A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » General XP issues or comments
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Just A rant ! Everything and Seamonkey poorly programmed.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 18th 19, 06:26 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
Olie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Just A rant ! Everything and Seamonkey poorly programmed.


Working on my Win XP Pro laptop and see that the CPU available is 0%

Process Explorer shows:
two copies of Everything eating up 60%
why two copies ?
one copy of Seamonkey eating all the rest.

Killed all Everything and Seamonkey ate even more.

Why can't these programmers write proper code ?

I had to Kill all those apps to get to use my laptop.

Probably no easy fix on my end but I'll ask anyway.

Any fix ? Other than use another app.
Ads
  #2  
Old April 18th 19, 07:47 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Shadow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,638
Default Just A rant ! Everything and Seamonkey poorly programmed.

On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:26:08 -0700, Olie wrote:


Working on my Win XP Pro laptop and see that the CPU available is 0%

Process Explorer shows:
two copies of Everything eating up 60%
why two copies ?
one copy of Seamonkey eating all the rest.

Killed all Everything and Seamonkey ate even more.

Why can't these programmers write proper code ?

I had to Kill all those apps to get to use my laptop.

Probably no easy fix on my end but I'll ask anyway.

Any fix ? Other than use another app.


Why do you need both running in the background ?
Process Lasso has a free version for XP

https://bitsum.com/company-news/proc...003-completed/

(registration code on the page)

It keeps logs and does real time monitoring of CPU usage. And
lowers CPU usage of misbehaving programs rather nicely.
If you can't figure out what's wrong, PL will clobber it.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
  #3  
Old April 18th 19, 09:12 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default Just A rant ! Everything and Seamonkey poorly programmed.

Olie wrote:

Working on my Win XP Pro laptop and see that the CPU available is 0%

Process Explorer shows:
two copies of Everything eating up 60%
why two copies ?
one copy of Seamonkey eating all the rest.

Killed all Everything and Seamonkey ate even more.

Why can't these programmers write proper code ?

I had to Kill all those apps to get to use my laptop.

Probably no easy fix on my end but I'll ask anyway.

Any fix ? Other than use another app.


For Everything, it's not poor programming.

You have to remember how it works.

1) NTFS USN Journal records that a new file has
"appeared" in the file system.
2) Everything.exe reads the USN Journal, from the
current pointer, sees the new file.
3) Everything.exe writes the new file into its database.

This becomes a "loop", if you inadvertently have the
database itself in a "visible" place that Everything.exe
can index. Everything does (3), the Journal does (1),
and the thing goes around in a merry circle.

These behaviors are also present in the Microsoft
Search Indexer, where the search indexer will "diddle"
back and forth between seeing 1,2,1,2,1,2... files
forever.

The difference, is the Microsoft indexer has a "throttle",
so that if it does loop, it can only do (1),(2),(3) about
once a second. This reduces the impact of mis-configuration.

Another possibility, is there's something wrong with the
insertion sort Everything needs to do when adding a new file
to the list. And that would constitute bad programming,
if you somehow broke that as a developer. That seems less
likely.

You would normally report this to the developer. One other
newsgroup participant has seen this on his laptop as well,
so you are not alone.

If this happened on one of my computers, I would run
sysinternals.com Process Monitor and capture a trace.
And see what files Everything is accessing, to try to
develop a picture of the problem, before contacting
the developer.

*******

Browsers looping, well, that's just the nature of "internet
facing" applications. There are a zillion ways to exploit
them, to abuse them. We almost need browser engines "built
out of silicon", not as a means to cure the problem, but
to "isolate the stink" to something other than a CPU :-)
Like, maybe some day, they could put a browser engine
in the video card silicon.

It would be much harder to triangulate the problem on
a broken web page. There is a "developer mode", but so far,
that's never helped me figure stuff out.

Because browsers "composite" their image output 60 times
a second, it's much more expensive to do that than the
old way with "expose events". It's intended to make the
browser really responsive, and potentially, buttery smooth.
But on most desktops, this hardly seems to happen. For
example, I've seen one web page which "flashes" about
once a second, and the duration is short enough,
I can't make out what object it's trying to render.
It's too short for humans to recognize, so maybe the
flash is only a single frame time long.

All I can tell you, is when these things happen,
somewhere... a web developer is laughing his ass off.
They're that evil. Like, imagine the idiot who created
the Yahoo News page, filled with videos that autoplay
as you scroll down the web page. This chews up 1GB of
RAM for a single web page, when that happens. I could
hear the maniacal laughter in the background. At one
time, there used to be "raspberry prizes" given for
worst web page, but now there are too many candidates.

