XP64 usefull for me?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nice Bike
  • Start date Start date
N

Nice Bike

Guest
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.
 
Re: XP64 usefull for me?

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. . .




"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.
>
 
RE: XP64 usefull for me?

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.

"Nice Bike" wrote:

> 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.
>
>
 
Re: XP64 usefull for me?

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.


On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:07:48 +0100, "Tony Sperling"
<tony.sperling@db<REMOVE>mail.dk> wrote:

>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. . .
>
>
>
>
>"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.
>>
>
 
Re: XP64 usefull for me?

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.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"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.
>
 
Re: XP64 usefull for me?

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. . .


"Nice Bike" <nowhere@alpha.net> wrote in message
news:9jcfi3d4ktdu98d8pc3msn1j8advad1mpf@4ax.com...
> 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.
>
>
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:07:48 +0100, "Tony Sperling"
> <tony.sperling@db<REMOVE>mail.dk> wrote:
>
>>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. . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"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.
>>>
>>
>
 
Re: XP64 usefull for me?

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. . .
 
Re: XP64 usefull for me?

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.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Tony Sperling mail.dk>" <tony.sperling@db<REMOVE> wrote in message
news:e0OSqt1GIHA.5276@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>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. . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
 
Re: XP64 usefull for me?

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

"Nice Bike" wrote:

> 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.
>
>
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:07:48 +0100, "Tony Sperling"
> <tony.sperling@db<REMOVE>mail.dk> wrote:
>
> >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. . .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >"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.
> >>
> >
>
>
 
Re: XP64 usefull for me?

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?

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Carlos" <Carlos@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:496A8631-B50F-43D4-B50A-35B8BAE01E75@microsoft.com...
> 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
>
> "Nice Bike" wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:07:48 +0100, "Tony Sperling"
>> <tony.sperling@db<REMOVE>mail.dk> wrote:
>>
>> >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. . .
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >"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.
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
 
Re: XP64 usefull for me?

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

"Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

> 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?
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
>
> "Carlos" <Carlos@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:496A8631-B50F-43D4-B50A-35B8BAE01E75@microsoft.com...
> > 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
> >
> > "Nice Bike" wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:07:48 +0100, "Tony Sperling"
> >> <tony.sperling@db<REMOVE>mail.dk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >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. . .
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"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.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>
 
Re: XP64 usefull for me?

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

"Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

> 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?
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
>
> "Carlos" <Carlos@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:496A8631-B50F-43D4-B50A-35B8BAE01E75@microsoft.com...
> > 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
> >
> > "Nice Bike" wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:07:48 +0100, "Tony Sperling"
> >> <tony.sperling@db<REMOVE>mail.dk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >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. . .
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"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.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>
 
Re: XP64 usefull for me?

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!



On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 21:56:50 -0700, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
<charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote:

>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.
 
Re: XP64 usefull for me?

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.





On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 01:29:34 +0100, "Tony Sperling"
<tony.sperling@db<REMOVE>mail.dk> wrote:

>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. . .
>
 
Re: XP64 usefull for me?

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. . .


"Nice Bike" <nowhere@alpha.net> wrote in message
news:vm6hi3pbsukflv3irfn00bh2l9djdr4g35@4ax.com...
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 01:29:34 +0100, "Tony Sperling"
> <tony.sperling@db<REMOVE>mail.dk> wrote:
>
>>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. . .
>>
>
 
Re: XP64 usefull for me?

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.



On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:33:29 +0100, "Tony Sperling"
<tony.sperling@db<REMOVE>mail.dk> wrote:

>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. . .
>
>
>"Nice Bike" <nowhere@alpha.net> wrote in message
>news:vm6hi3pbsukflv3irfn00bh2l9djdr4g35@4ax.com...
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 01:29:34 +0100, "Tony Sperling"
>> <tony.sperling@db<REMOVE>mail.dk> wrote:
>>
>>>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. . .
>>>
>>
>
 
Re: XP64 usefull for me?

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.)

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Carlos" <Carlos@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E1E45E0A-933B-45FB-88A1-892A6A1CBDA9@microsoft.com...
> 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
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>>
>> "Carlos" <Carlos@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:496A8631-B50F-43D4-B50A-35B8BAE01E75@microsoft.com...
>> > 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
>> >
>> > "Nice Bike" wrote:
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:07:48 +0100, "Tony Sperling"
>> >> <tony.sperling@db<REMOVE>mail.dk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >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. . .
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"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.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>>
 
Re: XP64 usefull for me?

"is he the resident expert"?

Nope. Just one of the many here who try to help out as we can.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Nice Bike" <nowhere@alpha.net> wrote in message
news:sgchi3tsmecu5115r1ei5alro49udg1qgd@4ax.com...
>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.
>
>
>
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:33:29 +0100, "Tony Sperling"
> <tony.sperling@db<REMOVE>mail.dk> wrote:
>
>>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. . .
>>
>>
>>"Nice Bike" <nowhere@alpha.net> wrote in message
>>news:vm6hi3pbsukflv3irfn00bh2l9djdr4g35@4ax.com...
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 01:29:34 +0100, "Tony Sperling"
>>> <tony.sperling@db<REMOVE>mail.dk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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. . .
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
 
Re: XP64 usefull for me?

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.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Nice Bike" <nowhere@alpha.net> wrote in message
news:i96hi319jt4s73mht084n66l3finq2mok9@4ax.com...
>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!
>
>
>
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 21:56:50 -0700, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
> <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
 
Re: XP64 usefull for me?

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

"Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

> 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.)
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
>
> "Carlos" <Carlos@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E1E45E0A-933B-45FB-88A1-892A6A1CBDA9@microsoft.com...
> > 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
> >
> > "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
> >
> >> 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?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Charlie.
> >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> >> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
> >>
> >>
> >> "Carlos" <Carlos@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:496A8631-B50F-43D4-B50A-35B8BAE01E75@microsoft.com...
> >> > 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
> >> >
> >> > "Nice Bike" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> 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.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:07:48 +0100, "Tony Sperling"
> >> >> <tony.sperling@db<REMOVE>mail.dk> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >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. . .
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"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.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
>
 
Back
Top