X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <5528898.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:48:48 -0700 (PDT) From: aldana To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: cygwin copy problems usb 2.0 In-Reply-To: <20060727201931.GD3409@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Nabble-Sender: aldana AT gmx DOT de X-Nabble-From: aldana References: <5519828 DOT post AT talk DOT nabble DOT com> <5528112 DOT post AT talk DOT nabble DOT com> <44C91F4A DOT 8050404 AT cygwin DOT com> <20060727201931 DOT GD3409 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com isn't there a possibitly that cygwin provides a quicker cp-implementation? i mean 4 minutes for a copy of 70MB to a memstick (instead of CopyFile() 20 sec.) is not really good performance. i guess there is a reason for that... -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/cygwin-copy-problems-usb-2.0-tf2009189.html#a5528898 Sent from the Cygwin Users forum at Nabble.com. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/