On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 07:50:56 -0300, "Gerhard Fiedler" said: > Bob Blick wrote: > > > On the other hand, Windows XP always seemed to double-buffer, so after > > the files transferred, there was a wait time as it did an internal > > copy or move. > > What do you mean by "Windows seemed to double-buffer"? Doesn't this > depend on the program you're using for transfer whether it > double-buffers? How did you transfer the files? The "fast" methods of copying(scp, ftp) seem to copy the files quickly to a temporary location under "documents and settings", then move to the desired location. The "slow" methods of copying (samba) either double-buffer silently or just copy very slowly. The net result is about the same amount of time. But as I said before, I don't pay much attention to it, I just accept whatever it does. Spending hours of time making computers save a few seconds here or there is no longer fun for me. I don't think it ever was, I just don't do it any more. Cheerful regards, Bob -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Faster than the air-speed velocity of an unladen european swallow -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist