Guest Charlie Russel - MVP Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Re: XP64 usefull for me? 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. -- Charlie. http://msmvps.com/xperts64 http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel "XS11E" <xs11e@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message news:Xns99DB93B914Cxs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1... > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote: > >> 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. > > > > -- > XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups > The Usenet Improvement Project: > http://improve-usenet.org
Guest XS11E Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 Re: XP64 usefull for me? "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote: > 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. 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.... -- XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Guest McG. Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 Re: XP64 usefull for me? "Nice Bike" <nowhere@beta.info> wrote in message news:077fi3h7gdbkqiessa4e2bdspno8e2h11f@4ax.com... > 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. > 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.
Guest Nice Bike Posted November 3, 2007 Posted November 3, 2007 Re: XP64 usefull for me? 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? On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 09:17:59 -0500, "R. C. White" <rc@grandecom.net> wrote: >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 http://www.aumha.org website; LOTS of good information there.) > >RC
Guest Charlie Russel - MVP Posted November 3, 2007 Posted November 3, 2007 Re: XP64 usefull for me? You should always have a swap file. -- Charlie. http://msmvps.com/xperts64 http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel "Nice Bike" <nowhere@alpha.net> wrote in message news:0khni3p4ti2ee3s03eh5jc183dphhcvkct@4ax.com... >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? > > > > On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 09:17:59 -0500, "R. C. White" <rc@grandecom.net> > wrote: > >>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 http://www.aumha.org website; LOTS of good information there.) >> >>RC >
Guest Charlie Russel - MVP Posted November 4, 2007 Posted November 4, 2007 Re: XP64 usefull for me? yes, you'll always need a swap file. -- Charlie. http://msmvps.com/xperts64 http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel "Nice Bike" <nowhere@alpha.net> wrote in message news:0khni3p4ti2ee3s03eh5jc183dphhcvkct@4ax.com... >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? > > > > On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 09:17:59 -0500, "R. C. White" <rc@grandecom.net> > wrote: > >>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 http://www.aumha.org website; LOTS of good information there.) >> >>RC >
Recommended Posts