Real hardware test

[philo [_3_]]

Many here (self included) have Win10 in a virtual machine.

I have a machine on the bench that I put a new HD in and decided to load
Win10 just to see how it will do on real H/W.

Runs better. Performance in a VM was not bad...but not as good as "real".


Machine specs quite modest:

dual core P-4 3.4 ghz

2gigs RAM

on-board video

[Rene Lamontagne]

On 11/25/2014 12:58 PM, philo wrote:
> Many here (self included) have Win10 in a virtual machine.
>
> I have a machine on the bench that I put a new HD in and decided to load
> Win10 just to see how it will do on real H/W.
>
> Runs better. Performance in a VM was not bad...but not as good as "real".
>
>
> Machine specs quite modest:
>
> dual core P-4 3.4 ghz
>
> 2gigs RAM
>
> on-board video


Yes, runs real quick here also, I have it installed on a 120 GB Samsung
840 SSD.
It is doing good so far, No problems.

Regards, Rene

[Paul]

philo wrote:
> Many here (self included) have Win10 in a virtual machine.
>
> I have a machine on the bench that I put a new HD in and decided to load
> Win10 just to see how it will do on real H/W.
>
> Runs better. Performance in a VM was not bad...but not as good as "real".
>
>
> Machine specs quite modest:
>
> dual core P-4 3.4 ghz
>
> 2gigs RAM
>
> on-board video

Stuck at 1024x768 video resolution ?

I'm surprised the motherboard graphics on a P4 era
machine are good enough. Maybe it's running with the VESA
fallback driver or something.

It has to be a "late model P4" to meet the CPU requirements.

Paul

[Rene Lamontagne]

On 11/25/2014 1:27 PM, Paul wrote:
> philo wrote:
>> Many here (self included) have Win10 in a virtual machine.
>>
>> I have a machine on the bench that I put a new HD in and decided to
>> load Win10 just to see how it will do on real H/W.
>>
>> Runs better. Performance in a VM was not bad...but not as good as "real".
>>
>>
>> Machine specs quite modest:
>>
>> dual core P-4 3.4 ghz
>>
>> 2gigs RAM
>>
>> on-board video
>
> Stuck at 1024x768 video resolution ?
>
> I'm surprised the motherboard graphics on a P4 era
> machine are good enough. Maybe it's running with the VESA
> fallback driver or something.
>
> It has to be a "late model P4" to meet the CPU requirements.
>
> Paul
Luckily I am running an i7 950 @ 3.07 GH with 6 GB of tri channel ram on
a Sabertooth X58 MB, Video is an Asus HD5850cu at 1920 x 1080, this
makes a pretty good system although getting a little old, Just like me.
:-)

Regards, Rene

[philo [_3_]]

On 11/25/2014 01:27 PM, Paul wrote:
> philo wrote:
>> Many here (self included) have Win10 in a virtual machine.
>>
>> I have a machine on the bench that I put a new HD in and decided to
>> load Win10 just to see how it will do on real H/W.
>>
>> Runs better. Performance in a VM was not bad...but not as good as "real".
>>
>>
>> Machine specs quite modest:
>>
>> dual core P-4 3.4 ghz
>>
>> 2gigs RAM
>>
>> on-board video
>
> Stuck at 1024x768 video resolution ?
>
> I'm surprised the motherboard graphics on a P4 era
> machine are good enough. Maybe it's running with the VESA
> fallback driver or something.
>
> It has to be a "late model P4" to meet the CPU requirements.
>
> Paul



Being a dual core 3.4 ghz it must be a late model P-4

Most of the P-4's I get are approx 2ghz and single core.


Yep, the maximum graphics resolution is 1024 x 768

I have not seen Windows use the term "VESA" in many years it's just
using the Windows standard VGA driver.

I have some spare PCIe video cards and I may put one in.

With Win7 I have often (but not always) seen the generic Windows driver,
probe the video card at high resolution and about as well as the actual
manufacturer's driver.

[philo [_3_]]

On 11/25/2014 01:36 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
> O
>>
>> Paul
> Luckily I am running an i7 950 @ 3.07 GH with 6 GB of tri channel ram on
> a Sabertooth X58 MB, Video is an Asus HD5850cu at 1920 x 1080, this
> makes a pretty good system although getting a little old, Just like me.
> :-)
>
> Regards, Rene
>
>



I'll take it!

All my own machines are just made from discarded junk my friends no
longer need. I am presently using my best machine.

Athlon 64 x2 (3ghz) 6gigs of RAM

Gforce 8400 GS


My wife gets the good stuff!

[Jeff Gaines[_2_]]

On 25/11/2014 in message > Rene Lamontagne wrote:

>Yes, runs real quick here also, I have it installed on a 120 GB Samsung
>840 SSD.
>It is doing good so far, No problems.

How is network speed?
Accessing my home network under Win7 is very, very slow.

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
By the time you can make ends meet they move the ends

[philo [_3_]]

On 11/25/2014 01:27 PM, Paul wrote:
> philo wrote:
>> Many here (self included) have Win10 in a virtual machine.
>>
>> I have a machine on the bench that I put a new HD in and decided to
>> load Win10 just to see how it will do on real H/W.
>>
>> Runs better. Performance in a VM was not bad...but not as good as "real".
>>
>>
>> Machine specs quite modest:
>>
>> dual core P-4 3.4 ghz
>>
>> 2gigs RAM
>>
>> on-board video
>
> Stuck at 1024x768 video resolution ?
>


I just had another look and though it did default to 1024 x 768

I was able to move it up to 1280 x 1024

since that is the best the monitor on my workbench can do, I don't know
if it could do better....but this seems to be an improvement over Win 7
that did not probe it at that high of a resolution.


The driver is just listed as "Microsoft basic adapter"


It's the on board Intel which has no Win7 driver but I did find an older
driver that was hacked to (sometimes) work on Win7

[Rene Lamontagne]

On 11/25/2014 4:20 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 25/11/2014 in message > Rene Lamontagne
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, runs real quick here also, I have it installed on a 120 GB
>> Samsung 840 SSD.
>> It is doing good so far, No problems.
>
> How is network speed?
> Accessing my home network under Win7 is very, very slow.
>
My upload speed averages 2.7 Gbs per second and download speed
averages about 21 Gbs per second

Regards,Rene

[Rene Lamontagne]

On 11/25/2014 5:08 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
> On 11/25/2014 4:20 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>> On 25/11/2014 in message > Rene Lamontagne
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, runs real quick here also, I have it installed on a 120 GB
>>> Samsung 840 SSD.
>>> It is doing good so far, No problems.
>>
>> How is network speed?
>> Accessing my home network under Win7 is very, very slow.
>>
> My upload speed averages 2.7 Gbs per second and download speed
> averages about 21 Gbs per second
>
> Regards,Rene
>


Double Ooops, should be 2.7Mbps and 21Mbps NOT Gb.

Regards, Rene

[Paul]

philo wrote:
> On 11/25/2014 01:27 PM, Paul wrote:
>> philo wrote:
>>> Many here (self included) have Win10 in a virtual machine.
>>>
>>> I have a machine on the bench that I put a new HD in and decided to
>>> load Win10 just to see how it will do on real H/W.
>>>
>>> Runs better. Performance in a VM was not bad...but not as good as
>>> "real".
>>>
>>>
>>> Machine specs quite modest:
>>>
>>> dual core P-4 3.4 ghz
>>>
>>> 2gigs RAM
>>>
>>> on-board video
>>
>> Stuck at 1024x768 video resolution ?
>>
>
>
> I just had another look and though it did default to 1024 x 768
>
> I was able to move it up to 1280 x 1024
>
> since that is the best the monitor on my workbench can do, I don't know
> if it could do better....but this seems to be an improvement over Win 7
> that did not probe it at that high of a resolution.
>
>
> The driver is just listed as "Microsoft basic adapter"
>
>
> It's the on board Intel which has no Win7 driver but I did find an older
> driver that was hacked to (sometimes) work on Win7
>

My failing test case wouldn't do that. The basic adapter
was stuck at 1024x768, on a 1440x900 monitor.

Paul

[Paul]

Rene Lamontagne wrote:
> On 11/25/2014 5:08 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
>> On 11/25/2014 4:20 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>> On 25/11/2014 in message > Rene Lamontagne
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, runs real quick here also, I have it installed on a 120 GB
>>>> Samsung 840 SSD.
>>>> It is doing good so far, No problems.
>>>
>>> How is network speed?
>>> Accessing my home network under Win7 is very, very slow.
>>>
>> My upload speed averages 2.7 Gbs per second and download speed
>> averages about 21 Gbs per second
>>
>> Regards,Rene
>>
>
>
> Double Ooops, should be 2.7Mbps and 21Mbps NOT Gb.
>
> Regards, Rene

Send your resume to my networking company. We need
people who can upload at 2.7 Gbs per second. Using common
household materials.

(Rene uploads to the Internet...)

http://www.aoptix.com/wp-content/uploads/quicklook-popup-FSO-872x1024.png

Paul

[philo [_3_]]

On 11/25/2014 07:45 PM, Paul wrote:
>
>> I just had another look and though it did default to 1024 x 768
>>
>> I was able to move it up to 1280 x 1024
>>
>> since that is the best the monitor on my workbench can do, I don't
>> know if it could do better....but this seems to be an improvement over
>> Win 7 that did not probe it at that high of a resolution.
>>
>>
>> The driver is just listed as "Microsoft basic adapter"
>>
>>
>> It's the on board Intel which has no Win7 driver but I did find an
>> older driver that was hacked to (sometimes) work on Win7
>>
>
> My failing test case wouldn't do that. The basic adapter
> was stuck at 1024x768, on a 1440x900 monitor.
>
> Paul



I had a look again inside the case and sheesh, the machine has two
standard PCI slots and a single PCIe x1 only.

I won't be able to put in a decent PCIe video card but I may actually
have a high end PCI video card left in my junk box.

At any rate my Win 10 "real H/W" experiment is over.

[Jeff Gaines[_2_]]

On 26/11/2014 in message > Rene Lamontagne wrote:

>Double Ooops, should be 2.7Mbps and 21Mbps NOT Gb.

That looks like your Internet connection speed.

I was thinking of the home network where, in Win7, I can click on a
network share in Explorer and wait 5 minutes before I can use it.

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
All those who believe in psychokinesis raise my hand.

[SC Tom[_3_]]

"Jeff Gaines" > wrote in message
...
> On 26/11/2014 in message > Rene Lamontagne
> wrote:
>
>>Double Ooops, should be 2.7Mbps and 21Mbps NOT Gb.
>
> That looks like your Internet connection speed.
>
> I was thinking of the home network where, in Win7, I can click on a
> network share in Explorer and wait 5 minutes before I can use it.
>

Win10TP machine-
Acer V3-731 laptop
Windows 10TP x64 Build 9879
Pentium B950 CPU @2.1 GHz
8GB Ram
Broadcom Wireless internal card

Network share-
Homebuilt w/ Asus MB
Windows 7 HP x86
AMD Phenom II X4 965BE 3.4GHz
4GB RAM
2- GB NIC's (not bridged)

Asus RTN10P Router

As soon as Win10 is fully up and running, I am able to access my network
shares within seconds of opening Network in Computer. I copied a 500MB video
from the shared folder to the Acer in 2.25 minutes (average transfer rate
according to Win10 was ~4MB/S). I can play a shared video on the Win10
machine smoothly with no lag, skips, or jumps. Audio and video kept up with
each other, no problem. It stayed synced better than my cable does :-( I
used both Windows Media Player (or Video App, whatever it's called now), and
VLC Player and noticed no difference in quality or smoothness. I'm watching
an old Neil Young concert as I'm composing this :-)

I tried an Excel spreadsheet with no problems, and other types of documents.
They all worked fine, equally as smooth as my work network was (although
it's just me here and not 100 users LOL).

Compared to Win8.1 Pro x64 on the Acer, Win10 runs smoother, but takes a
little longer to boot up. I have two HDD in it, one with Win10 and the other
(primary) with Win8.1. I use F12 on boot-up to select Win10. Since it's set
up that way, I had to disable Fast Start on both OS's. The Win10
installation is an upgrade from Win8, not a clean installation. I cloned my
Win8.1 drive to the other drive, then removed the Win8.1 drive and did the
upgrade so there would be no interaction between the two drives during the
installation. Thus the F12 selection rather than the Windows drive selection
menu. That way if something goes horrible wrong with the Win10 installation,
I can wipe it with no consequence to the Win8.1 drive.
--
SC Tom

[Ed Propes[_3_]]

Paul brought next idea :
> Stuck at 1024x768 video resolution ?
>
> I'm surprised the motherboard graphics on a P4 era
> machine are good enough. Maybe it's running with the VESA
> fallback driver or something.
>
> It has to be a "late model P4" to meet the CPU requirements.
>
> Paul

I get as high a resolution as I want. As long as I don't get carried
away with what I want.

Ed P.

--
Ed Propes

[Rene Lamontagne]

On 11/26/2014 2:43 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 26/11/2014 in message > Rene Lamontagne
> wrote:
>
>> Double Ooops, should be 2.7Mbps and 21Mbps NOT Gb.
>
> That looks like your Internet connection speed.
>
> I was thinking of the home network where, in Win7, I can click on a
> network share in Explorer and wait 5 minutes before I can use it.
>

Yes, that was my internet speeds, Sorry I don't have any network shared
drives.

Regards, Rene

[Brian Gregory]

On 26/11/2014 14:04, SC Tom wrote:
>
>
> "Jeff Gaines" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 26/11/2014 in message > Rene Lamontagne
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Double Ooops, should be 2.7Mbps and 21Mbps NOT Gb.
>>
>> That looks like your Internet connection speed.
>>
>> I was thinking of the home network where, in Win7, I can click on a
>> network share in Explorer and wait 5 minutes before I can use it.
>>
>
> Win10TP machine-
> Acer V3-731 laptop
> Windows 10TP x64 Build 9879
> Pentium B950 CPU @2.1 GHz
> 8GB Ram
> Broadcom Wireless internal card
>
> Network share-
> Homebuilt w/ Asus MB
> Windows 7 HP x86
> AMD Phenom II X4 965BE 3.4GHz
> 4GB RAM
> 2- GB NIC's (not bridged)
>
> Asus RTN10P Router
>
> As soon as Win10 is fully up and running, I am able to access my network
> shares within seconds of opening Network in Computer. I copied a 500MB
> video from the shared folder to the Acer in 2.25 minutes (average
> transfer rate according to Win10 was ~4MB/S). I can play a shared video
> on the Win10 machine smoothly with no lag, skips, or jumps. Audio and
> video kept up with each other, no problem. It stayed synced better than
> my cable does :-( I used both Windows Media Player (or Video App,
> whatever it's called now), and VLC Player and noticed no difference in
> quality or smoothness. I'm watching an old Neil Young concert as I'm
> composing this :-)
>
> I tried an Excel spreadsheet with no problems, and other types of
> documents. They all worked fine, equally as smooth as my work network
> was (although it's just me here and not 100 users LOL).
>
> Compared to Win8.1 Pro x64 on the Acer, Win10 runs smoother, but takes a
> little longer to boot up. I have two HDD in it, one with Win10 and the
> other (primary) with Win8.1. I use F12 on boot-up to select Win10. Since
> it's set up that way, I had to disable Fast Start on both OS's. The
> Win10 installation is an upgrade from Win8, not a clean installation. I
> cloned my Win8.1 drive to the other drive, then removed the Win8.1 drive
> and did the upgrade so there would be no interaction between the two
> drives during the installation. Thus the F12 selection rather than the
> Windows drive selection menu. That way if something goes horrible wrong
> with the Win10 installation, I can wipe it with no consequence to the
> Win8.1 drive.

What about that stupid stupid thing Windows 7 does where if you have an
SSD as C: and other normal spinning drive(s) connected for large data
files it seems to assume it can use a multi-threaded approach to
extracting the icons for a directory of exe files you've opened in
explorer no matter which drive it's on. In fact for the spinning drives
it just makes it tediously slow and while doing the work the drive emits
an alarmingly loud buzz which can last for 15 seconds or more.

--

Brian Gregory (in the UK).
To email me please remove all the letter vee from my email address.

[SC Tom[_3_]]

"Brian Gregory" > wrote in message
...
> On 26/11/2014 14:04, SC Tom wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Jeff Gaines" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 26/11/2014 in message > Rene Lamontagne
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Double Ooops, should be 2.7Mbps and 21Mbps NOT Gb.
>>>
>>> That looks like your Internet connection speed.
>>>
>>> I was thinking of the home network where, in Win7, I can click on a
>>> network share in Explorer and wait 5 minutes before I can use it.
>>>
>>
>> Win10TP machine-
>> Acer V3-731 laptop
>> Windows 10TP x64 Build 9879
>> Pentium B950 CPU @2.1 GHz
>> 8GB Ram
>> Broadcom Wireless internal card
>>
>> Network share-
>> Homebuilt w/ Asus MB
>> Windows 7 HP x86
>> AMD Phenom II X4 965BE 3.4GHz
>> 4GB RAM
>> 2- GB NIC's (not bridged)
>>
>> Asus RTN10P Router
>>
>> As soon as Win10 is fully up and running, I am able to access my network
>> shares within seconds of opening Network in Computer. I copied a 500MB
>> video from the shared folder to the Acer in 2.25 minutes (average
>> transfer rate according to Win10 was ~4MB/S). I can play a shared video
>> on the Win10 machine smoothly with no lag, skips, or jumps. Audio and
>> video kept up with each other, no problem. It stayed synced better than
>> my cable does :-( I used both Windows Media Player (or Video App,
>> whatever it's called now), and VLC Player and noticed no difference in
>> quality or smoothness. I'm watching an old Neil Young concert as I'm
>> composing this :-)
>>
>> I tried an Excel spreadsheet with no problems, and other types of
>> documents. They all worked fine, equally as smooth as my work network
>> was (although it's just me here and not 100 users LOL).
>>
>> Compared to Win8.1 Pro x64 on the Acer, Win10 runs smoother, but takes a
>> little longer to boot up. I have two HDD in it, one with Win10 and the
>> other (primary) with Win8.1. I use F12 on boot-up to select Win10. Since
>> it's set up that way, I had to disable Fast Start on both OS's. The
>> Win10 installation is an upgrade from Win8, not a clean installation. I
>> cloned my Win8.1 drive to the other drive, then removed the Win8.1 drive
>> and did the upgrade so there would be no interaction between the two
>> drives during the installation. Thus the F12 selection rather than the
>> Windows drive selection menu. That way if something goes horrible wrong
>> with the Win10 installation, I can wipe it with no consequence to the
>> Win8.1 drive.
>
> What about that stupid stupid thing Windows 7 does where if you have an
> SSD as C: and other normal spinning drive(s) connected for large data
> files it seems to assume it can use a multi-threaded approach to
> extracting the icons for a directory of exe files you've opened in
> explorer no matter which drive it's on. In fact for the spinning drives it
> just makes it tediously slow and while doing the work the drive emits an
> alarmingly loud buzz which can last for 15 seconds or more.
>

I don't have any SSD's, so I can't comment on that.
--
SC Tom

[Char Jackson]

On 26 Nov 2014 08:43:17 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" >
wrote:

>On 26/11/2014 in message > Rene Lamontagne wrote:
>
>>Double Ooops, should be 2.7Mbps and 21Mbps NOT Gb.
>
>That looks like your Internet connection speed.
>
>I was thinking of the home network where, in Win7, I can click on a
>network share in Explorer and wait 5 minutes before I can use it.

That has nothing to do with Win 7 in general. It's something specific to
your situation.

[Char Jackson]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 22:59:09 +0000, Brian Gregory
> wrote:

>What about that stupid stupid thing Windows 7 does where if you have an
>SSD as C: and other normal spinning drive(s) connected for large data
>files it seems to assume it can use a multi-threaded approach to
>extracting the icons for a directory of exe files you've opened in
>explorer no matter which drive it's on. In fact for the spinning drives
>it just makes it tediously slow and while doing the work the drive emits
>an alarmingly loud buzz which can last for 15 seconds or more.

Any drive that emits an alarmingly loud buzz during use should be considered
a prime candidate for full backup and replacement.

[Jeff Gaines[_2_]]

On 09/12/2014 in message > Char
Jackson wrote:

>On 26 Nov 2014 08:43:17 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" >
>wrote:
>
>>On 26/11/2014 in message > Rene Lamontagne
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Double Ooops, should be 2.7Mbps and 21Mbps NOT Gb.
>>
>>That looks like your Internet connection speed.
>>
>>I was thinking of the home network where, in Win7, I can click on a
>>network share in Explorer and wait 5 minutes before I can use it.
>
>That has nothing to do with Win 7 in general. It's something specific to
>your situation.

I don't think so. It was fine using XP and there are masses of complaints
and "cures" on the Internet for slow networking in Windows 7 (none of them
work).