Personally, I would be "shocked", if some day they
can make videos play reliably on a browser. It would
be a miracle.

Paul
  #4  
Old April 19th 19, 12:17 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default Just A rant ! Everything and Seamonkey poorly programmed.

In message , Paul
writes:
Olie wrote:
Working on my Win XP Pro laptop and see that the CPU available is 0%
Process Explorer shows:
two copies of Everything eating up 60%
why two copies ?
one copy of Seamonkey eating all the rest.
Killed all Everything and Seamonkey ate even more.
Why can't these programmers write proper code ?
I had to Kill all those apps to get to use my laptop.
Probably no easy fix on my end but I'll ask anyway.
Any fix ? Other than use another app.


If you could move the mouse _at all_, right-clicking on the "Everything"
icon in the tray will give an "Exit" option; I don't know if that's any
better than killing (which I assume you mean you did from Task Manager),
though I usually feel it is.

For Everything, it's not poor programming.

You have to remember how it works.

1) NTFS USN Journal records that a new file has
"appeared" in the file system.
2) Everything.exe reads the USN Journal, from the
current pointer, sees the new file.
3) Everything.exe writes the new file into its database.

This becomes a "loop", if you inadvertently have the
database itself in a "visible" place that Everything.exe
can index. Everything does (3), the Journal does (1),
and the thing goes around in a merry circle.


What puzzles me is that the above sounds a very plausible explanation,
except that I don't see why it only happens occasionally. (I've got
Everything running now, and it has been for some time - but it's only
using 00% [of my "four"-core processor], same as usual.)

Doesn't explain why Olie is seeing two copies though! (I've never seen
that.)
[]
The difference, is the Microsoft indexer has a "throttle",
so that if it does loop, it can only do (1),(2),(3) about
once a second. This reduces the impact of mis-configuration.


(Maybe Everything will get one of those one day.)
[]
You would normally report this to the developer. One other
newsgroup participant has seen this on his laptop as well,
so you are not alone.


I assume that's me (-:. (Happening on W7HP-32, and generally goes to
24-26% of a "4-core" CPU when it does happen [uses most, though not all,
of one "core", and a bit of another one].) Though I've never seen two
instances running.

If this happened on one of my computers, I would run
sysinternals.com Process Monitor and capture a trace.
And see what files Everything is accessing, to try to
develop a picture of the problem, before contacting
the developer.

I did, but didn't understand enough of the results (-:. It happens
rarely enough that I can live with it. (Plus, for something that I am
not paying for, I don't want to waste the developer's time on something
very rare [just the two of us so far, and rarely enough even for me at
that].)
*******

[]
It would be much harder to triangulate the problem on
a broken web page. There is a "developer mode", but so far,
that's never helped me figure stuff out.


Yes, easier to find the _non_-broken web page these days.

Because browsers "composite" their image output 60 times


Wow, I didn't know that: it sounds extremely wasteful. What, they do it
even for a static page? (And do you mean always 60, or at the refresh
rate?)
[]
All I can tell you, is when these things happen,
somewhere... a web developer is laughing his ass off.
They're that evil. Like, imagine the idiot who created
the Yahoo News page, filled with videos that autoplay
as you scroll down the web page. This chews up 1GB of
RAM for a single web page, when that happens. I could
hear the maniacal laughter in the background. At one


It would be almost a relief to think they _are_ that evil, but I'm
afraid I don't think that's the case. I think they're just, in most
cases, incompetent, and in a few cases where they do realise, uncaring
(which is bordering on as evil).

time, there used to be "raspberry prizes" given for
worst web page, but now there are too many candidates.


Yup.

Personally, I would be "shocked", if some day they
can make videos play reliably on a browser. It would
be a miracle.


You mean multiple videos on one page? There are a lot of pages with a
single one that seems to work reasonably well, YouTube being the obvious
one.

Paul

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Reality television. It's eroding the ability of good scripted television to
survive. - Patrick Duffy in Radio Times 2-8 February 2013
  #5  
Old April 19th 19, 12:40 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default Just A rant ! Everything and Seamonkey poorly programmed.

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul
writes:
Olie wrote:
Working on my Win XP Pro laptop and see that the CPU available is 0%
Process Explorer shows:
two copies of Everything eating up 60%
why two copies ?
one copy of Seamonkey eating all the rest.
Killed all Everything and Seamonkey ate even more.
Why can't these programmers write proper code ?
I had to Kill all those apps to get to use my laptop.
Probably no easy fix on my end but I'll ask anyway.
Any fix ? Other than use another app.


