Aqua Taskforce

Watchful wrote on January 2, 2009, 4:53pm

I have always hated this behavior in Finder!

dehetepappie wrote on January 2, 2009, 6:49pm

YES YES YES!!!! We so need this feature. A little added intelligence would also be a bonus (so that , say, a HD1-to-network and a DVD-to-HD2 copy will run concurrently).

carlosefonseca wrote on January 3, 2009, 1:40am

Windows has a third party called Copy Handler that enables file transfer queuing. It's not intelligent like you say but it's better than nothing. Not even path finder has this but it would be great

MicrowaveDave wrote on January 6, 2009, 1:12pm

There used to be an application called CopyDoubler for Mac. It was fantastic, had scheduled file copies, queued copies, verify on write, folder merge and a few other features. It hasn't made it to OS X yet (and probably never will unfortunately.)

File copies using 10.4 and 10.5 seem to slow the computer to a crawl, which was never an issue with OS 10.3 and below. I regularly copy three or four things at a time with 10.3 on an old 450MHz iMac and continue working at the same time, but with 10.4 on a fast PowerBook the computer becomes almost unusable until the transfers complete. Maybe it's Spotlight slowing things down, not sure, but it's very frustrating.

carlosefonseca wrote on January 6, 2009, 1:17pm

It slows the computer because MacBook's harddrive is slow. Get a 7200rpm hard drive and it never slows down again while doing copies or big file extractions from archives.

MicrowaveDave wrote on January 6, 2009, 2:19pm

The problem doesn't occur when using OS 10.3 on the PowerBook. The problem is 10.4 and 10.5.

rubber gun wrote on January 29, 2009, 1:57pm

I have a 7200 ROM drive - this is an issue with Mac OS and not my drive. I've had copies gone from minutes, to tens of minutes, and then back because of multiple copies going on.

linuxforever wrote on May 25, 2009, 9:08pm

Thinking of SSDs that most future Apple products are likely to be equipped with, it would also make sense for the OS to communicate to the SSD what transferred information belongs to a continuous data stream (one single file). So the OS would order to reserve the right amount of storage capacity for each file reducing fragmentation and its consequences and at the same time delivering additional information for the dynamic wear-levelling algorithm built into the SSD controller. Unfortunately, current Operating Systems do not pass enough information to the SSD (e.g. via NCQ employed in todays HDDs that is primarily going to be used in SSDs to alleviate write amplification increasing the overall lifetime).
The write speed would be comparable to common SSDs since they can already write multiple data streams in parallel as they are writing to many physical cells at once. But the read speed and lifetime are potentially be increased thanks to the reduced fragmentation.
These features could be implemented by storage manufacturers like it is going to be done with the ATA-Trim command for instance.