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
By the time you can make ends meet they move the ends

[Char Jackson]

On 9 Dec 2014 08:43:19 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" >
wrote:

>On 09/12/2014 in message > Char
>Jackson wrote:
>
>>On 26 Nov 2014 08:43:17 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 26/11/2014 in message > Rene Lamontagne
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Double Ooops, should be 2.7Mbps and 21Mbps NOT Gb.
>>>
>>>That looks like your Internet connection speed.
>>>
>>>I was thinking of the home network where, in Win7, I can click on a
>>>network share in Explorer and wait 5 minutes before I can use it.
>>
>>That has nothing to do with Win 7 in general. It's something specific to
>>your situation.
>
>I don't think so. It was fine using XP and there are masses of complaints
>and "cures" on the Internet for slow networking in Windows 7 (none of them
>work).

I disagree, but tell us how we can duplicate what you're seeing and maybe a
solution will emerge.

[Jeff Gaines[_2_]]

On 09/12/2014 in message > Char
Jackson wrote:

>>I don't think so. It was fine using XP and there are masses of complaints
>>and "cures" on the Internet for slow networking in Windows 7 (none of them
>>work).
>
>I disagree, but tell us how we can duplicate what you're seeing and maybe a
>solution will emerge.

I'm not sure what you disagree with. Try Googling for Windows 7 networking
problems or slowness and bring yourself up to date.

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
If you ever find something you like buy a lifetime supply because they
will stop making it

[Char Jackson]

On 9 Dec 2014 16:58:06 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" >
wrote:

>On 09/12/2014 in message > Char
>Jackson wrote:
>
>>>I don't think so. It was fine using XP and there are masses of complaints
>>>and "cures" on the Internet for slow networking in Windows 7 (none of them
>>>work).
>>
>>I disagree, but tell us how we can duplicate what you're seeing and maybe a
>>solution will emerge.
>
>I'm not sure what you disagree with. Try Googling for Windows 7 networking
>problems or slowness and bring yourself up to date.

You don't understand, I think. You can Google for network problems and <any
OS> and get tons of hits. In all but a few cases, it doesn't mean the OS is
the culprit. It just so happens that people assume it's specific to their
OS, so they report it that way. Then when you search, you find it written
that way. It's a terrible system, but it's all we have.

So how can we duplicate what you're seeing? How should we proceed toward a
solution?

[Jeff Gaines[_2_]]

On 09/12/2014 in message > Char
Jackson wrote:

>So how can we duplicate what you're seeing? How should we proceed toward a
>solution?

Use Windows 7 (or Vista which had the same problems) and realise how slow
it is.

I must say from your answers you don't seem to be taking an objective view
- are you trying to become an MVP or are you a MSFT employee?

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
Indecision is the key to flexibility

[Jeff Gaines[_2_]]

On 10/12/2014 in message > Paul wrote:

>You never really know what's going on in there.

Absolutely!

All I know is that networking is horrendously slow in Win7 - I can click
on a network share and then sit waiting while the progress bar moves
across. Never happened in XP on the same kit. It's very widely reported on
Google and acknowledged in reviews so I find it a bit odd when people say
they've not come across it.

I was hoping Win10 would be better but I'll have to wait and see.

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
I take full responsibility for what happened - that is why the person that
was responsible went immediately.
(Gordon Brown, April 2009)

[SC Tom[_3_]]

"Jeff Gaines" > wrote in message
...
> On 10/12/2014 in message > Paul wrote:
>
>>You never really know what's going on in there.
>
> Absolutely!
>
> All I know is that networking is horrendously slow in Win7 - I can click
> on a network share and then sit waiting while the progress bar moves
> across. Never happened in XP on the same kit. It's very widely reported on
> Google and acknowledged in reviews so I find it a bit odd when people say
> they've not come across it.
>
> I was hoping Win10 would be better but I'll have to wait and see.
>
I haven't experienced the problems you have either, and I have my Win7HP x86
desktop networked to my Win8.1/Win10TP x64 laptop (depending on which I boot
into), and my SO's Win8.1 x64 Lenovo. Connection and transfer times between
all of them are about equal no matter the direction, with no dropped files
or pauses or lagging. I replied to your earlier post with some figures, but
if you need any other tests or any of my settings to compare to yours, I'll
be happy to help.
--
SC Tom

[Paul]

Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 10/12/2014 in message > Paul wrote:
>
>> You never really know what's going on in there.
>
> Absolutely!
>
> All I know is that networking is horrendously slow in Win7 - I can click
> on a network share and then sit waiting while the progress bar moves
> across. Never happened in XP on the same kit. It's very widely reported
> on Google and acknowledged in reviews so I find it a bit odd when people
> say they've not come across it.
>
> I was hoping Win10 would be better but I'll have to wait and see.
>

Sysinternals ProcMon and Wireshark, are your friends.

The symptoms on my problem are a bit weird, in that
when the file sharing transfer rate is stuck at 20MB/sec,
the trace on the screen almost looks like the rate is
"regulated". Like it's some kind of rate limiter. And
it's only on the WinXP sharing server side. I can pull
a file, using WinXP, from the Win8.1 file sharing,
and get a better rate. So it's not like it's purely
a permanent NIC rate issue, but is application dependent.
Almost like the file sharing server is being told not
to go too fast or something. And this machine hasn't always
been like that. So something I've added is doing it.

Paul

[Char Jackson]

On 10 Dec 2014 08:46:39 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" >
wrote:

>On 09/12/2014 in message > Char
>Jackson wrote:
>
>>So how can we duplicate what you're seeing? How should we proceed toward a
>>solution?
>
>Use Windows 7 (or Vista which had the same problems) and realise how slow
>it is.

It's fine here, on each of my PCs that run it, so unless you can provide
some information on how to recreate the issue, I guess help will be hard to
come by. Good luck! Please let us know what you find.

[philo [_3_]]

On 12/10/2014 02:08 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
> On 10 Dec 2014 08:46:39 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" >
> wrote:
>
>> On 09/12/2014 in message > Char
>> Jackson wrote:
>>
>>> So how can we duplicate what you're seeing? How should we proceed toward a
>>> solution?
>>
>> Use Windows 7 (or Vista which had the same problems) and realise how slow
>> it is.
>
> It's fine here, on each of my PCs that run it, so unless you can provide
> some information on how to recreate the issue, I guess help will be hard to
> come by. Good luck! Please let us know what you find.
>
>



I work on Win7 machines all the time and have never seen networking
problems.

The main complaint I have with all versions of Windows past XP are the
absurdly slow deletion times of large files.


"Discovering items" and "calculating free space" dialogs seemingly take
forever.


Win10 has if anything made things worse.

When I did an update, it put the previous build in "Windows.old" .

When I tried to delete it, the system went through an eight minute
deletion dialog which ended in a failure to delete.

After running disk cleanup three times, it finally "saw" the previous
installation and gave the option to delete it.

That worked, but from the time I tried to delete "windows.old" until the
time I got rid of it...was perhaps a half an hour or so.


There is no reason this should have taken longer than one second.

[Paul]

philo wrote:
> On 12/10/2014 02:08 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
>> On 10 Dec 2014 08:46:39 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/12/2014 in message >
>>> Char
>>> Jackson wrote:
>>>
>>>> So how can we duplicate what you're seeing? How should we proceed
>>>> toward a
>>>> solution?
>>>
>>> Use Windows 7 (or Vista which had the same problems) and realise how
>>> slow
>>> it is.
>>
>> It's fine here, on each of my PCs that run it, so unless you can provide
>> some information on how to recreate the issue, I guess help will be
>> hard to
>> come by. Good luck! Please let us know what you find.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> I work on Win7 machines all the time and have never seen networking
> problems.
>
> The main complaint I have with all versions of Windows past XP are the
> absurdly slow deletion times of large files.
>
>
> "Discovering items" and "calculating free space" dialogs seemingly take
> forever.
>
>
> Win10 has if anything made things worse.
>
> When I did an update, it put the previous build in "Windows.old" .
>
> When I tried to delete it, the system went through an eight minute
> deletion dialog which ended in a failure to delete.
>
> After running disk cleanup three times, it finally "saw" the previous
> installation and gave the option to delete it.
>
> That worked, but from the time I tried to delete "windows.old" until the
> time I got rid of it...was perhaps a half an hour or so.
>
>
> There is no reason this should have taken longer than one second.

It's the philosophy of the approach.

File system operations, they're done in small steps. If the
power goes off, there's no embarrassing mess that way. The
journal has a log of what was going on, for repair purposes.

To you or I, it seems a slam dunk, to just grab the FAT or
the $MFT, freeze system state for a microsecond, edit the
$MFT and zorch the set of files being deleted, then come
back again. But that would violate all the principles of
"slow and steady wins the race". There are permissions to be
checked, a "safety cushion" by moving the files to a temporary
place (Trash can), all that fun stuff. It's an entire
ceremony. Even comes with dancing paper animation.
You wouldn't want to put that army of software
developers out of work now, would you ?

At least you've learned your lesson, to use Disk Cleanup
for Windows.old. Deleting it "head on", is a mistake.
A mistake I learned the hard way.

What you should be finding, is Disk Cleanup runs a lot
faster in Win10 Preview, than it does in Win8 or Win7. So
it would seem somebody noticed what a shambles the previous
implementation was.

For the other OSes, while Disk Cleanup is running, open
Task Manager. If you see processes "competing" with your
Disk Cleanup, like tiworker, you can pretend to open
Windows Update and check for updates. And that may be
sufficient to stop the tiworker run. I've seen a few things
wasting cycles while Disk Cleanup is running, which could
account for the extra-long runtime in some cases.

Paul

[philo [_3_]]

On 12/11/2014 04:06 AM, Paul wrote:

>

<sniped for brevity>
>>
>> After running disk cleanup three times, it finally "saw" the previous
>> installation and gave the option to delete it.
>>
>> That worked, but from the time I tried to delete "windows.old" until
>> the time I got rid of it...was perhaps a half an hour or so.
>>
>>
>> There is no reason this should have taken longer than one second.
>
> It's the philosophy of the approach.
>
> File system operations, they're done in small steps. If the
> power goes off, there's no embarrassing mess that way. The
> journal has a log of what was going on, for repair purposes.
>
> To you or I, it seems a slam dunk, to just grab the FAT or
> the $MFT, freeze system state for a microsecond, edit the
> $MFT and zorch the set of files being deleted, then come
> back again. But that would violate all the principles of
> "slow and steady wins the race". There are permissions to be
> checked, a "safety cushion" by moving the files to a temporary
> place (Trash can), all that fun stuff. It's an entire
> ceremony. Even comes with dancing paper animation.
> You wouldn't want to put that army of software
> developers out of work now, would you ?
>

Maybe I've been using Linux too long. If I want to delete something the
operation executes immediately. The default GUI action is to the trash
can, so I'm covered in the case of an accident.

When it is time to empty the trash, again...the action is immediate.

