TeraCopy is much slower than Windows Copy

I bought TeraCopy a while back thinking it is going to increase my transfer speeds but actually, my Transfer speed went down by about 50%

I used to copy files to my external HDD @ 100 to 110 MBS but TeraCopy copies them @ 60 MB/S

I tried playing the options to use System Cache but that didn't change a thing

Is this app bad? anyone has any experience with it?

 

I have been using TeraCopy for a few years, no problems, I just copied an 800mb movie from my notebooks ssd via usb 3 to an usb 3.0 external hdd and i got 123mb/s according to TeraCopy

edit : just tried an 8.3gb movie to transfered with a peak of 138mb/s and it never dropped below 130bm/s the entire time it took to transfer.

John.

 

strange, so it's just me..

I don't know what to do

the default Windows copy is much faster for me

 

I suppose you have tried a re-install? , use something like the free iobit uninstaller that scans the registry for leftovers, so you get a fresh install.

John.

 

Windows Copy shows speeds that have nothing to do with reality. Measure the time it actually takes to copy a large file using both.

 

This is a clean Windows 8.1 Installation man. no need for uninstall and cleanup

Could this be the reason for the time estimation?

 

I meant re-install TeraCopy not Windows

John.

 

I've been using TeraCopy for many years now. Speed-wise, I never had any problems. Sure, there probably are a few cases where it's slower than Windows, but in general it's as good or perhaps slightly better. I've never had a case where it was drastically slower (or if so, I didn't notice it).

downloads is right - the Windows file copy dialog is awful at estimating correctly. It never was very good, and it got even worse with Vista. If the actual time it takes isn't significantly different, you're fine.

The only problem I ever had with TeraCopy is that it died on me partway through copying about 300 GB of files from one drive to another. I figured that with a name like TeraCopy it ought to handle that with ease, but nope, somewhere in the mid-100's of GBs, it croaked. But for double-digit numbers of gigabytes, it's always done well.