09-03-2002, 08:23 AM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,177
|
|
I don't like to wait
Here's an off-topic rant that I have been thinking of writing but have never really come around to do it. But now I have had it. I just have to put this in writing.
<rant>
Why does an excellent operating system like Windows 2000 need more than fifteen seconds to open up a window with folders and files, or to create a new folder? I am referring to the shared Open system component, for example the File Open dialog box used in almost every Windows application. Try starting Excel and open the File Open dialog box. First, it takes like forever to get it to display the contents of the "Look in" drop down list. Then, if I navigate to the folder that I am looking for and want to create a subfolder, it takes another "for ever" to do that. If I do the same thing again, directly following the first time then it goes a lot faster as if things got cached from the first time. I don't know how many times every day for the last few years I have gotten frustrated over this. (Since the birth of the Common Dialog component in Windows 3.1, I guess!)
I realize that it takes time to browse CD-ROM drives, DVD drives and network connections. I realize that the first time I invoke a function such as creating a folder, it might take a little longer than the subsequent times due to the caching occuring. But there are no excuses for a fifteen second execution time. Especially not given the multithreading capabilities of the operating system. It would not be rocket science to have this shared system component do some background work while the application or even operating system launches and is being used, so that when I do want to manage my folders and files, I don't have to waaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit until foooor eveeeeeeeeeeeeerrr!
</rant>
|
| |
|
|
|
09-03-2002, 08:24 AM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,177
|
|
Now, I can just hear some of you typing out:
"Heya Andy,
works over here! What's your problem!?"
Well, good for you, isn't!? :lol:
|
| |
|
|
|
09-03-2002, 08:39 AM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 355
|
|
-searching 1 billion web pages on google, 1.2 seconds.
-searching my local drives on a mac or pc, 9 minutes (at least).
i have a feel things are going to be get better real soon.
cheers,
pt
|
| |
|
|
|
09-03-2002, 08:58 AM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 20
|
|
Besides the time used for checking the CD, DVD and Network Drive, it also requires to check the user access right. W2K will only display the drive that you have the right to access.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-03-2002, 08:59 AM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 34
|
|
Andy,
Windows uses to look for shared resources when looking for files in explorer or the open file box. If for any reason you do not have a certain shared resource available at that time it will take a lot longer to get the list, because Lan Manager tries several times to locate the share. Of course seeking CDs should be optional and it takes a lot to read. Anyway it does not take 15 seconds on a typical machine except if you have the missing shared resources problem. Check this.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-03-2002, 09:11 AM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,177
|
|
Thanks for the tip regarding missing shares.
I move in and out of networks. Sometimes I am at home, sometimes I am in my office, sometimes I am at a client's site. This is not an uncommon scenario for the hundreds of thousands professionals out here. There must be a way for the operating system to figure things out faster than fifteen seconds. I'd still blame the operating system, rather than disconnecting/connecting to shared folders. pt's comment regarding google vs local computer is quite relevant.
However, from the two issues I described, this is the one that I can sort of understand. But the "creating a folder takes for ever"-issue should have been resolved ages ago.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-03-2002, 09:21 AM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 36
|
|
And of course you are using the indxing service...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pt
-searching 1 billion web pages on google, 1.2 seconds.
-searching my local drives on a mac or pc, 9 minutes (at least).
i have a feel things are going to be get better real soon.
cheers,
pt
|
There is a built in indexing service in Windows 2000. With that activated in the right way your searches on your harddisk should not take more than a couple of seconds. :idea:
|
| |
|
|
|
09-03-2002, 12:34 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 414
|
|
Another reason my PDA is my favorite
This is one of the chief reasons I prefer to work with files on my PDA. Windows should not take this long.
A big difference between any PDA and desktop is that the you wait for the desktop, but the PDA waits for you. Isn't that what an "assistant" is supposed to do? I have always assumed that this was because Windows did not caches properly and had to go to the hard disk for too many operations. If it were all done in RAM it would be much faster without any other tricks needed. The desktop should also be working more at securing and cleaning up file locations in the background when I am doing CPU nonintensive tasks like typing this right now.
In Windows 95 my system would go to the hard drive every time I moved the mouse. Now, why is the system using the hard drive for storing mouse locations? Terrible. PDAs have a lot to show desktops.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-03-2002, 12:52 PM
|
|
Contributing Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,228
|
|
There is just too much going on in Windows 2000 and XP. Windows NT 4, which deals with the same file shares and permissions, is far faster on similar equipment when using Explorer.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-03-2002, 01:10 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 333
|
|
Re: And of course you are using the indxing service...
Quote:
|
There is a built in indexing service in Windows 2000. With that activated in the right way your searches on your harddisk should not take more than a couple of seconds. :idea:
|
I've noticed this, but wonder if it really does any good. I still have nightmares about FastFind (FindFast?) from Office. That thing would suck 100% of the CPU of any machine it was running one.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
