teracopy_文件复印机之战：Windows，TeraCopy和SuperCopier

teracopy

We’ve covered two popular file copying programs for Windows: TeraCopy and SuperCopier. But how well do they really work, and do we even need them? We pit them in battle for your amusement, readers, so check out who won.

我们已经介绍了两种适用于Windows的流行文件复制程序：TeraCopy和SuperCopier。 但是它们的实际效果如何，我们甚至需要它们吗？ 读者们，我们为他们的娱乐而战，所以请看看谁赢了。

Both TeraCopy and SuperCopier are How-To Geek favorites as alternative file copiers. Both offer extra features, such as queuing files, pausing and resuming transfers, and more. Perhaps most importantly, both make the claim of boosting copying speed. We put that claim to the test against Windows 7’s copying ability.

TeraCopy和SuperCopier都是How-To Geek的最爱，它们是替代文件复印机。 两者都提供额外的功能，例如排队文件，暂停和恢复传输等等。 也许最重要的是，两者都声称可以提高复印速度。 我们将该主张与Windows 7的复制能力进行了测试。

测试如何进行 (How the Test Was Run)

In order to test fairly, I ran four distinct copy actions with each program and with the default Windows 7 copy function. First, I copied a file of 4.4 GB from one external hard drive, A, to my internal one, B. Then, I copied that file to another external hard drive, C. Then, I copied a 24 GB folder (3300 files, with an average size of about 8 MB) from external A to my internal drive, B. And lastly, copied that folder from my internal drive to external C. This was done in order for each of the copying methods. The external drives were ejected and the system was rebooted between testing each program. All partitions used NTFS. The 4.4GB file I used was my Wii disc backup of Donkey Kong Country Returns. The 24 GB folder was a portion of my music collection, mostly .mp3s and some .flacs I ripped over the years.

为了进行公平测试，我为每个程序和默认的Windows 7复制功能运行了四个不同的复制操作。 首先，我将一个4.4 GB的文件从一个外部硬盘驱动器A复制到我的内部硬盘B，然后，将该文件复制到另一个外部硬盘驱动器C。然后，我复制了一个24 GB的文件夹(3300个文件， (平均大小约为8 MB)从外部A到我的内部驱动器B。最后，将该文件夹从我的内部驱动器复制到外部C。这是针对每种复制方法完成的。 在测试每个程序之间，将弹出外部驱动器，并重新引导系统。 所有分区都使用NTFS。 我使用的4.4GB文件是我的《大金刚国家归来》的Wii光盘备份 。 24 GB的文件夹是我音乐收藏中的一部分，其中大部分是我多年来偷录的.mp3和一些.flacs 。

Why did I decide to do that? Well, there are quite a few factors to this test, including hard drive speeds. All of the drives I ran this test on were 7200 RPM hard drives and had a cache of 8 MB. External A was a 2 TB internal drive in an enclosure, and external C was a 750 GB store-bought drive. Copying the files in order the same way each time discounted any advantage one program would have had over another by way of caching. A clean reboot ensured near-optimal performance for each task. I also configured TeraCopy and SuperCopier to be the default copiers, and I clocked from the time I hit Ctrl+V. This minimized the influence of pre-caching before hitting the Start button on each. I did my best for you readers, and ultimately it came down to the copying programs themselves.

我为什么决定这样做？ 好吧，此测试有很多因素，包括硬盘速度。 我运行此测试的所有驱动器都是7200 RPM硬盘，并且具有8 MB的缓存。 外部A是机箱中的2 TB内部驱动器，外部C是750 GB的商店购买的驱动器。 每次以相同的方式复制文件时，都会通过缓存降低一个程序相对于另一个程序的任何优势。 干净的重启确保每个任务的性能都接近最佳。 我还将TeraCopy和SuperCopier配置为默认复印机，并且从打Ctrl + V开始计时。 这样可以在每次单击“开始”按钮之前最大程度地减少预缓存的影响。 我尽力为您的读者，最终归结为复制程序本身。

检测结果 (Test Results)

The default Windows 7 copier proved to be pretty snappy. Copying a single 4.4 GB file from A to B took only 3:13 and copying from B to C took 2:42. Windows 7 seems to prove itself with large files. When copying 24 GB of my music collection, the process took 18:21 from A to B, and 18:09 from B to C. As you can see, Windows 7 is no slouch.