"Delete" on XP worked fine.

Vista, prior to SP1 was absolutely beyond comprehension.

Vista SP1 and above improved things...but Microsoft can do better.


> At least you've learned your lesson, to use Disk Cleanup
> for Windows.old. Deleting it "head on", is a mistake.
> A mistake I learned the hard way.
>
> What you should be finding, is Disk Cleanup runs a lot
> faster in Win10 Preview, than it does in Win8 or Win7. So
> it would seem somebody noticed what a shambles the previous
> implementation was.
>
> For the other OSes, while Disk Cleanup is running, open
> Task Manager. If you see processes "competing" with your
> Disk Cleanup, like tiworker, you can pretend to open
> Windows Update and check for updates. And that may be
> sufficient to stop the tiworker run. I've seen a few things
> wasting cycles while Disk Cleanup is running, which could
> account for the extra-long runtime in some cases.
>
> Paul


Since I'm testing Win10 in a virtual environment I know there is some
performance hit but for Disk Cleanup to have to have been run several
times for "Windows.old" to show up...did not seem right.

That said: I think Windows 10 is going to be generally liked.

[Paul]

philo wrote:
> On 12/11/2014 04:06 AM, Paul wrote:
>
>>
>
> <sniped for brevity>
>>>
>>> After running disk cleanup three times, it finally "saw" the previous
>>> installation and gave the option to delete it.
>>>
>>> That worked, but from the time I tried to delete "windows.old" until
>>> the time I got rid of it...was perhaps a half an hour or so.
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no reason this should have taken longer than one second.
>>
>> It's the philosophy of the approach.
>>
>> File system operations, they're done in small steps. If the
>> power goes off, there's no embarrassing mess that way. The
>> journal has a log of what was going on, for repair purposes.
>>
>> To you or I, it seems a slam dunk, to just grab the FAT or
>> the $MFT, freeze system state for a microsecond, edit the
>> $MFT and zorch the set of files being deleted, then come
>> back again. But that would violate all the principles of
>> "slow and steady wins the race". There are permissions to be
>> checked, a "safety cushion" by moving the files to a temporary
>> place (Trash can), all that fun stuff. It's an entire
>> ceremony. Even comes with dancing paper animation.
>> You wouldn't want to put that army of software
>> developers out of work now, would you ?
>>
>
> Maybe I've been using Linux too long. If I want to delete something the
> operation executes immediately. The default GUI action is to the trash
> can, so I'm covered in the case of an accident.
>
> When it is time to empty the trash, again...the action is immediate.
>
> "Delete" on XP worked fine.
>
> Vista, prior to SP1 was absolutely beyond comprehension.
>
> Vista SP1 and above improved things...but Microsoft can do better.
>
>
>> At least you've learned your lesson, to use Disk Cleanup
>> for Windows.old. Deleting it "head on", is a mistake.
>> A mistake I learned the hard way.
>>
>> What you should be finding, is Disk Cleanup runs a lot
>> faster in Win10 Preview, than it does in Win8 or Win7. So
>> it would seem somebody noticed what a shambles the previous
>> implementation was.
>>
>> For the other OSes, while Disk Cleanup is running, open
>> Task Manager. If you see processes "competing" with your
>> Disk Cleanup, like tiworker, you can pretend to open
>> Windows Update and check for updates. And that may be
>> sufficient to stop the tiworker run. I've seen a few things
>> wasting cycles while Disk Cleanup is running, which could
>> account for the extra-long runtime in some cases.
>>
>> Paul
>
>
> Since I'm testing Win10 in a virtual environment I know there is some
> performance hit but for Disk Cleanup to have to have been run several
> times for "Windows.old" to show up...did not seem right.
>
> That said: I think Windows 10 is going to be generally liked.
>

If you want immediate delete in Windows, the Trash Can can be
defeated with the Shift key. You can also right-click the Trash
Can and set the properties for immediate delete. That "cuts
the ceremony in half", so is not a complete solution. The time
taken will still be a good long while.

One thing I've noticed in Windows, is file system operations
are throttled or rate-limited. I use a RAM Disk (I'm using it
right now to edit some video, as scratch pad), and even with
the "blazing fast" RAM Disk (at 4GB/sec), it still will not
delete files faster than about 100 to 200 files per second.
I haven't received confirmation from SSD owners that the
rate continues to be that pathetic for them, but have no reason
to believe otherwise.

*******

Another option you can experiment with, is delete from the MSDOS
prompt. The properties are different there, but I don't know if you
get a recursive delete there or not (take out an entire tree).
I do mainly flat operations with "del", like maybe remove
one file with it, so don't have the experience trying to
"cut trees" with it. It would be interesting, to see whether it
is File Explorer with the delete throttle, or it's NTFS. My
money is on File Explorer/Desktop subsystem.

