

And my decision for those forums came after many many frustrating attempts to get contact or even help from Microsoft !!!
I don't know what you are expecting with regard to Microsoft. As far as I know about the company's practices, you would get more assistance if you could reliably reproduce the error for them and offer them the methodology to do the same. Most individuals I've had contact with at Microsoft-- most recently on two support cases, on with Vista and the other with Exchange-- the most important thing I had to do was provide the MS tech with as much and as precise amount of information as possible. If what you have provided thus far in this thread is the extent of your available reference info on the problem, I can see why it wasn't entertained.

Are there any instances in your testing where you noticed any change in the system during the copy process? Have you perhaps tried running Process Monitor from the SysInternals suite yet while reproducing the error? Have you attempted any other type of monitoring while producing the error? In the hardware stuff I mentioned previously, have you had your system down to only the motherboard, video card, and as few RAM chips as possible plugged in while creating this error? Have you anything out of the ordinary in your event logs? Are there any devices not accounted for in your Device Manager?

All of these and dozens more questions are critical in working out the direction any investigation on your problem will take. You need to be able to answer these questions with detail and as much pertinent information as possible. That is the only way to determine the most likely method of reproduction for submittal to Microsoft, and it may even lead to the root cause of the problem.
 
To all of you involved in this thread who have experianced problems OR have tested on this issue, please post one of the following statements - as soon as possible:

A) i do ***NOT*** have those problems, i ***DO*** use Kaspersky
or
B) i do ***NOT*** have those problems, i do ***NOT*** use Kaspersky
or
C) i ***DO*** have those problems, i ***DO*** use Kaspersky
or
D) i ***DO*** have those problems, i do ***NOT*** use Kaspersky

After verifying, i will give you all the details.

simmons
Interesting question. I don't have the problem, and I do not use Kapersky. Count me as a B.
 
Hello GreNME

thanks for B-judgement. But have you tested it (if did NOT, then your judgement is a "non valeur", sorry) ?

to the rest of your writing (i had NOT the time to read it fully, but from the beginning it was clear for me: you did NOT follow what i have done till now - you even did NOT read what i posted YESTERDAY concerning my intentions for my NEXT STEPS TODAY !): i tested an verified and tested and verified ... that's a lot of work ... a lot of work to isolate one aspect from the other.

maybe one day i can go deeper into your writing, so maybe my understanding will be better ... and my english.

simmons
 
Can you tell us how you came to the realization that the number of copy operations was 16,384, which just happens to be the number of megabytes in 16 GB (I do not find such a number coincidental)?
More importantly it's 2^14. Now I'm not alleging that this is what's happening, seeing how it's not happening to me, but it's pretty common for software to fail on numbers like these.
 
Hello jimmyb

actually it's NOT happening on EXACTLY 16'384 - on the GUI-perspective (but it is always some points below 2'n - i hope "they" will do better then DOUBLE or so when patching). I just wanted to lever all of you up to the potential source of the problem - as it worked fine with you, jimmyb - bravo !

simmons
 
B) i do ***NOT*** have those problems, i do ***NOT*** use Kaspersky

description of my test system is on the bottom of page 2
 
Yes, this is pretty unusual. It would be good to find out the cause.


Cluster size is correct =)

Total size is not a bug since the text file isn't actually 1KB ;)

I figured that was wrong, hmm....I am gonna punch you, now I gotta figure out this.....bug....

hmm....is it that transferring 0 Bytes takes 5+ seconds?? The only other thing I can spot is the ass backwards way to renames the copy folders as it literally seems increment the number some times sometimes it adds another -copy to the end of the folder.
 
B) i do ***NOT*** have those problems, i do ***NOT*** use Kaspersky
 
Hello serialtoon !!!

Your case is NOT typical - but anyway, please tell me if you use Kaspersky or not.

simmons
 
Is this a LEGAL copy of windows that's been properly activated? Because I have the 32 bit version and the 64 bit version running since october and have had zero non driver issues whatsoever...

If this is a VLK version, you do know you need to have a server piece on your windows domain servers to manage the licenses right? :)
 
Hello Nasty_Savage

It is all legal ! You are probably looking in the wrong direction, thank you anyway. In one hour i well tell here my opinion, unproven, but verified by several people.

simmons
 
Back
Top