If you could move the mouse _at all_, right-clicking on the "Everything"
icon in the tray will give an "Exit" option; I don't know if that's any
better than killing (which I assume you mean you did from Task Manager),
though I usually feel it is.

For Everything, it's not poor programming.

You have to remember how it works.

1) NTFS USN Journal records that a new file has
"appeared" in the file system.
2) Everything.exe reads the USN Journal, from the
current pointer, sees the new file.
3) Everything.exe writes the new file into its database.

This becomes a "loop", if you inadvertently have the
database itself in a "visible" place that Everything.exe
can index. Everything does (3), the Journal does (1),
and the thing goes around in a merry circle.


What puzzles me is that the above sounds a very plausible explanation,
except that I don't see why it only happens occasionally. (I've got
Everything running now, and it has been for some time - but it's only
using 00% [of my "four"-core processor], same as usual.)

Doesn't explain why Olie is seeing two copies though! (I've never seen
that.)


That implies a semaphore failure.

If Everything were to fork copies, one per hard drive, during
a "reindex everything" call, it's possible two instances are
jammed trying to update the one file. (Something could be tasked
with managing the work, but only listens to one child at a time.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinlock

I've watched that in Process Explorer (run as admin, check the
stack view or so). What you see there doesn't always make
sense, but I've seen stuff stuck waiting, and the stack
has particular named calls for that.

The problem with Process Explorer taking a stack sample, is
you cannot exactly take a random sample, and I think the
state the stack is found in sometimes, is a "parked" state
and thus, polluted and not to be trusted for debug.

Before, I made the suggestion of using Process Monitor, to
check the CreateFile/ReadFile/WriteFile pattern of the
"busy" beavers. But if you suspect a threading or semaphore
problem (like, seeing two identical named processes is a hint
to go look), you can run Process Explorer and get a hint.
That might give you a breadcrumb about 10-20% of the time.

Paul
  #6  
Old April 20th 19, 01:28 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
Olie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Just A rant ! Everything and Seamonkey poorly programmed.

Also sort on date does not work !

Aggravating since that is how I really need to use it.
  #7  
Old April 20th 19, 01:33 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default Just A rant ! Everything and Seamonkey poorly programmed.

In message , Olie
writes:
Also sort on date does not work !

Aggravating since that is how I really need to use it.


I click on the Date Modified column in Everything, and it sorts by it
fine (i. e. newest at top). Can't speak for Seamonkey.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Eve had an Apple, Adam had a Wang...
  #8  
Old April 20th 19, 05:06 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
Olie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Just A rant ! Everything and Seamonkey poorly programmed.

No it does not !

If necessary I can attest to this in court !

I have over 1 million entries and I guarantee that it does not sort the
date correctly.

Hitting the sort for the date column several times still does not fix it.

What is interesting is that for several screen fulls the date is
correct, then there is a block of previous dates in order, then the
remaining are later dates in order. So there is a problem with the sort
routine !







J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Olie
writes:
Also sort on date does not work !

Aggravating since that is how I really need to use it.


I click on the Date Modified column in Everything, and it sorts by it
fine (i. e. newest at top). Can't speak for Seamonkey.


  #9  
Old April 20th 19, 06:10 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default Just A rant ! Everything and Seamonkey poorly programmed.

Olie wrote:

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Olie
writes:
Also sort on date does not work !

Aggravating since that is how I really need to use it.


I click on the Date Modified column in Everything, and it sorts by it
fine (i. e. newest at top). Can't speak for Seamonkey.


No it does not !

If necessary I can attest to this in court !

I have over 1 million entries and I guarantee that it does not sort the
date correctly.

Hitting the sort for the date column several times still does not fix it.

What is interesting is that for several screen fulls the date is
correct, then there is a block of previous dates in order, then the
remaining are later dates in order. So there is a problem with the sort
routine !


I think I can see one anomaly in the list.

I never see two items in the list "within spitting distance"
out of order. Things are greater distance apart are out of order.

But I noticed the icons on the left are different.

It sorts the folders first, then the files.

folder_icon 001
folder_icon 002
folder_icon 003
folder_icon 004
file_icon 002
file_icon 003

So even though in some "strict sense", clicking
the filename at the top should have given,

001
002
002
003
003
004

it's the fact some are folders and some are files,
Mr.carpenter put all the folders in the list first,
then the files.

It's basically two lists in the display at the same time.

+-------------------------+
| |
| Folder section of list |
| |
+-------------------------+
| |
| File section of list |
| |
+-------------------------+

HTH,
Paul

  #10  
Old April 20th 19, 07:19 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
Bill in Co[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 303
Default Just A rant ! Everything and Seamonkey poorly programmed.