默认的Windows 7复印机非常灵活。 从A复制单个4.4 GB文件到B仅花费3:13，而从B复制到C仅花费2:42。 Windows 7似乎可以通过大文件证明自己。 复制我的音乐收藏的24 GB时，该过程从A到B花费了18:21，从B到C花费了18:09。正如您所看到的，Windows 7并不轻松。

The one thing that seemed pretty consistent was that as the transfer pushed forward, the rate of transfer would drop over time, ending at about 2/3 of what it initially was at. In numbers, this was roughly 26 MB/s down to about 17 MB/s.

似乎很一致的一件事是，随着转移的推进，转移的速度会随着时间的流逝而下降，大约是最初水平的2/3。 从数量上看，这大约是26 MB / s，下降到大约17 MB / s。

Testing TeraCopy yielded some interesting results. Copying the 4.4 GB file took longer than Windows did, at 3:41 from A to B and 2:53 from B to C. While copying 24 GB of smaller files, however, TeraCopy undercut Windows with 17:32 from A to B and 17:02 from B to C.

测试TeraCopy产生了一些有趣的结果。 复制4.4 GB的文件比Windows花费的时间长，从A到B的3:41和从B到C的2:53。但是，在复制24 GB的较小文件时，TeraCopy将Windows从A到B的17:32削弱了Windows的性能。 17:02从B到C。

The transfer speeds fluctuated quite a bit compared to Windows 7’s copying mechanism. The rate would drop sharply at times to half, then shoot up for a brief time only to even out a bit. It was like a roller coaster, going anywhere from as high as 31 MB/s down to 12 MB/s.

与Windows 7的复制机制相比，传输速度波动很大。 该比率有时会急剧下降到一半，然后短暂上升，甚至会有所下降。 就像过山车一样，速度从31 MB / s下降到12 MB / s。

While using SuperCopier, I immediately noticed the sustained transfer speeds. It never dipped too low, even towards the end of the longer copying process, and stayed between 22 MB/s and 18 MB/s. Copying 4.4 GB from A to B took 3:21, beating out TeraCopy for second-place. However, copying from B to C took 4:01, significantly longer than either TeraCopy or Windows.

使用SuperCopier时，我立即注意到持续的传输速度。 即使在较长的复制过程快要结束时，它也不会下降得太低，并保持在22 MB / s至18 MB / s之间。 从A到B复制4.4 GB的时间为3:21，超过了TeraCopy，位居第二。 但是，从B到C的复制花费了4:01，明显长于TeraCopy或Windows。

24 Gb of smaller files took the longest, at about 19:20 from A to B and 18:53 from B to C. I did like the steady transfer speeds, though, so this might be noteworthy if you’re paranoid about backups.

24 Gb的较小文件花费的时间最长，从A到B大约为19:20，从B到C大约为18:53。不过，我确实喜欢稳定的传输速度，因此，如果您对备份抱有偏执的话，这可能是值得注意的。

处理数字 (Crunching the Numbers)

It seems that copying large individual files works best using Windows 7’s copying ability, at least if speed is what counts. On the other hand, when copying a large amount of smaller files, TeraCopy seems to have the edge. Our test wasn’t anywhere near scientific, but we did our best to make sure we could rule out interference while still trying to emulate some real-world use. Your mileage may vary, of course, as there are quite a few variables at play here. The numbers were all over the place, so lets take a look at why they might be the way they are.

看来，至少在速度至关重要的情况下，使用Windows 7的复制功能复制大型单个文件效果最佳。 另一方面，在复制大量较小的文件时，TeraCopy似乎具有优势。 我们的测试远非科学，但我们尽了最大努力来确保在排除干扰的同时仍试图模拟某些实际用途。 当然，您的里程可能会有所不同，因为这里有很多变量在起作用。 数字无处不在，所以让我们来看看为什么它们可能是这样。

First and foremost, since we are using mechanical drives and not solid-state storage, seek times and the like come into effect. Copying a single large file can be a simple matter or a complicated one, depending on whether the file is in contiguous area or split up and written in the gaps on a fairly full drive. The same thing applies when considering multiple-file operations. Essentially, you can consider single large files and multiple smaller files to be two separate types of copy operations depending on your hardware.

