 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows Vista / Performance and Maintainance / February 2006Explorer - Folders launched in separate process at High Priority
Not sure if this has behavior has been in Windows 2000, but since XP, if you choose the "Launch folder wonders in a separate process" option, any new Explorer processes start in High priority. Bug? feature? shouldn't it be based on the parent Desktop process..? Adahn, could you give me a step by step on this? I am in Vista 5270 right now.  SignatureAndre Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm > Not sure if this has behavior has been in Windows 2000, but since XP, if > you choose the "Launch folder wonders in a separate process" option, any > new Explorer processes start in High priority. > > Bug? feature? shouldn't it be based on the parent Desktop process..? Folder Options » View » Launch folder windows in a separate process If you check that, and open [My] Computer or any other folder window - you'll notice (from Task Manager) that the new Explorer.exe process (there'll be at least two, one for the desktop, and another one for the folder you just opened) always has a Base Priority of High.. > Adahn, could you give me a step by step on this? I am in Vista 5270 right > now. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> Bug? feature? shouldn't it be based on the parent Desktop process..? Good grief, that's still in Vista? I've been seeing this in XP for years--I would've thought it would've been fixed by now. What about that handle leak for HKCU\software\microsoft\windows\currentversion\internet settings\zonemap? I can't keep any of my XP systems up for more than a week because of this... Ahhhh so *that's* what it is!! :-o I've been wondering what that little tick box has been doing ever since 2002!!! Is it better to have it ticked or not? I don't know :op SignatureZack Whittaker Microsoft Beta (Windows Server R2 Beta Mentor) » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org » ZackNET Forum: www.zacknet.co.uk/forum » VistaBase: www.zacknet.co.uk/vistabase » This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not of my employer, best friend, mother or cat. Let's be clear on that one! > Ahhhh so *that's* what it is!! :-o > > I've been wondering what that little tick box has been doing ever since > 2002!!! Is it better to have it ticked or not? I don't know :op So far the only benefit that option has had is to increase the chances of your "desktop" (the process that handles the Taskbar, Start Menu, Notification Tray etc.) staying intact in the event of a crash inside a folder window... Take the instance of how Build 5270 locks up when you try to touch a ZIP file that contains subfolders - with the Separate Process option you could just kill the frozen Explorer.exe task. However, with that strange behavior of starting the new folder windows at a High priority, when they freeze it tends to slow down the rest of the system as well :( as for performance during normal usage, I've yet to try it on a true multiprocessor system to notice if there's any improved responsiveness, but as it is, so far it seems like another one of those trademark Microsoft hacks that try to cover up for base flaws in something else :( Yes you're right. However if the first explorer.exe crashes, the windows are intact but the taskbar and others are gone. Come to think of it, this might not be a bug actually. See, if two instances of explorer.exe are running concurrently, you would expect more responsiveness from the window you ordered to open more than the taskbar. But again... you could be right... it's a bug... Regards >> Ahhhh so *that's* what it is!! :-o >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > but as it is, so far it seems like another one of those trademark > Microsoft hacks that try to cover up for base flaws in something else :( I love it how even the more knowledgable ones learn from others :o) Very cool. SignatureZack Whittaker Microsoft Beta (Windows Server R2 Beta Mentor) » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org » ZackNET Forum: www.zacknet.co.uk/forum » VistaBase: www.zacknet.co.uk/vistabase » This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not of my employer, best friend, mother or cat. Let's be clear on that one! >I love it how even the more knowledgable ones learn from others :o) Very > cool. I hope you meant that comment above as a joke Zack. SignaturePeter Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged. >I love it how even the more knowledgable ones learn from others :o) Very > cool. LOL! Of course!! Why didn't it come out that way? :o( SignatureZack Whittaker Microsoft Beta (Windows Server R2 Beta Mentor) » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org » ZackNET Forum: www.zacknet.co.uk/forum » VistaBase: www.zacknet.co.uk/vistabase » This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not of my employer, best friend, mother or cat. Let's be clear on that one! > What about that handle leak for > HKCU\software\microsoft\windows\currentversion\internet settings\zonemap? > I can't keep any of my XP systems up for more than a week because of > this... ..eh what's this then? -_-a Not sure about the leak he is talking about as I use this pretty extensively, but that set of keys defines the zone that a web site will be subjected to. Under the domain sub key you would your site and the protocol and what security zone you want the site to be in. 0=Local Machine Zone 1=Local Intranet 2=Trusted Site 3=Internet Zone 4=Restricted site zone. josh http://windowsconnected.com >> What about that handle leak for >> HKCU\software\microsoft\windows\currentversion\internet settings\zonemap? >> I can't keep any of my XP systems up for more than a week because of >> this... > > ..eh what's this then? -_-a >> What about that handle leak for >> HKCU\software\microsoft\windows\currentversion\internet settings\zonemap? >> I can't keep any of my XP systems up for more than a week because of >> this... > > ..eh what's this then? -_-a I have an XP machine sitting next to me at the office that I rebooted at some point on Friday. My secondary development/test box...it hasn't done anything all weekend. As I'm typing this on Monday morning @ 9:30am, explorer.exe's handle count is now showing 16,597. According to Process Explorer, there's thousands of references to the registry key I listed above. WinXP-specific newsgroup: news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general -- ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear) MS MVP-Windows (IE/OE, Shell/User, Security), Aumha.org VSOP, DTS-L.org > > > What about that handle leak for > > > HKCU\software\microsoft\windows\currentversion\internet [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > is now showing 16,597. According to Process Explorer, there's thousands > of references to the registry key I listed above. > WinXP-specific newsgroup: > news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general And this is a Vista-specific newsgroup, in which somebody posted a message reporting (arguably what seems to be) a bug that was first seen in XP and is still apparently there in Vista. I was inquiring whether another bug I'm currently seeing in XP is also still present in Vista. I wasn't requesting help to fix it (in which case you'd be absolutely right to redirect me to an XP group). If long-standing Shell Bug X in OS A is still present in OS A+1, why is it unreasonable for me to ask others to verify whether also-long-standing Shell Bug Y is also still in OS A+1? My second post simply elaborated on what I'm currently seeing, as other posters didn't seem to be aware of what I was talking about. If everybody can first agree on the presence of the bug in XP, then it has better chances of being noticed in Vista if it's still there. Otherwise nobody would know what to look for. I'd be even more off-topic asking about this in the newsgroup you proposed. If you think I'm straying way off-topic, then we'll have to disagree. |
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
|
©2008 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.