Paul wrote:
Olie wrote:

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Olie
writes:
Also sort on date does not work !

Aggravating since that is how I really need to use it.

I click on the Date Modified column in Everything, and it sorts by it
fine (i. e. newest at top). Can't speak for Seamonkey.


No it does not !

If necessary I can attest to this in court !

I have over 1 million entries and I guarantee that it does not sort the
date correctly.

Hitting the sort for the date column several times still does not fix it.

What is interesting is that for several screen fulls the date is
correct, then there is a block of previous dates in order, then the
remaining are later dates in order. So there is a problem with the sort
routine !


I think I can see one anomaly in the list.

I never see two items in the list "within spitting distance"
out of order. Things are greater distance apart are out of order.

But I noticed the icons on the left are different.

It sorts the folders first, then the files.

folder_icon 001
folder_icon 002
folder_icon 003
folder_icon 004
file_icon 002
file_icon 003

So even though in some "strict sense", clicking
the filename at the top should have given,

001
002
002
003
003
004

it's the fact some are folders and some are files,
Mr.carpenter put all the folders in the list first,
then the files.

It's basically two lists in the display at the same time.

+-------------------------+
|
Folder section of list |
|

+-------------------------+
|
File section of list |
|

+-------------------------+

HTH,
Paul


Which I think is the normal default behavior for Windows Explorer too.
Folders get sorted by date first, then files. (And I think it's generally
preferable to the alternative, but I imagine that option could at least be
available in some file utilities).


  #11  
Old April 20th 19, 01:59 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default Just A rant ! Everything and Seamonkey poorly programmed.

In message , Bill in Co
writes:
Paul wrote:
Olie wrote:

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Olie
writes:
Also sort on date does not work !

Aggravating since that is how I really need to use it.

I click on the Date Modified column in Everything, and it sorts by it
fine (i. e. newest at top). Can't speak for Seamonkey.

No it does not !

If necessary I can attest to this in court !


Calm down dear! (UK cultural reference.)

I have over 1 million entries and I guarantee that it does not sort the
date correctly.


I have 216,616 objects (last digit fluctuating between 6 and 7). I've
just scrolled through them - which took _many_ minutes: there sure is a
lot of JUNK in there! More in winsxs than anywhere else. OK, mostly
files of only a few K, but still, offensive.

Hitting the sort for the date column several times still does not fix it.

What is interesting is that for several screen fulls the date is
correct, then there is a block of previous dates in order, then the
remaining are later dates in order. So there is a problem with the sort
routine !


Maybe over a certain number; I'm not seeing that (and my list covers
both C: and D, except as below.

I think I can see one anomaly in the list.

I never see two items in the list "within spitting distance"
out of order. Things are greater distance apart are out of order.

But I noticed the icons on the left are different.

It sorts the folders first, then the files.

[]
It's basically two lists in the display at the same time.

+-------------------------+
|
Folder section of list |
|

+-------------------------+
|
File section of list |
|

+-------------------------+

HTH,
Paul


Which I think is the normal default behavior for Windows Explorer too.
Folders get sorted by date first, then files. (And I think it's generally
preferable to the alternative, but I imagine that option could at least be
available in some file utilities).


Mine - after one click, so newest at top - has files (newest to oldest),
then folders (ditto). First my 26 files dated 2028-2-xx, then 203 files
with today's date, and so on, back to 1988-3-24, three dated 1980-1-1
0:0, one dated 1906-9-29, then folders: one from 2028-2-2, 86 dated
today, back to 4,319 (!) dated 2009-7-14.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A biochemist walks into a student bar and says to the barman: "I'd like a pint
of adenosine triphosphate, please." "Certainly," says the barman, "that'll be
ATP." (Quoted in) The Independent, 2013-7-13
  #12  
Old April 20th 19, 06:33 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
Bill in Co[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 303
Default Just A rant ! Everything and Seamonkey poorly programmed.

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co
writes:
Paul wrote:
Olie wrote:

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Olie
writes:
Also sort on date does not work !

Aggravating since that is how I really need to use it.

I click on the Date Modified column in Everything, and it sorts by it
fine (i. e. newest at top). Can't speak for Seamonkey.

No it does not !

If necessary I can attest to this in court !


Calm down dear! (UK cultural reference.)

I have over 1 million entries and I guarantee that it does not sort the
date correctly.


I have 216,616 objects (last digit fluctuating between 6 and 7). I've
just scrolled through them - which took _many_ minutes: there sure is a
lot of JUNK in there! More in winsxs than anywhere else. OK, mostly
files of only a few K, but still, offensive.

Hitting the sort for the date column several times still does not fix
it. What is interesting is that for several screen fulls the date is
correct, then there is a block of previous dates in order, then the
remaining are later dates in order. So there is a problem with the
sort routine !


Maybe over a certain number; I'm not seeing that (and my list covers
both C: and D, except as below.

I think I can see one anomaly in the list.

I never see two items in the list "within spitting distance"
out of order. Things are greater distance apart are out of order.

But I noticed the icons on the left are different.

It sorts the folders first, then the files.

[]
It's basically two lists in the display at the same time.

+-------------------------+
|
Folder section of list |
|
+-------------------------+
|
File section of list |
|
+-------------------------+

HTH,
Paul


Which I think is the normal default behavior for Windows Explorer too.
Folders get sorted by date first, then files. (And I think it's
generally preferable to the alternative, but I imagine that option could
at least be available in some file utilities).


Mine - after one click, so newest at top - has files (newest to oldest),
then folders (ditto). First my 26 files dated 2028-2-xx, then 203 files
with today's date, and so on, back to 1988-3-24, three dated 1980-1-1
0:0, one dated 1906-9-29, then folders: one from 2028-2-2, 86 dated
today, back to 4,319 (!) dated 2009-7-14.


You're right - files come first sorting from newest to oldest, folders come
first sorting from oldest to newest. I guess that is probably a "better"
default behavior too, since it's probably more likely more files have been
recently updated, and the user would want to see that.


  #13  
Old April 25th 19, 06:28 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
Olie[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Just A rant ! Everything and Seamonkey poorly programmed.


What, are you in a time machine with a 2028 date ?

And how did you get the date format changed ?
Maybe this will help ???

I am on Win 7 Pro. And You ?

Everything Version 1.4.1.895 (x64)
  #14  
Old April 25th 19, 06:51 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default Just A rant ! Everything and Seamonkey poorly programmed.

In message , Olie
writes:

What, are you in a time machine with a 2028 date ?


I _assume_ this was in response to one of my posts. (Snipping is good -
most people don't do enough of it - but it's usual to leave enough of
the post you're replying to that readers can see what you're on about.)

We discussed this within the last week or two. The conclusion we came to
was that the on-board clock must have been awry - probably ten years so,
maybe my having set it wrong - when the machine did some update.
(They're mostly in
C:\Windows\System32\config\systemprofile\AppData\L ocalLow\Microsoft\Crypt
netUrlCache\MetaData and
C:\Users\usename\AppData\LocalLow\Microsoft\Cryp tnetUrlCache\Content\,
so I'm reluctant to just get rid of them in case, with CryptnetUrlCache
in them, I lose access to something.)

And how did you get the date format changed ?


In Windows 7 with Classic Shell: Control panel, region and language,
Formats; it is slightly different in other combinations. (IIRR, under XP
it was "Regional Settings", or "Time and Date". You'll see when you get
there.) I have "Short date" set to yyyy-M-d and "Long date" to yyyy MMMM
d; your choice may vary. If the one you want isn't in the drop-down
list, don't worry - you can type in the box.

Maybe this will help ???


I doubt it.

I am on Win 7 Pro. And You ?


Home.

Everything Version 1.4.1.895 (x64)


1.4.1.935 (x86)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

… too popular actually to be any good. - Alison Graham in Radio Times 2-8
February 2013
  #15  
Old April 30th 19, 12:25 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default Just A rant ! Everything and Seamonkey poorly programmed.

On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 16:12:03 -0400, Paul wrote:

Olie wrote:

Working on my Win XP Pro laptop and see that the CPU available is 0%

Process Explorer shows:
two copies of Everything eating up 60%
why two copies ?
one copy of Seamonkey eating all the rest.

Killed all Everything and Seamonkey ate even more.

Why can't these programmers write proper code ?

I had to Kill all those apps to get to use my laptop.

Probably no easy fix on my end but I'll ask anyway.

Any fix ? Other than use another app.


For Everything, it's not poor programming.

You have to remember how it works.

1) NTFS USN Journal records that a new file has
"appeared" in the file system.
2) Everything.exe reads the USN Journal, from the
current pointer, sees the new file.
3) Everything.exe writes the new file into its database.

This becomes a "loop", if you inadvertently have the
database itself in a "visible" place that Everything.exe
can index. Everything does (3), the Journal does (1),
and the thing goes around in a merry circle.


I don't think that's an actual issue, although it sounds good in theory.

I'd bet that each of us who use Everything are able to type "everything"
into its interface and see, among the results, its index file. There's
never been any noticeable looping behavior, AFAIK.

Its author probably took care of that behavior a very long time ago, in
one of the earliest versions.

--

Char Jackson
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.