[Athtar]

While I like the improvements, I am a little disappointed that they are not implementing parallel/multi-threaded copying. It might not be something that a majority of users would need, but it feels like it should be something that should be natively supported by the OS.

[pbz]

What do you mean? It showed two batches being copied in parallel. If anything, they should do less in parallel and rather queue up jobs between same disks.

[Athtar]

Yes, you can have multiple copy operating running in parallel but the way Windows works, the files themselves are copied in serial order (within an individual copy operation). Whereas with tools like RichCopy, you are actually copying multiple files in parallel.

See here for example; http://msinetpub.vo.llnwd.net/d1/keithcombs/blog/images/Rich...

This is incredibly useful when you need to copy folders with a lot of (smaller) files. Think pictures, music, etc.

[dpark]

I'd be interested in seeing benchmarks that demonstrate an improvement when doing this. I'd expect that the average case is slower due to increased disk contention.

[roel_v]

It's funny how one group of people are bashing this feature for not doing parallel copy, and another group for doing it...

[chirs]

What would be the use case for something this?