Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Windows 64bit > XP64 usefull for me?

Reply
Thread Tools

XP64 usefull for me?

 
 
=?Utf-8?B?Q2FybG9z?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2007
Charlie:
I use it without the need for elevation (will it be because I have UAC
disabled?, "bad idea", I know)
In any case you can always right click on the icon/shortcut and choose "run
as administrator or elevated" (I am not at my Vista PC now so I can't recall
the exact context menu syntax).
The MOST beautiful thing about Ztree is that, being a 32-bit app, it can
access to the real system32 folder without being re-routed to the syswow64
one!
Carlos

"Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

> how well does it handle elevation, Carlos? Do I need to start it in elevated
> mode? Or will it trigger a prompt when it needs to?
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
>
> "Carlos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Nice Bike,
> > Try ZtreeWin (http://www.ztree.com/html/ztreewin.htm) instead of Free
> > Commander.
> > It is a text mode clone of the old XTree.
> > I have used it as my File Manager for many years.
> > Works on all OS's (excluding DOS).
> > Once you get used to its speed you will never use Windows Explorer again.
> > You can try before you buy.
> > Carlos
> >
> > "Nice Bike" wrote:
> >
> >> One of the reasons I asked about WIN XP64 is that when I click in
> >> Windows Explorer on a drive to explore that drive, Explorer is taking
> >> a long time to 'scan' thru the whole drive, every time I click on that
> >> drive. Especially after restarting Explorer because it sometimes
> >> 'hangs' when it's busy with scanning a drive. I can't seem to make XP
> >> stop scanning drives. I've turned the Index service off already.
> >> Another example is when I select allot of files to move to another
> >> directory and right-click for 'cut', it will take ages for the context
> >> menu to appear, because explorer is scanning al those files again.
> >> This is very annoying. I am now trying other 'explorers'
> >> like FreeCommander. FC seems a bit faster. Not as much scanning of
> >> drives, but still uses some of Win Explorer's routines.
> >> I have 1GB RAM, and SATA II harddrives, but are connected to SATA I
> >> controllers on the mainboard, switching to SATA II controllers could
> >> yield some speed, but that would mean a new mainboard, and some $$$.
> >>
> >> I was thinking that WIN64 would use the 64bit CPU instructions for
> >> Windows Explorer, so it would be faster.
> >> I've read that with the XP SP3 there would be a patch for faster drive
> >> access that fixes the 'bug' of re-scanning a whole drive time after
> >> time. We'll see...
> >>
> >> Thanks for your quick reply.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:07:48 +0100, "Tony Sperling"
> >> <tony.sperling@db<REMOVE>mail.dk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >If you have a suitable amount of memory (up to 4GB) and good HD(s) and
> >> >you
> >> >keep your system trim I can't see any apparent reason why your system
> >> >should
> >> >be slow. But then, I am not used to handling that amount of files at one
> >> >time. With that kind of task, I would investigate using a script (set of
> >> >scripts?) and run it in the background and forget about it - 64bit or
> >> >not.
> >> >
> >> >The popular wisdom has it that a 64bit system is called for if you must
> >> >have
> >> >more than 4GB memory and/or must use a 64bit app.
> >> >
> >> >Personally, I have to stress the point that XP x64 handles Virtual
> >> >Memory
> >> >much better than anything else I know of. It seems quick and there's
> >> >nothing
> >> >much that can bring it to it's knees. But it is a subjective feeling.
> >> >There
> >> >are no benchmarks to support that it should be faster, but it certainly
> >> >seems more responsive - awake - can't wait to get going!
> >> >
> >> >I have no use for more memory and I don't do any work that requires
> >> >64bit
> >> >processing, but I love it. It is very stable and reliable, and it has an
> >> >exemplarily decent community, but the snag is that you have to do your
> >> >own
> >> >detective-work and make sure you can have 64bit drivers for all the
> >> >hardware
> >> >and devices you mean to employ. Anything and everything that needs a
> >> >driver
> >> >now, needs a 64bit driver then! This part is still lacking, sadly.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >For all I know, I can only recommend it - if you really need it? - that
> >> >is
> >> >doubtfull!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >What is also doubtfull, is wether you should exchange your OS and
> >> >install it
> >> >on the same machine? There is much to indicate that XP x64 might be more
> >> >demanding on the quality of such things as memory and PSU, and it very
> >> >often
> >> >needs a BIOS update. A floppy drive for SATA drivers at installation
> >> >will be
> >> >mandatory and a few more specialties.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Tony. . .
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Nice Bike" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> >news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
> >> >> Using XP pro now. I'm doing allot of large amount-file-moving from
> >> >> directory to directory. So I'm using Windows Explorer allot with cut
> >> >> and paste. WIN XP seems very slow sometimes when accessing directories
> >> >> with large amounts of files 20,000+ or so.
> >> >>
> >> >> So, I was thinking of installing WIN XP-64bit. Will it be faster for
> >> >> me with al the file moving and organizing I'm doing? I wont be using
> >> >> any 64bit applications per se.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>

>

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
=?Utf-8?B?Q2FybG9z?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2007
Charlie:
The answer to your question found in ZTreeWin FAQ page:
"Q32: Why do I get a User Account Control (UAC) message in Vista?
In order to provide access to actual protected directories and files in
Vista (rather than virtual copies of these directories and files),
applications like ZTreeWin must request access every time they run.
ZTreeWin requests the highest level privilege elevation available to that
user. If the highest level is administrator, Vista requires the user to
confirm this elevation with this UAC dialog (even though the user is already
logged in with administrator privileges). The alternative is to disable UAC,
which removes this malware protection entirely."

Carlos

"Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

> how well does it handle elevation, Carlos? Do I need to start it in elevated
> mode? Or will it trigger a prompt when it needs to?
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
>
> "Carlos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Nice Bike,
> > Try ZtreeWin (http://www.ztree.com/html/ztreewin.htm) instead of Free
> > Commander.
> > It is a text mode clone of the old XTree.
> > I have used it as my File Manager for many years.
> > Works on all OS's (excluding DOS).
> > Once you get used to its speed you will never use Windows Explorer again.
> > You can try before you buy.
> > Carlos
> >
> > "Nice Bike" wrote:
> >
> >> One of the reasons I asked about WIN XP64 is that when I click in
> >> Windows Explorer on a drive to explore that drive, Explorer is taking
> >> a long time to 'scan' thru the whole drive, every time I click on that
> >> drive. Especially after restarting Explorer because it sometimes
> >> 'hangs' when it's busy with scanning a drive. I can't seem to make XP
> >> stop scanning drives. I've turned the Index service off already.
> >> Another example is when I select allot of files to move to another
> >> directory and right-click for 'cut', it will take ages for the context
> >> menu to appear, because explorer is scanning al those files again.
> >> This is very annoying. I am now trying other 'explorers'
> >> like FreeCommander. FC seems a bit faster. Not as much scanning of
> >> drives, but still uses some of Win Explorer's routines.
> >> I have 1GB RAM, and SATA II harddrives, but are connected to SATA I
> >> controllers on the mainboard, switching to SATA II controllers could
> >> yield some speed, but that would mean a new mainboard, and some $$$.
> >>
> >> I was thinking that WIN64 would use the 64bit CPU instructions for
> >> Windows Explorer, so it would be faster.
> >> I've read that with the XP SP3 there would be a patch for faster drive
> >> access that fixes the 'bug' of re-scanning a whole drive time after
> >> time. We'll see...
> >>
> >> Thanks for your quick reply.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:07:48 +0100, "Tony Sperling"
> >> <tony.sperling@db<REMOVE>mail.dk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >If you have a suitable amount of memory (up to 4GB) and good HD(s) and
> >> >you
> >> >keep your system trim I can't see any apparent reason why your system
> >> >should
> >> >be slow. But then, I am not used to handling that amount of files at one
> >> >time. With that kind of task, I would investigate using a script (set of
> >> >scripts?) and run it in the background and forget about it - 64bit or
> >> >not.
> >> >
> >> >The popular wisdom has it that a 64bit system is called for if you must
> >> >have
> >> >more than 4GB memory and/or must use a 64bit app.
> >> >
> >> >Personally, I have to stress the point that XP x64 handles Virtual
> >> >Memory
> >> >much better than anything else I know of. It seems quick and there's
> >> >nothing
> >> >much that can bring it to it's knees. But it is a subjective feeling.
> >> >There
> >> >are no benchmarks to support that it should be faster, but it certainly
> >> >seems more responsive - awake - can't wait to get going!
> >> >
> >> >I have no use for more memory and I don't do any work that requires
> >> >64bit
> >> >processing, but I love it. It is very stable and reliable, and it has an
> >> >exemplarily decent community, but the snag is that you have to do your
> >> >own
> >> >detective-work and make sure you can have 64bit drivers for all the
> >> >hardware
> >> >and devices you mean to employ. Anything and everything that needs a
> >> >driver
> >> >now, needs a 64bit driver then! This part is still lacking, sadly.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >For all I know, I can only recommend it - if you really need it? - that
> >> >is
> >> >doubtfull!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >What is also doubtfull, is wether you should exchange your OS and
> >> >install it
> >> >on the same machine? There is much to indicate that XP x64 might be more
> >> >demanding on the quality of such things as memory and PSU, and it very
> >> >often
> >> >needs a BIOS update. A floppy drive for SATA drivers at installation
> >> >will be
> >> >mandatory and a few more specialties.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Tony. . .
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Nice Bike" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> >news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
> >> >> Using XP pro now. I'm doing allot of large amount-file-moving from
> >> >> directory to directory. So I'm using Windows Explorer allot with cut
> >> >> and paste. WIN XP seems very slow sometimes when accessing directories
> >> >> with large amounts of files 20,000+ or so.
> >> >>
> >> >> So, I was thinking of installing WIN XP-64bit. Will it be faster for
> >> >> me with al the file moving and organizing I'm doing? I wont be using
> >> >> any 64bit applications per se.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>

>

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Nice Bike
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2007
I have been putting files into sub-directories for faster access,
that's the first thing I have to do with 20,000+ files in one
directory. Access to that directory would be horrible, until the
numbers go down. But accessing that drive after a Windows Explorer
restart would be slow at first, due to scanning of the directory
structure. Even collapsing the tree, en re-opening it would be slow
again. It must be that WIN XP SP2 bug, and should be fixed with SP3.

The reason so many files would appear into one directory is very
simple, have you ever unattended, over night, downloaded files from a
binary newsgroup? There ya go!



On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 21:56:50 -0700, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Yup, you'd use the same structure. In the very old DOS days, you're actually
>break some programs at roughly 1000 files. (but those were the days when you
>couldn't have more than 122 subdirectories and/or files in the root
>directory.) Others just got really slow. These days, it's less of an issue,
>but it's still a potential speed problem.
>
>One kind of operation that creates a lot of files in one location and then
>has to move them is software builds. Especially cross platform builds, where
>things may be generated on one kind of machine, but need to be stored /
>checked in to another kind. Another can be log files for individual
>processes. We used to generate a series of files for every car that went
>through the Paint Department. That file would be opened, written to, and
>closed every time it passed an antenna. And, when it left Paint and went to
>Assembly, it was became a row in the database and got stored off as a flat
>log file. Just in case. They weren't big files - a couple hundred bytes was
>all. Just a time stamp and a location for every antenna. The body didn't
>have a VIN yet, so it was assigned a number when it entered the shop, and
>that number became the file name.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Nice Bike
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2007
Humm, I'm putting WIN XP64 aside for now.
I have an Athlon 64 3000+ @2GHz with 1GB RAM and SATA I, obvious to
obsolete for x64.
This 'older' system serves me well for now, it's just the large amount
of file accessing that's the problem.
I actually do have a smaller HD for the swapfile.
Talking about HD speed, I get 50-60 MB/sec with my current SATA II
drives on the SATA I controllers, what would be the speed increase if
I upgrade the mainboard with SATA II controllers?
The most new games run very choppy on this system, but I don't do
allot of gaming. I was thinking of getting, eventually, a dual core
CPU AMD, with appropriate mainboard.
Would Vista 64 run better then XP64 on such a system?

Thanks for your advice.





On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 01:29:34 +0100, "Tony Sperling"
<tony.sperling@db<REMOVE>mail.dk> wrote:

>Well, to be blunt - on that system I very much doubt that x64 would do much
>of a difference. One observation I could make is that motherboards these
>days are not very expensive. Memory too, at the moment is down-right cheap.
>Whichever way you turn, that will help a lot. I'd say, you need 2GB of
>dual-channel memory and definitely have your HD on a compatible controller.
>You might also try and invest in a smaller, really fast HD to carry your
>swap-file.
>
>As it is, the system does not seem to bee well suited for present-day
>heavy-duty work. And I'm not criticising the quality. I have one six year
>old machine with an Athlon XP 2400+ and 1GB memory. It gives me full
>pleasure with it's speed and stability, but I wouldn't use it for any heavy
>stuff.
>
>The 64bit instruction might actually be slower since it is only used to
>access more memory than the 32bit OS can address, it is certainly not
>faster - the data-path that comes along will be the important part. Compare
>with a motorway, if all the lanes are full to beginn with, doubling the
>width with more lanes will allow you to travel faster. If the lanes are not
>filled, having more lanes does not shorten the traveling time. So, from that
>point - your system might be struggling from over-work, which the 64bit OS
>would help speeding up, but the 64bit OS would be bogged down from the
>hardware bottlenecks of that system. So, you would be having a one step
>forward/ one step back situation!
>
>Even so, experience tells us that putting XP x64 on an older system in an
>attempt to upgrade it, is a bad idea. If your workload demands it, buy a new
>machine targeting on that OS and you will most likely be very happy with the
>result.
>
>
>Tony. . .
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Sperling
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2007
I can't predict what figure you would get with your HD, but I strongly
assume something in the vicinity of 80, as I remember, I had 88 and that was
pretty much the same Seagate drive.

It's not the CPU that's your problem, rather amount of RAM and the thing
with the HD. They are real bottlenecks.

But check out what Charlie said about the directory structure - if he takes
the time to mention this, you will be surprised!

And the extra HD! Delete all partitions on that drive and first create one
small Primary Partition (some 10 GB?) where you can put the swapfile, leave
some swapfile space on the system drive!

I bet you will see a real boost from those two easy steps alone!


Tony. . .


"Nice Bike" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Humm, I'm putting WIN XP64 aside for now.
> I have an Athlon 64 3000+ @2GHz with 1GB RAM and SATA I, obvious to
> obsolete for x64.
> This 'older' system serves me well for now, it's just the large amount
> of file accessing that's the problem.
> I actually do have a smaller HD for the swapfile.
> Talking about HD speed, I get 50-60 MB/sec with my current SATA II
> drives on the SATA I controllers, what would be the speed increase if
> I upgrade the mainboard with SATA II controllers?
> The most new games run very choppy on this system, but I don't do
> allot of gaming. I was thinking of getting, eventually, a dual core
> CPU AMD, with appropriate mainboard.
> Would Vista 64 run better then XP64 on such a system?
>
> Thanks for your advice.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 01:29:34 +0100, "Tony Sperling"
> <tony.sperling@db<REMOVE>mail.dk> wrote:
>
>>Well, to be blunt - on that system I very much doubt that x64 would do
>>much
>>of a difference. One observation I could make is that motherboards these
>>days are not very expensive. Memory too, at the moment is down-right
>>cheap.
>>Whichever way you turn, that will help a lot. I'd say, you need 2GB of
>>dual-channel memory and definitely have your HD on a compatible
>>controller.
>>You might also try and invest in a smaller, really fast HD to carry your
>>swap-file.
>>
>>As it is, the system does not seem to bee well suited for present-day
>>heavy-duty work. And I'm not criticising the quality. I have one six year
>>old machine with an Athlon XP 2400+ and 1GB memory. It gives me full
>>pleasure with it's speed and stability, but I wouldn't use it for any
>>heavy
>>stuff.
>>
>>The 64bit instruction might actually be slower since it is only used to
>>access more memory than the 32bit OS can address, it is certainly not
>>faster - the data-path that comes along will be the important part.
>>Compare
>>with a motorway, if all the lanes are full to beginn with, doubling the
>>width with more lanes will allow you to travel faster. If the lanes are
>>not
>>filled, having more lanes does not shorten the traveling time. So, from
>>that
>>point - your system might be struggling from over-work, which the 64bit OS
>>would help speeding up, but the 64bit OS would be bogged down from the
>>hardware bottlenecks of that system. So, you would be having a one step
>>forward/ one step back situation!
>>
>>Even so, experience tells us that putting XP x64 on an older system in an
>>attempt to upgrade it, is a bad idea. If your workload demands it, buy a
>>new
>>machine targeting on that OS and you will most likely be very happy with
>>the
>>result.
>>
>>
>>Tony. . .
>>

>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Nice Bike
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2007
I did read what Charlie said about the directory structure, I replied
to him saying that I already have to cut the large amounts of files
into smaller sub-directories. I'm not familiar to this newsgroup, but
is he the resident expert here?

So you say that putting the swapfile in a partition of it's own will
boost performance? I will try that! I always was under the impression
that putting swapfiles on drivers OTHER then the systemdrive would
boost performance. And with games more so, never put the swapfile on
the same drive as the gamefiles.
I'm not sure if buying more RAM for an older system is such a good
idea. I was thinking of upgrading, then I will put in 4GB RAM.

Thanks for the help.



On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:33:29 +0100, "Tony Sperling"
<tony.sperling@db<REMOVE>mail.dk> wrote:

>I can't predict what figure you would get with your HD, but I strongly
>assume something in the vicinity of 80, as I remember, I had 88 and that was
>pretty much the same Seagate drive.
>
>It's not the CPU that's your problem, rather amount of RAM and the thing
>with the HD. They are real bottlenecks.
>
>But check out what Charlie said about the directory structure - if he takes
>the time to mention this, you will be surprised!
>
>And the extra HD! Delete all partitions on that drive and first create one
>small Primary Partition (some 10 GB?) where you can put the swapfile, leave
>some swapfile space on the system drive!
>
>I bet you will see a real boost from those two easy steps alone!
>
>
>Tony. . .
>
>
>"Nice Bike" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> Humm, I'm putting WIN XP64 aside for now.
>> I have an Athlon 64 3000+ @2GHz with 1GB RAM and SATA I, obvious to
>> obsolete for x64.
>> This 'older' system serves me well for now, it's just the large amount
>> of file accessing that's the problem.
>> I actually do have a smaller HD for the swapfile.
>> Talking about HD speed, I get 50-60 MB/sec with my current SATA II
>> drives on the SATA I controllers, what would be the speed increase if
>> I upgrade the mainboard with SATA II controllers?
>> The most new games run very choppy on this system, but I don't do
>> allot of gaming. I was thinking of getting, eventually, a dual core
>> CPU AMD, with appropriate mainboard.
>> Would Vista 64 run better then XP64 on such a system?
>>
>> Thanks for your advice.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 01:29:34 +0100, "Tony Sperling"
>> <tony.sperling@db<REMOVE>mail.dk> wrote:
>>
>>>Well, to be blunt - on that system I very much doubt that x64 would do
>>>much
>>>of a difference. One observation I could make is that motherboards these
>>>days are not very expensive. Memory too, at the moment is down-right
>>>cheap.
>>>Whichever way you turn, that will help a lot. I'd say, you need 2GB of
>>>dual-channel memory and definitely have your HD on a compatible
>>>controller.
>>>You might also try and invest in a smaller, really fast HD to carry your
>>>swap-file.
>>>
>>>As it is, the system does not seem to bee well suited for present-day
>>>heavy-duty work. And I'm not criticising the quality. I have one six year
>>>old machine with an Athlon XP 2400+ and 1GB memory. It gives me full
>>>pleasure with it's speed and stability, but I wouldn't use it for any
>>>heavy
>>>stuff.
>>>
>>>The 64bit instruction might actually be slower since it is only used to
>>>access more memory than the 32bit OS can address, it is certainly not
>>>faster - the data-path that comes along will be the important part.
>>>Compare
>>>with a motorway, if all the lanes are full to beginn with, doubling the
>>>width with more lanes will allow you to travel faster. If the lanes are
>>>not
>>>filled, having more lanes does not shorten the traveling time. So, from
>>>that
>>>point - your system might be struggling from over-work, which the 64bit OS
>>>would help speeding up, but the 64bit OS would be bogged down from the
>>>hardware bottlenecks of that system. So, you would be having a one step
>>>forward/ one step back situation!
>>>
>>>Even so, experience tells us that putting XP x64 on an older system in an
>>>attempt to upgrade it, is a bad idea. If your workload demands it, buy a
>>>new
>>>machine targeting on that OS and you will most likely be very happy with
>>>the
>>>result.
>>>
>>>
>>>Tony. . .
>>>

>>

>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2007
if it's a 32-bit app, it will NOT have access to the real system32 folder.
It will get the SysWOW64 folder, only it will _appear_ to be the system32
folder. Nope, I'll pass. (and yes, you should definitely not be running with
UAC off. BAD idea.)

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Carlos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Charlie:
> I use it without the need for elevation (will it be because I have UAC
> disabled?, "bad idea", I know)
> In any case you can always right click on the icon/shortcut and choose
> "run
> as administrator or elevated" (I am not at my Vista PC now so I can't
> recall
> the exact context menu syntax).
> The MOST beautiful thing about Ztree is that, being a 32-bit app, it can
> access to the real system32 folder without being re-routed to the syswow64
> one!
> Carlos
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
>
>> how well does it handle elevation, Carlos? Do I need to start it in
>> elevated
>> mode? Or will it trigger a prompt when it needs to?
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>>
>> "Carlos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > Nice Bike,
>> > Try ZtreeWin (http://www.ztree.com/html/ztreewin.htm) instead of Free
>> > Commander.
>> > It is a text mode clone of the old XTree.
>> > I have used it as my File Manager for many years.
>> > Works on all OS's (excluding DOS).
>> > Once you get used to its speed you will never use Windows Explorer
>> > again.
>> > You can try before you buy.
>> > Carlos
>> >
>> > "Nice Bike" wrote:
>> >
>> >> One of the reasons I asked about WIN XP64 is that when I click in
>> >> Windows Explorer on a drive to explore that drive, Explorer is taking
>> >> a long time to 'scan' thru the whole drive, every time I click on that
>> >> drive. Especially after restarting Explorer because it sometimes
>> >> 'hangs' when it's busy with scanning a drive. I can't seem to make XP
>> >> stop scanning drives. I've turned the Index service off already.
>> >> Another example is when I select allot of files to move to another
>> >> directory and right-click for 'cut', it will take ages for the context
>> >> menu to appear, because explorer is scanning al those files again.
>> >> This is very annoying. I am now trying other 'explorers'
>> >> like FreeCommander. FC seems a bit faster. Not as much scanning of
>> >> drives, but still uses some of Win Explorer's routines.
>> >> I have 1GB RAM, and SATA II harddrives, but are connected to SATA I
>> >> controllers on the mainboard, switching to SATA II controllers could
>> >> yield some speed, but that would mean a new mainboard, and some $$$.
>> >>
>> >> I was thinking that WIN64 would use the 64bit CPU instructions for
>> >> Windows Explorer, so it would be faster.
>> >> I've read that with the XP SP3 there would be a patch for faster drive
>> >> access that fixes the 'bug' of re-scanning a whole drive time after
>> >> time. We'll see...
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for your quick reply.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:07:48 +0100, "Tony Sperling"
>> >> <tony.sperling@db<REMOVE>mail.dk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >If you have a suitable amount of memory (up to 4GB) and good HD(s)
>> >> >and
>> >> >you
>> >> >keep your system trim I can't see any apparent reason why your system
>> >> >should
>> >> >be slow. But then, I am not used to handling that amount of files at
>> >> >one
>> >> >time. With that kind of task, I would investigate using a script (set
>> >> >of
>> >> >scripts?) and run it in the background and forget about it - 64bit or
>> >> >not.
>> >> >
>> >> >The popular wisdom has it that a 64bit system is called for if you
>> >> >must
>> >> >have
>> >> >more than 4GB memory and/or must use a 64bit app.
>> >> >
>> >> >Personally, I have to stress the point that XP x64 handles Virtual
>> >> >Memory
>> >> >much better than anything else I know of. It seems quick and there's
>> >> >nothing
>> >> >much that can bring it to it's knees. But it is a subjective feeling.
>> >> >There
>> >> >are no benchmarks to support that it should be faster, but it
>> >> >certainly
>> >> >seems more responsive - awake - can't wait to get going!
>> >> >
>> >> >I have no use for more memory and I don't do any work that requires
>> >> >64bit
>> >> >processing, but I love it. It is very stable and reliable, and it has
>> >> >an
>> >> >exemplarily decent community, but the snag is that you have to do
>> >> >your
>> >> >own
>> >> >detective-work and make sure you can have 64bit drivers for all the
>> >> >hardware
>> >> >and devices you mean to employ. Anything and everything that needs a
>> >> >driver
>> >> >now, needs a 64bit driver then! This part is still lacking, sadly.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >For all I know, I can only recommend it - if you really need it? -
>> >> >that
>> >> >is
>> >> >doubtfull!
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >What is also doubtfull, is wether you should exchange your OS and
>> >> >install it
>> >> >on the same machine? There is much to indicate that XP x64 might be
>> >> >more
>> >> >demanding on the quality of such things as memory and PSU, and it
>> >> >very
>> >> >often
>> >> >needs a BIOS update. A floppy drive for SATA drivers at installation
>> >> >will be
>> >> >mandatory and a few more specialties.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Tony. . .
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"Nice Bike" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> >> >news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> >> >> Using XP pro now. I'm doing allot of large amount-file-moving from
>> >> >> directory to directory. So I'm using Windows Explorer allot with
>> >> >> cut
>> >> >> and paste. WIN XP seems very slow sometimes when accessing
>> >> >> directories
>> >> >> with large amounts of files 20,000+ or so.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So, I was thinking of installing WIN XP-64bit. Will it be faster
>> >> >> for
>> >> >> me with al the file moving and organizing I'm doing? I wont be
>> >> >> using
>> >> >> any 64bit applications per se.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>

>>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2007
"is he the resident expert"?

Nope. Just one of the many here who try to help out as we can.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Nice Bike" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I did read what Charlie said about the directory structure, I replied
> to him saying that I already have to cut the large amounts of files
> into smaller sub-directories. I'm not familiar to this newsgroup, but
> is he the resident expert here?
>
> So you say that putting the swapfile in a partition of it's own will
> boost performance? I will try that! I always was under the impression
> that putting swapfiles on drivers OTHER then the systemdrive would
> boost performance. And with games more so, never put the swapfile on
> the same drive as the gamefiles.
> I'm not sure if buying more RAM for an older system is such a good
> idea. I was thinking of upgrading, then I will put in 4GB RAM.
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
>
>
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:33:29 +0100, "Tony Sperling"
> <tony.sperling@db<REMOVE>mail.dk> wrote:
>
>>I can't predict what figure you would get with your HD, but I strongly
>>assume something in the vicinity of 80, as I remember, I had 88 and that
>>was
>>pretty much the same Seagate drive.
>>
>>It's not the CPU that's your problem, rather amount of RAM and the thing
>>with the HD. They are real bottlenecks.
>>
>>But check out what Charlie said about the directory structure - if he
>>takes
>>the time to mention this, you will be surprised!
>>
>>And the extra HD! Delete all partitions on that drive and first create one
>>small Primary Partition (some 10 GB?) where you can put the swapfile,
>>leave
>>some swapfile space on the system drive!
>>
>>I bet you will see a real boost from those two easy steps alone!
>>
>>
>>Tony. . .
>>
>>
>>"Nice Bike" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>> Humm, I'm putting WIN XP64 aside for now.
>>> I have an Athlon 64 3000+ @2GHz with 1GB RAM and SATA I, obvious to
>>> obsolete for x64.
>>> This 'older' system serves me well for now, it's just the large amount
>>> of file accessing that's the problem.
>>> I actually do have a smaller HD for the swapfile.
>>> Talking about HD speed, I get 50-60 MB/sec with my current SATA II
>>> drives on the SATA I controllers, what would be the speed increase if
>>> I upgrade the mainboard with SATA II controllers?
>>> The most new games run very choppy on this system, but I don't do
>>> allot of gaming. I was thinking of getting, eventually, a dual core
>>> CPU AMD, with appropriate mainboard.
>>> Would Vista 64 run better then XP64 on such a system?
>>>
>>> Thanks for your advice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 01:29:34 +0100, "Tony Sperling"
>>> <tony.sperling@db<REMOVE>mail.dk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Well, to be blunt - on that system I very much doubt that x64 would do
>>>>much
>>>>of a difference. One observation I could make is that motherboards these
>>>>days are not very expensive. Memory too, at the moment is down-right
>>>>cheap.
>>>>Whichever way you turn, that will help a lot. I'd say, you need 2GB of
>>>>dual-channel memory and definitely have your HD on a compatible
>>>>controller.
>>>>You might also try and invest in a smaller, really fast HD to carry your
>>>>swap-file.
>>>>
>>>>As it is, the system does not seem to bee well suited for present-day
>>>>heavy-duty work. And I'm not criticising the quality. I have one six
>>>>year
>>>>old machine with an Athlon XP 2400+ and 1GB memory. It gives me full
>>>>pleasure with it's speed and stability, but I wouldn't use it for any
>>>>heavy
>>>>stuff.
>>>>
>>>>The 64bit instruction might actually be slower since it is only used to
>>>>access more memory than the 32bit OS can address, it is certainly not
>>>>faster - the data-path that comes along will be the important part.
>>>>Compare
>>>>with a motorway, if all the lanes are full to beginn with, doubling the
>>>>width with more lanes will allow you to travel faster. If the lanes are
>>>>not
>>>>filled, having more lanes does not shorten the traveling time. So, from
>>>>that
>>>>point - your system might be struggling from over-work, which the 64bit
>>>>OS
>>>>would help speeding up, but the 64bit OS would be bogged down from the
>>>>hardware bottlenecks of that system. So, you would be having a one step
>>>>forward/ one step back situation!
>>>>
>>>>Even so, experience tells us that putting XP x64 on an older system in
>>>>an
>>>>attempt to upgrade it, is a bad idea. If your workload demands it, buy a
>>>>new
>>>>machine targeting on that OS and you will most likely be very happy with
>>>>the
>>>>result.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Tony. . .
>>>>
>>>

>>

>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2007
You might also look at turning off TCP Offload and TCP Tophat? But really,
if you're going to work with this many files, your best bet is a better I/O
subsystem.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Nice Bike" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I have been putting files into sub-directories for faster access,
> that's the first thing I have to do with 20,000+ files in one
> directory. Access to that directory would be horrible, until the
> numbers go down. But accessing that drive after a Windows Explorer
> restart would be slow at first, due to scanning of the directory
> structure. Even collapsing the tree, en re-opening it would be slow
> again. It must be that WIN XP SP2 bug, and should be fixed with SP3.
>
> The reason so many files would appear into one directory is very
> simple, have you ever unattended, over night, downloaded files from a
> binary newsgroup? There ya go!
>
>
>
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 21:56:50 -0700, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Yup, you'd use the same structure. In the very old DOS days, you're
>>actually
>>break some programs at roughly 1000 files. (but those were the days when
>>you
>>couldn't have more than 122 subdirectories and/or files in the root
>>directory.) Others just got really slow. These days, it's less of an
>>issue,
>>but it's still a potential speed problem.
>>
>>One kind of operation that creates a lot of files in one location and then
>>has to move them is software builds. Especially cross platform builds,
>>where
>>things may be generated on one kind of machine, but need to be stored /
>>checked in to another kind. Another can be log files for individual
>>processes. We used to generate a series of files for every car that went
>>through the Paint Department. That file would be opened, written to, and
>>closed every time it passed an antenna. And, when it left Paint and went
>>to
>>Assembly, it was became a row in the database and got stored off as a flat
>>log file. Just in case. They weren't big files - a couple hundred bytes
>>was
>>all. Just a time stamp and a location for every antenna. The body didn't
>>have a VIN yet, so it was assigned a number when it entered the shop, and
>>that number became the file name.

>


 
Reply With Quote
 
=?Utf-8?B?Q2FybG9z?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2007
Charlie,
Believe it or not, I set ZTreeWin in dual window view mode with system32 on
the left pane and syswow64 on the right pane.
Different info was on both panes and the system32 one matched the one in
Windows Explorer.
A couple of months back I bugged the author of this program regarding one
issue I had and he did mention a function he was using for reading the real
system32 folder y x64 versions of windows.

