Re: Windows XP is much slower than Windows 98 SE
From: Walter Clayton (w-claytonNO_at_SPmvpsAM.org)
Date: 02/16/05
- Next message: Brian Selzer: "Re: Windows XP is much slower than Windows 98 SE"
- Previous message: rockrtboy: "building a back-up/system restore disk......"
- In reply to: Brian Selzer: "Re: Windows XP is much slower than Windows 98 SE"
- Next in thread: Brian Selzer: "Re: Windows XP is much slower than Windows 98 SE"
- Reply: Brian Selzer: "Re: Windows XP is much slower than Windows 98 SE"
- Reply: Brian Selzer: "Re: Windows XP is much slower than Windows 98 SE"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:41:06 -0500
OK. However one very critical thing you've glossed over and the first issue
to tear down misconceptions.
All that information is gleaned on the server side. Now, how much is
presented over the network? How much real bandwidth is involved? Double
check your references.
I'll also tell you straight up that when using explorer on the machine
locally, *ALL* that information is being processed the same as a remote
access. Permissions, etc. are an intrinsic part of the file structure. In
fact, the file structure has no idea, nor does it care, if the access is via
local log on or remote. Permissions, etc. are vetted regardless and there is
no way, for security reasons, that some of this information will be
transmitted over a network.
People get fixated over NTFS and miss the obvious. Set aside the file
structure. I dare say you'd have issues whether the file structure is FAT,
HPFS, or a *ix specific file structure.
Disable AV on the server and see what happens.
-- Walter Clayton Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. "Brian Selzer" <BrianSelzer@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:3BC6040C-7814-4A28-B133-594B29FF911D@microsoft.com... > There is a lot more information stored in the directory of an NTFS volume > than that of a FAT or FAT-32 volume. There is summary information, as > well > as additional housekeeping information, for example, ACL's and whether the > file is compressed or encrypted. I read somewhere in the Microsoft > Knowledge > Base that Windows Explorer on a computer that supports NTFS reads this > information when displaying the contents of a shared folder that resides > on > an NTFS volume. In addition, several Knowledge Base articles mention the > transmission of this information with respect to network traffic > performance, > i.e. additional SMB packets required to retrieve it. The Windows 98 SE > Explorer is unaware of the additional information, and thus does not > retrieve > it. I can only assume that the Windows XP Explorer by default retrieves > the > information if it is available when presenting the list of files. It is > the > only thing I can think of that would cause the delays. > > At the time that the files are being listed in Windows Explorer, they > haven't yet been accessed--only directory information has been retrieved; > therefore, the on-access anti-virus scan should not be a factor since it > only > activates when the data inside a file is read, not when the directory > information is retrieved. The new Dell computers came with Norton > Internet > Security, but the same thing happens on my Tablet PC which is running > McAfee > VirusScan Enterprise 7.1. > > I am not sure what to tweak, since I haven't found a Microsoft Knowledge > Base article that addresses this particular issue. I was hoping that > someone > from Microsoft would read my question and tell me which registry setting > to > change to turn off the new bells and whistles in Windows XP Explorer. > > This is a serious issue for my client. The perception that the new > computers are slower than the old ones has caused them to stall the > upgrade > of their servers and the rest of their workstations. The delays affect > the > productivity of those who have already had their computer replaced, and as > a > result, they have asked for their old computers back. Because I > recommended > replacing the old Windows 98 computers with new Windows XP computers, this > problem has damaged my credibility: it now appears to my client that I > don't > know what I'm doing. > > > Thank you for your comments and any suggestions you may have, > > Brian Selzer, > Master CNE, MCSE+I, MCDBA, etc., etc. > > > "Walter Clayton" wrote: > >> "Brian Selzer" <BrianSelzer@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:14630757-1B8D-497C-A4B8-C5909E483374@microsoft.com... >> > On network shares with a large number of files, listing the directory >> > on >> > Windows XP running on new Dell with a 2.8GHz Pentium IV and 256MB RAM >> > is >> > much, much slower than on an old Compaq Prosignia desktop running >> > Windows >> > 98 >> > SE on a 700Mhz Pentium III with 64MB RAM. The network share is on an >> > NTFS >> > volume, and I expect that is part of the problem. >> >> Why do you assume that? >> >> > Is there any way to limit >> > Windows Explorer so that it doesn't try to retrieve additional >> > information >> > from files on a network share? >> >> Such as? Have you checked the properties for a file that are presented >> over >> the network as compared to what's available locally? >> >> What are you using for anti-virus on the XP machine? What kind of >> 'tweaking' >> have you done? >> >> -- >> Walter Clayton >> Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. >> http://www.dts-l.org >> >> >> >>
- Next message: Brian Selzer: "Re: Windows XP is much slower than Windows 98 SE"
- Previous message: rockrtboy: "building a back-up/system restore disk......"
- In reply to: Brian Selzer: "Re: Windows XP is much slower than Windows 98 SE"
- Next in thread: Brian Selzer: "Re: Windows XP is much slower than Windows 98 SE"
- Reply: Brian Selzer: "Re: Windows XP is much slower than Windows 98 SE"
- Reply: Brian Selzer: "Re: Windows XP is much slower than Windows 98 SE"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
