Re: OTsort of but not really, Nvidia issue that affects all apps.
- From: "Steve Easton" <admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 21:25:14 -0400
"Pop`" <nodoby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:adSSi.1673$uE4.64@xxxxxxxxxxx
Steve Easton wrote:
"Pop`" <nodoby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message...
news:XgzSi.1242$uE4.775@xxxxxxxxxxx
Steve Easton wrote:
Gotta ask though, If Rick Rothstein or Randy Birch had posted it
would you have told them it was "bad form" ?
Actually, yes I very well may have if it were worded the same way. I didn't mean it as a put-down, simply
as an opinion because I think further edification was in order there.
I actually tried to assist you by posting information to lend credibility to what you talked about and to
provide some background about how in most cases that particular service isn't really needed. OTOH there
will be some using it without realizing it too, which was good to point out, IMO.
I suppose because I've known about it for some time it wasn't very hard to find info on it, but it
seems/seemed to be pretty easily available. When I first came across it, I'd used WinPatrol's PLUS services
at that time and went from there.
I guess I have two "problems"; one is that I'm not shy about voicing my opinions and/or asking questions if
I'm not sure of the information but want to use it, and the other that I'm "iffy" about advice to mess with
one's Registry without some method of assurance and detail about the action about to take place.
I also don't mind your objection to my use of "bad form" and had you asked what I meant I probably would
have responded with a more conciliatory wording.
If I bugged you and could have phrased it better, I'm sorry for that. But I do believe in the
confirm/clarify processes. It sounds like you could have chosen to provide the backup info but chose not
to; that's almost "bad form" too, for want of a better phrase at the moment.
Regards,
Pop`
Hi Pop,
Thanks for the reply.
Actually it was something I wanted to get out because it effects
any application on a windows machine that exhibits the problem
when monitoring all apps using regmon or process monitor.
I was hesitant to include more info as to how I found the problem
because to be honest I'm dealing with a non disclosure issue here
concerning the app that led me to drill into the issue only to find
it wasn't the app but a system wide issue.
I had read / seen the page at the link you posted, but imho
it simply has people deleting the nwiz entry from the run key
because it causes issues, but nobody understood or could explain
why to remove it.
A Google search for DisableWindowCaching confirmed that.
When I reported what I had found to the program manager for the app
I'm testing here was the response:
<quote>
Thanks for the update, Steve, and for your diligence in following up
on this. I suspect we still have some issues regarding performance
but it's nice to know that this one isn't our fault. And it's
certainly something we can ask our users to check when they do have
performance issues.
Again, thank you for your efforts on this. It really does make our
lives easier.
</quote>
and a response from a programmer/developer:
<quote>
Cool, Steve. Thanks for the info! You need to post that on your
website for sure.
</quote>
So I posted here first because it affects any and every app
that you or I or any one else could be developing.
Anyway, No hard feelings, because I am the ultimate skeptical myself.
--
Steve Easton
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: OTsort of but not really, Nvidia issue that affects all apps.
- Next by Date: Re: Remoting a UDT array to an ActiveX Exe fails with error 429
- Previous by thread: Re: OTsort of but not really, Nvidia issue that affects all apps.
- Next by thread: Re: OTsort of but not really, Nvidia issue that affects all apps.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