首先，由于我们使用的是机械驱动器而不是固态存储，因此搜索时间等开始生效。 复制单个大文件可能是简单的事情，也可能是复杂的文件，这取决于文件是连续的区域还是拆分并写入相当完整的驱动器上的间隙。 考虑多文件操作时，同样适用。 本质上，您可以将单个大文件和多个小文件视为两种单独的复制操作类型，具体取决于您的硬件。

Another thing to look at is the fact that TeraCopy has an arguable advantage over SuperCopier in that it has 64-bit support. SuperCopier is only 32-bit. Both programs are also a little out of date – TeraCopy hasn’t had an update in a year, and SuperCopier’s last version was in 2009. So why bother using them at all?

另一件值得一看的事实是，TeraCopy具有优于SuperCopier的优势，因为它具有64位支持。 SuperCopier只有32位。 这两个程序也都有些过时– TeraCopy一年没有更新，而SuperCopier的最新版本是2009年。那么，为什么还要使用它们呢？

TeraCopy has a nice list of features, which we’ve covered before. You do have to pay for a license to be able to remove individual files from your copy queue, selecting files with the same extension, and using favorite folders. On the other hand, SuperCopier is free and offers more features, like file prioritization and custom responses for overwriting or skipping files. It also has pretty good sustained speeds from our tests, which I suspect will go a long way when copying a large number of large files.

TeraCopy有一系列不错的功能， 我们之前已经介绍过 。 您确实需要支付许可证费用，才能从复制队列中删除单个文件，选择具有相同扩展名的文件以及使用“收藏夹”文件夹。 另一方面，SuperCopier是免费的，并提供更多功能 ，例如文件优先级设置和用于覆盖或跳过文件的自定义响应。 从我们的测试来看，它还具有相当不错的持续速度，我怀疑在复制大量大文件时会走很长一段路。

判决 (Verdict)

It may seem crazy if you’re coming from XP/Vista, but our tests showed that Windows 7 is more than capable of handling large files on its own. When shooting for a larger number of files, TeraCopy ekes out ahead of Windows by a small margin. SuperCopier’s not without its advantages, however; its sustained rates and decent performance for large files makes it ideal when working with a multitude of them.

如果您来自XP / Vista，这可能看起来很疯狂，但是我们的测试表明Windows 7能够自行处理大文件。 当拍摄大量文件时，TeraCopy会稍微领先于Windows。 但是，SuperCopier并非没有优势。 大型文件的持续速率和出色的性能使其成为处理大量文件的理想之选。

If anything, the results were mixed. If I had to pick, I’d say TeraCopy wins for day-to-day performance, since I’m usually copying more small files than single large ones. It’s got a ton of features and the performance gain is worth the € 14.95 it cost me. That’s just me, though, and you may have a definitive winner considering your use, especially looking at SuperCopier price tag (free).

如果有的话，结果好坏参半。 如果必须选择，我会说TeraCopy会赢得日常性能，因为通常我复制的小文件比单个大文件要多。 它具有大量功能，性能提升值得我花费14.95欧元。 不过，这只是我一个，考虑到您的用途，您可能会是一个确定的赢家，尤其是考虑到SuperCopier的价格标签(免费)。

The important thing really is that the biggest advantage isn’t speed, it’s features. Windows 7 can hold its own in speed, but you don’t get any of the useful queuing abilities the alternative file copiers provide. Windows 8’s copy dialog seems promising, but for now, my vote is to stick to the alternatives.

重要的是，最大的优势不是速度，而是功能。 Windows 7可以保持自己的速度，但是您无法获得替代文件​​复印机提供的任何有用的排队功能。 Windows 8的复制对话框似乎很有希望，但就目前而言，我的投票是坚持使用替代方案。

---

---

Do you have a favorite file copy alternative? Do you prefer to use Windows? What makes your copying needs make ends meet? Share your thoughts in the comments!

您有喜欢的文件复制替代品吗？ 您喜欢使用Windows吗？ 是什么使您的复印需求能够满足需求？ 在评论区分享你的观点！

翻译自: https://www.howtogeek.com/73887/battle-of-the-file-copiers-windows-teracopy-and-supercopier/

teracopy