Ironically the more information you have the progress bar display the slower it goes. It takes time to read and display all the different file names and file paths. It also takes time the processor could have spent transferring data to calculate an estimated finish time. So it is actually faster to not have any progress bar at all.,(reply>), @Chris Roberts I would think a common use case where those things would be true would be on corporate computers. Especially ones that load user logins from a network share over a corporate VPN. They always have many things running in the background such as monitoring programs, deep freeze programs and such. They typically have mid or low range modern hardware too. Some smaller companies still use older computers that only run xp. This is getting less and less common though. It wouldn't add 30 minutes to a file transfer on a modern computer, but it would make it perceptibly slower to the user.,(reply>), This isn't true, unless you're doing something that's extremely CPU intensive and is using all of your threads at the same time.  This doesn't happen in normal software, on modern hardware.  It was kind of true back in the Pentium days, but only negligibly so.