Share this article
Latest news
With KB5043178 to Release Preview Channel, Microsoft advises Windows 11 users to plug in when the battery is low
Copilot in Outlook will generate personalized themes for you to customize the app
Microsoft will raise the price of its 365 Suite to include AI capabilities
Death Stranding Director’s Cut is now Xbox X|S at a huge discount
Outlook will let users create custom account icons so they can tell their accounts apart easier
How does Wi-Fi Direct file transfer on the Surface Pro stack up to other means of file transfer?
2 min. read
Published onJuly 28, 2014
published onJuly 28, 2014
Share this article
Read our disclosure page to find out how can you help Windows Report sustain the editorial teamRead more
Bluetooth remains one of the most convenient ways to quickly transfer files from one device to another, and while the protocol has gotten faster and more power efficient with Bluetooth 4.0, it’s still relatively slow. Try sending 1GB worth of video over Bluetooth, you’ll be waiting a while.
We’ve since fallen back to the ever so reliable USB thumbstick to handle the heavy lifting, but that’s a several step process of copying, switching devices, and pasting. Not that big of a deal particularly with “SuperSpeed” USB 3.0 and a relatively new (and immature) contender in the mobile consumer space; Wi-Fi Direct.
The real question is of course, how fast is Wi-Fi Direct in real-world applications? And how does it compare to existing means of file transfer in terms of not only speed, but ease of use/convenience? Today we put Wi-Fi Direct to the test.
Using the Microsoft Surface Pro 2 as the host PC, Wi-Fi Direct was used via the ‘Send my Files’ app available on the Windows Store. A 1.5GB file was then sent over Direct to another Windows 8.1-based PC that supports the protocol. The test was then repeated over Bluetooth 4.0, USB 3.0, and USB 2.0. See the results below.
Compared to its wireless counterpart, Wi-Fi Direct took just over 9 minutes to complete the transfer verses the 2 hours it took using Bluetooth 4.0. While it couldn’t match the speeds of USB 2.0, let alone USB 3.0, Wi-Fi Direct is a viable method of transferring large files wirelessly.
The protocol becomes especially convenient when transferring smaller files, this was tested by repeating the same process mentioned earlier, but with a 20MB file.
The results are much closer this time. Clocking in at 7.7 seconds, Wi-Fi Direct was just over a second slower than USB 2.0, and keep in mind, USB speeds did not include the time it takes to safely disconnect the drive, and plugging it into the second PC to initiate the copy process. So you could argue that Wi-Fi Direct is faster overall.
Microsoft’s next task is to make transferring files over Wi-Fi Direct as native and as easy as it is with Bluetooth. Give Direct a try, let us know what your experiences with it are. Note that you must have Wi-Fi Direct supported devices to use it.
Radu Tyrsina
Radu Tyrsina has been a Windows fan ever since he got his first PC, a Pentium III (a monster at that time).
For most of the kids of his age, the Internet was an amazing way to play and communicate with others, but he was deeply impressed by the flow of information and how easily you can find anything on the web.
Prior to founding Windows Report, this particular curiosity about digital content enabled him to grow a number of sites that helped hundreds of millions reach faster the answer they’re looking for.
User forum
0 messages
Sort by:LatestOldestMost Votes
Comment*
Name*
Email*
Commenting as.Not you?
Save information for future comments
Comment
Δ
Radu Tyrsina
