Windows XP D-Day
-
http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/96295[^] I've had Vista for a year, no troubles, no worries and SQL 2008 news here: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc434692(TechNet.10).aspx[^] and here: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc434691(TechNet.10).aspx[^]
"There's never a bathroom when you need one."---DarkPee
justfunnin wrote:
I've had Vista for a year, no troubles, no worries
I've had nothing but misery. I will continue to make XP my main OS.
Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
-
http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/96295[^] I've had Vista for a year, no troubles, no worries and SQL 2008 news here: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc434692(TechNet.10).aspx[^] and here: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc434691(TechNet.10).aspx[^]
"There's never a bathroom when you need one."---DarkPee
I've persevered for a year but I've had enough: it is a slow, cumbersome and petty OS and, as we speak, I ma downgrading my maim machine to XP. May even go back to Office 2003 or, gulp, OpenOffice. I freely admit that my laptop is plainly not up to the job: it is only a 2.4ghz box with 2gig ram so clearly doesn't have the legs. Maybe when I get a new machien I'll install Vista Ultimate but being pretty is no replacement for being fast. Oh, and bloody reliable.
-
I've persevered for a year but I've had enough: it is a slow, cumbersome and petty OS and, as we speak, I ma downgrading my maim machine to XP. May even go back to Office 2003 or, gulp, OpenOffice. I freely admit that my laptop is plainly not up to the job: it is only a 2.4ghz box with 2gig ram so clearly doesn't have the legs. Maybe when I get a new machien I'll install Vista Ultimate but being pretty is no replacement for being fast. Oh, and bloody reliable.
Just curious did you turn off any of the new vista features like Superfetch? (I have a sneaking suspicion that many people that find it slow are looking at their memory usage in Vista, jumping to the wrong conclusions and turning off a lot of the features that I've found make it smoking fast compared to XP.)
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
-
Just curious did you turn off any of the new vista features like Superfetch? (I have a sneaking suspicion that many people that find it slow are looking at their memory usage in Vista, jumping to the wrong conclusions and turning off a lot of the features that I've found make it smoking fast compared to XP.)
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
Over the last year I've twiddled and tweaked and turned off numerous services and so forth. But it gets to the point where you've turned off so much to eak out that last drop of speed that you think 'why am I wasting my time?' It now look sand acts like XP with none of the benefits. And this after the finla straw/inignity of attempting to upgrade Vista Business to Vista Ultimate. And failing. Miserably. Lost interest and won't go back till I buy a machine that can cope.
-
Just curious did you turn off any of the new vista features like Superfetch? (I have a sneaking suspicion that many people that find it slow are looking at their memory usage in Vista, jumping to the wrong conclusions and turning off a lot of the features that I've found make it smoking fast compared to XP.)
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
Is the fact that Vista takes much more time to copy files and up to ten times more than XP to uncompress archive related to superfetch? I really wonder what Vista uncompressing feature does more than 7-zip (or any other archive).
___________________________________________________________ On the whole human beings want to be good, but not to good and not quite all the time - George Orwell
-
Is the fact that Vista takes much more time to copy files and up to ten times more than XP to uncompress archive related to superfetch? I really wonder what Vista uncompressing feature does more than 7-zip (or any other archive).
___________________________________________________________ On the whole human beings want to be good, but not to good and not quite all the time - George Orwell
Vista takes ten times longer than XP to uncompress an archive? Wow, then it must be the slowest unpacker on earth... because XP already took ten times longer than 7-zip, so I never use Windows' built-in compression. I don't know what makes Windows unpacking so slow, but I can tell you what makes XPs "Send to compressed folder" so slow: It works like this: Create an empty zip file For each file to be added: Copy the zip header into a temporary file Append header for the new file to be zipped Copy the rest of the zip into the temp file Append compressed data for new file to be zipped Delete zip file, move temp file to zip file (or similar, I just noticed Windows to create a temp file, growing it to the zip's size, then the zip size was increasing, and the temp file starting from 0 again) Yup, that's quadratic running time in the number of files you want to compress. It wouldn't surprise me if the decompression does something like "for each file to decompress, decompress the whole archive to temp and copy the file we want".
-
Is the fact that Vista takes much more time to copy files and up to ten times more than XP to uncompress archive related to superfetch? I really wonder what Vista uncompressing feature does more than 7-zip (or any other archive).
___________________________________________________________ On the whole human beings want to be good, but not to good and not quite all the time - George Orwell
It's passing every file that's decompressed through the attachment security feature, to set the 'this file came from another computer' flag. In turn, this tends to break CHM (HTML Help) files, because the WebBrowser control then interprets them as being unsafe and puts them in the Internet zone. Unblocking the Zip file before you start does improve the performance somewhat, but it's still not a very good implementation. WinZip 10 and later also respects attachment security if the Zip file is marked as coming from the Internet, and is also correspondingly slower. Again, unblocking speeds it up massively.
DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991
-
It's passing every file that's decompressed through the attachment security feature, to set the 'this file came from another computer' flag. In turn, this tends to break CHM (HTML Help) files, because the WebBrowser control then interprets them as being unsafe and puts them in the Internet zone. Unblocking the Zip file before you start does improve the performance somewhat, but it's still not a very good implementation. WinZip 10 and later also respects attachment security if the Zip file is marked as coming from the Internet, and is also correspondingly slower. Again, unblocking speeds it up massively.
DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991
Thank you very much for the tip. I might now be smart and explain my friends the whole story instead of just telling to switch to seven zip. Thanks again.
___________________________________________________________ On the whole human beings want to be good, but not to good and not quite all the time - George Orwell
-
Over the last year I've twiddled and tweaked and turned off numerous services and so forth. But it gets to the point where you've turned off so much to eak out that last drop of speed that you think 'why am I wasting my time?' It now look sand acts like XP with none of the benefits. And this after the finla straw/inignity of attempting to upgrade Vista Business to Vista Ultimate. And failing. Miserably. Lost interest and won't go back till I buy a machine that can cope.
That explains the slowness then. There's very little that *should* be turned off if you want the full benefit of Vista's advanced performance features.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
-
It's passing every file that's decompressed through the attachment security feature, to set the 'this file came from another computer' flag. In turn, this tends to break CHM (HTML Help) files, because the WebBrowser control then interprets them as being unsafe and puts them in the Internet zone. Unblocking the Zip file before you start does improve the performance somewhat, but it's still not a very good implementation. WinZip 10 and later also respects attachment security if the Zip file is marked as coming from the Internet, and is also correspondingly slower. Again, unblocking speeds it up massively.
DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991
We've quite using Winzip just recently because it's lately becoming increasingly incompatible with the standard zip format. People using Winrar keep complaining they can't open our zip archives made with winzip and with Winzip I often can't open a zip file that opens fine in anything else like 7zip (which seems to be the best out of the ones I've tested and what we're moving to).
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson