 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows XP / 64-bit / November 2007XP64 usefull for me?
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. 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. . . > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > me with al the file moving and organizing I'm doing? I wont be using > any 64bit applications per se. 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. >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 [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >> me with al the file moving and organizing I'm doing? I wont be using >> any 64bit applications per se. 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. . . > 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 [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] >>> me with al the file moving and organizing I'm doing? I wont be using >>> any 64bit applications per se. 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. >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 [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >Tony. . . 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. . . > Humm, I'm putting WIN XP64 aside for now. > I have an Athlon 64 3000+ @2GHz with 1GB RAM and SATA I, obvious to [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >> >>Tony. . . 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. >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 [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] >>> >>>Tony. . . "is he the resident expert"? Nope. Just one of the many here who try to help out as we can.  SignatureCharlie. http://msmvps.com/xperts64 http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel >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 [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] >>>> >>>>Tony. . . Hi, Nice Bike. > 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. One of the great ongoing "religious battles". ;^} My opinion: If you have multiple hard drives, put the swap file on a different physical drive - a different spindle. Since a hard drive's heads are permanently fixed together as a unit, they can't read data from track 100 and swap to track 5000 at the same time; the whole "gang" has to move from 100 to 5000 - and then back again to continue reading from 100. But if the swap file is on a second HD, then reading from track 100 on HD0 and writing to track 5000 on HD1 can be happening simultaneously. Multiply that by a few thousand read/writes an hour and you should see some speed gains. But putting the swap file ANYWHERE on the same HD (the same spindle) as the OS is not likely to gain much speed. So it doesn't help to have the swap file is in Drive X: if Drive X: is just another partition on the same physical drive (same spindle, same gang of heads). If you have only a single physical drive, then any speed gain is going to be minimal, no matter where you put the swap file. I'm no gamer and I'm not sure just how they use the drives, but I would guess that you should try to put the swap file on a physical drive other than the one that has the game's executable files and data - and still separate from the systemdrive. Still one of the best articles on this subject is the one written by MVP Alex Nichol, who died in 2005. The article was written for WinXP, but the ideas apply to Vista, too: Virtual Memory in Windows XP; http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm (While you are there, be sure to explore that www.aumha.org website; LOTS of good information there.) RC SignatureR. C. White, CPA San Marcos, TX rc@grandecom.net Microsoft Windows MVP (Running Windows Live Mail beta 2 in Vista Ultimate x64) > 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 [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] >>>> >>>>Tony. . . I was hoping to get rid of the swapfile altogether with 4GB of RAM in the new system I'm going to build. Or is that not possible? Will there always be a need for a swapfile? >Hi, Nice Bike. > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > >RC You should always have a swap file. SignatureCharlie. http://msmvps.com/xperts64 http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel >I was hoping to get rid of the swapfile altogether with 4GB of RAM in > the new system I'm going to build. Or is that not possible? Will there [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >> >>RC yes, you'll always need a swap file. SignatureCharlie. http://msmvps.com/xperts64 http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel >I was hoping to get rid of the swapfile altogether with 4GB of RAM in > the new system I'm going to build. Or is that not possible? Will there [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >> >>RC 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 > 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 [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > >> me with al the file moving and organizing I'm doing? I wont be using > >> any 64bit applications per se. 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? SignatureCharlie. http://msmvps.com/xperts64 http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel > Nice Bike, > Try ZtreeWin (http://www.ztree.com/html/ztreewin.htm) instead of Free [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] >> >> me with al the file moving and organizing I'm doing? I wont be using >> >> any 64bit applications per se. 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 > 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? [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > >> >> me with al the file moving and organizing I'm doing? I wont be using > >> >> any 64bit applications per se. 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.) SignatureCharlie. http://msmvps.com/xperts64 http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel > Charlie: > I use it without the need for elevation (will it be because I have UAC [quoted text clipped - 118 lines] >> >> >> using >> >> >> any 64bit applications per se. 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 > 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 [quoted text clipped - 123 lines] > >> >> >> using > >> >> >> any 64bit applications per se. > (and yes, you should definitely not be running with UAC off. BAD > idea.) Agreed, if there was ANY way I could run with UAC on I would but... SignatureXS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org I've been running with UAC on since before it shipped. I've not yet found a single thing to change that opinion. I have two things I do to make life easier - I open a PowerShell window _as administrator_ and keep it open. (and I have a startup script for PowerShell that turns that window a nice, dark red background so I always know I'm in it, not the regular PS window) The other thing I did was create identical drive mappings in that elevated prompt. SignatureCharlie. http://msmvps.com/xperts64 http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel >> (and yes, you should definitely not be running with UAC off. BAD >> idea.) > > Agreed, if there was ANY way I could run with UAC on I would but... How not? I run with it on full time and have for >1year. One thing I do that helps - I open a powershell window _as admin_ and keep it open for when I need to run something with elevated privileges. And have a startup script for it that maps the same drive letters as my regular environment, and turns the window background dark red so I always know it's the elevated one. SignatureCharlie. http://msmvps.com/xperts64 http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel >> (and yes, you should definitely not be running with UAC off. BAD >> idea.) > > Agreed, if there was ANY way I could run with UAC on I would but... > How not? UAC breaks a program I'm unwilling to do without. I've tried several workarounds but no fix and the author has not yet and probably won't update the software so... UAC is off and will remain off. The only alternative is to dump Vista and go back to XP. SignatureXS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org I'm going to assume you have tried all the obvious workarounds, but they include: * Run this program as administrator (from compatibility tab of the icon for it.) * Run in compatibility mode for XP SP2 * Initiate from an already elevated prompt (see my comment about keeping an open PowerShell window. Same is possible for cmd, and even for IE) I haven't found one that won't respond to at least one of those so far. SignatureCharlie. http://msmvps.com/xperts64 http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel >> How not? > > UAC breaks a program I'm unwilling to do without. I've tried several > workarounds but no fix and the author has not yet and probably won't > update the software so... UAC is off and will remain off. The only > alternative is to dump Vista and go back to XP. > I'm going to assume you have tried all the obvious workarounds, > but they include: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > keeping an open PowerShell window. Same is possible for cmd, and > even for IE) > I haven't found one that won't respond to at least one of those so > far. I have, IE Privacy Keeper. It wipes cookies, history, etc. when IE or Firefox is closed but allows me to specify cookies I want to keep such as my local newspaper, etc. It worked perfectly on RTM but some later update moved cookies from the folder ...\Cookies to ..\Cookies\Low and IE Privacy Keeper will NOT recognize that folder nor will UAC allow it to be deleted sooooooo..... UAC is off and I've written them several times with no answer. The last update was 2005 so I think the program is dead but nothing else works exactly like it does.... SignatureXS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org 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 > 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? [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > >> >> me with al the file moving and organizing I'm doing? I wont be using > >> >> any 64bit applications per se. I Love Windows XP X64 Edition Service Pack 2 So Much That I Was Able To Convince My Parents To Convert Over To It, Just FYI. Simply Use Avast 4.7 Home Edition As Your Anti-Virus Program And Windows Defender As Your Anti-Spyware Program, And You Are All Set To Go With It, Just FYI. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > me with al the file moving and organizing I'm doing? I wont be using > any 64bit applications per se. Honestly, I'm not sure it will help significantly. Here's the issue - it's the large number of files in the directory. If you were to take the same number of files, and put them in subdirectories, the process would be faster. Ideally, under a 1000 files per directory for best performance. (and each subdirectory counts as a file for that count.) So, if you have to deal with 20k files, then structuring your data creation/storage in a way that splits them up into 20-25 subdirectories would significantly improve performance. The other things that can really make a difference with large transfers is the quality of the NICs involved. There are GigE NICs and then there are GigE NICs. I've paid as little as $15 for a GigE NIC, and gotten exactly what I paid for. I'm currently running dual Intel server grade PCI-X NICs on my machine where it really matters. They weren't $15. ;) There are also some network optimizations that you can do that can help, and those are not specific to 32-bit v. 64-bit, and are best discussed on a networking newsgroup. SignatureCharlie. http://msmvps.com/xperts64 http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > me with al the file moving and organizing I'm doing? I wont be using > any 64bit applications per se. I should have known about the Sub's, but to be honest, I didn't. Doing this, that way, I assume you should be using the same kind of directory structure at both ends? I have a feeling, Charlie, that you are well aquainted with jobs of this kind. That there's some particular kind of data processing that calls for this? If anyone is doing this on a regular basis, is there a good reason why these files aren't generated in the final location initially? Tony. . . 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. SignatureCharlie. http://msmvps.com/xperts64 http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel >I should have known about the Sub's, but to be honest, I didn't. Doing >this, that way, I assume you should be using the same kind of directory [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Tony. . . 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! >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 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >have a VIN yet, so it was assigned a number when it entered the shop, and >that number became the file name. 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. SignatureCharlie. http://msmvps.com/xperts64 http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel >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 [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >>have a VIN yet, so it was assigned a number when it entered the shop, and >>that number became the file name. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > me with al the file moving and organizing I'm doing? I wont be using > any 64bit applications per se. From my own experience on a desktop system with IDE and SATAII drives, XP Pro x86 and X64, the answer is nope. You'll get pretty much the same results in both OSs. I do all my photography now in digital, and I'm often moving fairly large volumes of files/folders around. Both on this system and to external LAN hard drives. Moving a few gigs of files simply takes a little while. McG. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.