Paul

[philo [_3_]]

On 12/11/2014 07:37 AM, Paul wrote:
> philo wrote:


<snip>
>>>
>>> What you should be finding, is Disk Cleanup runs a lot
>>> faster in Win10 Preview, than it does in Win8 or Win7. So
>>> it would seem somebody noticed what a shambles the previous
>>> implementation was.
>>>
>>> For the other OSes, while Disk Cleanup is running, open
>>> Task Manager. If you see processes "competing" with your
>>> Disk Cleanup, like tiworker, you can pretend to open
>>> Windows Update and check for updates. And that may be
>>> sufficient to stop the tiworker run. I've seen a few things
>>> wasting cycles while Disk Cleanup is running, which could
>>> account for the extra-long runtime in some cases.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>
>>
>> Since I'm testing Win10 in a virtual environment I know there is some
>> performance hit but for Disk Cleanup to have to have been run several
>> times for "Windows.old" to show up...did not seem right.
>>
>> That said: I think Windows 10 is going to be generally liked.
>>
>
> If you want immediate delete in Windows, the Trash Can can be
> defeated with the Shift key. You can also right-click the Trash
> Can and set the properties for immediate delete. That "cuts
> the ceremony in half", so is not a complete solution. The time
> taken will still be a good long while.
>

Yep, I know that...but I rarely by pass the trash or recycle bin.
Though I don't recall making mistakes, it's a good precaution




> One thing I've noticed in Windows, is file system operations
> are throttled or rate-limited. I use a RAM Disk (I'm using it
> right now to edit some video, as scratch pad), and even with
> the "blazing fast" RAM Disk (at 4GB/sec), it still will not
> delete files faster than about 100 to 200 files per second.
> I haven't received confirmation from SSD owners that the
> rate continues to be that pathetic for them, but have no reason
> to believe otherwise.
>
> *******
>
> Another option you can experiment with, is delete from the MSDOS
> prompt. The properties are different there, but I don't know if you
> get a recursive delete there or not (take out an entire tree).
> I do mainly flat operations with "del", like maybe remove
> one file with it, so don't have the experience trying to
> "cut trees" with it. It would be interesting, to see whether it
> is File Explorer with the delete throttle, or it's NTFS. My
> money is on File Explorer/Desktop subsystem.
>
> Paul


Haven't tried the command line in Win10 to delete things
but I bet it's faster than the GUI method, I'll have to give it a try.

[Paul]

philo wrote:


> Haven't tried the command line in Win10 to delete things
> but I bet it's faster than the GUI method, I'll have to give it a try.

I did a quick test here, and deleted around 11000 JPG files
(each one a frame from a movie), and from the DOS prompt
it took nine seconds (del *.jpg). Which beats the GUI. But still
isn't a testimony to performance. Those were on my RAMDisk
and it takes about five minutes to regenerate them (extract
from movie, recompress).

Paul

[philo [_3_]]

On 12/11/2014 08:09 AM, Paul wrote:
> philo wrote:
>
>
>> Haven't tried the command line in Win10 to delete things
>> but I bet it's faster than the GUI method, I'll have to give it a try.
>
> I did a quick test here, and deleted around 11000 JPG files
> (each one a frame from a movie), and from the DOS prompt
> it took nine seconds (del *.jpg). Which beats the GUI. But still
> isn't a testimony to performance. Those were on my RAMDisk
> and it takes about five minutes to regenerate them (extract
> from movie, recompress).
>
> Paul


The "average user" is not going to be using the command line however.

If MS cannot figure out how to get "delete" working at least they should
close the dialog box and back-ground the operation so the user can get
on with their business.

[Char Jackson]

On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 02:44:42 -0600, philo* > wrote:

>On 12/10/2014 02:08 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
>> On 10 Dec 2014 08:46:39 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/12/2014 in message > Char
>>> Jackson wrote:
>>>
>>>> So how can we duplicate what you're seeing? How should we proceed toward a
>>>> solution?
>>>
>>> Use Windows 7 (or Vista which had the same problems) and realise how slow
>>> it is.
>>
>> It's fine here, on each of my PCs that run it, so unless you can provide
>> some information on how to recreate the issue, I guess help will be hard to
>> come by. Good luck! Please let us know what you find.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>I work on Win7 machines all the time and have never seen networking
>problems.

Ditto to the first part of that statement. Regarding the second part, I've
*seen* networking issues with every version of Windows that I've worked on,
but certainly no more with 7 than with anything else. I think the OP needs
to dig deeper than to just say it's a Windows 7 issue.


>The main complaint I have with all versions of Windows past XP are the
>absurdly slow deletion times of large files.

And ditto to that, as well. XP was blazing fast in that area. I skipped over
Vista, but both 7 and 8 are pathetically slow.

I saw Paul's detailed response and while that provides somewhat of an
explanation, it's not quite a reason or justification. Deleting files used
to be something that Microsoft coders knew how to do efficiently. I'm not
sure why they've taken a different approach since XP.

[philo [_3_]]

On 12/11/2014 12:20 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
>

<snip>
>>
>>
>> I work on Win7 machines all the time and have never seen networking
>> problems.
>
> Ditto to the first part of that statement. Regarding the second part, I've
> *seen* networking issues with every version of Windows that I've worked on,
> but certainly no more with 7 than with anything else. I think the OP needs
> to dig deeper than to just say it's a Windows 7 issue.
>
>
>> The main complaint I have with all versions of Windows past XP are the
>> absurdly slow deletion times of large files.
>
> And ditto to that, as well. XP was blazing fast in that area. I skipped over
> Vista, but both 7 and 8 are pathetically slow.
>
> I saw Paul's detailed response and while that provides somewhat of an
> explanation, it's not quite a reason or justification. Deleting files used
> to be something that Microsoft coders knew how to do efficiently. I'm not
> sure why they've taken a different approach since XP.
>
>



Well, if MS has got to screw something up at least the "deletion"
problem is not the end of the world.


As a photographer who has a lot of images on my HD, I am happy the disk
caching with Windows is good and can get the thumbnails loaded rapidly.