Carlos

"Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

> if it's a 32-bit app, it will NOT have access to the real system32 folder.
> It will get the SysWOW64 folder, only it will _appear_ to be the system32
> folder. Nope, I'll pass. (and yes, you should definitely not be running with
> UAC off. BAD idea.)
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
>
> "Carlos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Charlie:
> > I use it without the need for elevation (will it be because I have UAC
> > disabled?, "bad idea", I know)
> > In any case you can always right click on the icon/shortcut and choose
> > "run
> > as administrator or elevated" (I am not at my Vista PC now so I can't
> > recall
> > the exact context menu syntax).
> > The MOST beautiful thing about Ztree is that, being a 32-bit app, it can
> > access to the real system32 folder without being re-routed to the syswow64
> > one!
> > Carlos
> >
> > "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
> >
> >> how well does it handle elevation, Carlos? Do I need to start it in
> >> elevated
> >> mode? Or will it trigger a prompt when it needs to?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Charlie.
> >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> >> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
> >>
> >>
> >> "Carlos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> > Nice Bike,
> >> > Try ZtreeWin (http://www.ztree.com/html/ztreewin.htm) instead of Free
> >> > Commander.
> >> > It is a text mode clone of the old XTree.
> >> > I have used it as my File Manager for many years.
> >> > Works on all OS's (excluding DOS).
> >> > Once you get used to its speed you will never use Windows Explorer
> >> > again.
> >> > You can try before you buy.
> >> > Carlos
> >> >
> >> > "Nice Bike" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> One of the reasons I asked about WIN XP64 is that when I click in
> >> >> Windows Explorer on a drive to explore that drive, Explorer is taking
> >> >> a long time to 'scan' thru the whole drive, every time I click on that
> >> >> drive. Especially after restarting Explorer because it sometimes
> >> >> 'hangs' when it's busy with scanning a drive. I can't seem to make XP
> >> >> stop scanning drives. I've turned the Index service off already.
> >> >> Another example is when I select allot of files to move to another
> >> >> directory and right-click for 'cut', it will take ages for the context
> >> >> menu to appear, because explorer is scanning al those files again.
> >> >> This is very annoying. I am now trying other 'explorers'
> >> >> like FreeCommander. FC seems a bit faster. Not as much scanning of
> >> >> drives, but still uses some of Win Explorer's routines.
> >> >> I have 1GB RAM, and SATA II harddrives, but are connected to SATA I
> >> >> controllers on the mainboard, switching to SATA II controllers could
> >> >> yield some speed, but that would mean a new mainboard, and some $$$.
> >> >>
> >> >> I was thinking that WIN64 would use the 64bit CPU instructions for
> >> >> Windows Explorer, so it would be faster.
> >> >> I've read that with the XP SP3 there would be a patch for faster drive
> >> >> access that fixes the 'bug' of re-scanning a whole drive time after
> >> >> time. We'll see...
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks for your quick reply.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:07:48 +0100, "Tony Sperling"
> >> >> <tony.sperling@db<REMOVE>mail.dk> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >If you have a suitable amount of memory (up to 4GB) and good HD(s)
> >> >> >and
> >> >> >you
> >> >> >keep your system trim I can't see any apparent reason why your system
> >> >> >should
> >> >> >be slow. But then, I am not used to handling that amount of files at
> >> >> >one
> >> >> >time. With that kind of task, I would investigate using a script (set
> >> >> >of
> >> >> >scripts?) and run it in the background and forget about it - 64bit or
> >> >> >not.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The popular wisdom has it that a 64bit system is called for if you
> >> >> >must
> >> >> >have
> >> >> >more than 4GB memory and/or must use a 64bit app.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Personally, I have to stress the point that XP x64 handles Virtual
> >> >> >Memory
> >> >> >much better than anything else I know of. It seems quick and there's
> >> >> >nothing
> >> >> >much that can bring it to it's knees. But it is a subjective feeling.
> >> >> >There
> >> >> >are no benchmarks to support that it should be faster, but it
> >> >> >certainly
> >> >> >seems more responsive - awake - can't wait to get going!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I have no use for more memory and I don't do any work that requires
> >> >> >64bit
> >> >> >processing, but I love it. It is very stable and reliable, and it has
> >> >> >an
> >> >> >exemplarily decent community, but the snag is that you have to do
> >> >> >your
> >> >> >own
> >> >> >detective-work and make sure you can have 64bit drivers for all the
> >> >> >hardware
> >> >> >and devices you mean to employ. Anything and everything that needs a
> >> >> >driver
> >> >> >now, needs a 64bit driver then! This part is still lacking, sadly.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >For all I know, I can only recommend it - if you really need it? -
> >> >> >that
> >> >> >is
> >> >> >doubtfull!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >What is also doubtfull, is wether you should exchange your OS and
> >> >> >install it
> >> >> >on the same machine? There is much to indicate that XP x64 might be
> >> >> >more
> >> >> >demanding on the quality of such things as memory and PSU, and it
> >> >> >very
> >> >> >often
> >> >> >needs a BIOS update. A floppy drive for SATA drivers at installation
> >> >> >will be
> >> >> >mandatory and a few more specialties.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Tony. . .
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Nice Bike" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
> >> >> >> Using XP pro now. I'm doing allot of large amount-file-moving from
> >> >> >> directory to directory. So I'm using Windows Explorer allot with
> >> >> >> cut
> >> >> >> and paste. WIN XP seems very slow sometimes when accessing
> >> >> >> directories
> >> >> >> with large amounts of files 20,000+ or so.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So, I was thinking of installing WIN XP-64bit. Will it be faster
> >> >> >> for
> >> >> >> me with al the file moving and organizing I'm doing? I wont be
> >> >> >> using
> >> >> >> any 64bit applications per se.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>

>

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
xp64 trial version & xp64 beta version install =?Utf-8?B?TWF0dGhldyBXZWJzdGVy?= Windows 64bit 7 01-08-2006 01:29 AM
OEM xp64 v. Trial xp64 ? Soma11 Windows 64bit 4 05-22-2005 08:00 PM
my web search/bar usefull?? fredcromer Computer Support 6 06-30-2004 02:10 PM
usefull mozilla stuff VC Firefox 8 02-29-2004 09:43 PM
The 100 essential/most usefull newsgroups <---- Any magazines or reviews sites providing such an article? Arawak Computer Support 16 08-16-2003 10:42 PM



Advertisments