Miscellaneous > The Orphanage

Bloat without the power

(1/3) > >>

jj2007:
Windows 7-64 just updated itself, fine. Rebooted, clicked on Firefox and Thunderbird and ... wait ... wait ... they take minutes to load. M$ Visual Studio Community takes a clever approach, it greets you after 1-2 seconds with a splash screen, but then it takes 130 seconds to load a hello world proggie.

In contrast, MS Word takes just 10 seconds, too much for an i5 but acceptable in comparison; RichMasm (from scratch, directly after reboot) takes less than a second to load itself, and less than a second to load 33k lines of code.

This machine gets more and more sluggish, and I don't know what to do. 125 GB free on harddisk, 4 GB RAM. Control Panel, Windows performance says it's a great machine, with 4.7 of 7.9 possible points, and video card being the weakest point.


--- Code: ---Componente Dettagli Punteggio parziale Punteggio base
Processore Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2450M CPU @ 2.50GHz 7.0 4.7
  Determinato dal punteggio parziale piĆ¹ basso
 
Memoria (RAM) 4.00 GB 5.9
Scheda video Intel(R) HD Graphics Family 4.7
Grafica dei giochi 1760 Memoria totale disponibile per la grafica in megabyte 6.4
Disco rigido primario 126GB disponibili (448GB totale) 5.9
Windows 7 Home Premium
--- End code ---


Fortunately, everything that has to do with my coding is fast, as usual - UAsm does it in about 20,000 lines per second. The problem is really the bloatware that they are forcing down our throats. Firefox has done nothing significant so far (SMF is a liteweight engine), but it has grabbed already 600MB of working space. Why???

sinsi:
Because everything nowadays is .net

I have a program with 20-odd controls (static, edit).
Using the latest (common control manifest, ml14) my program takes ~5 seconds to show.
Using no manifest and ml6 it loads instantly.

Speed up a laptop? Easy - install an SSD. Major improvement.

jj2007:

--- Quote from: sinsi on September 13, 2017, 09:05:20 PM ---Speed up a laptop? Easy - install an SSD. Major improvement.
--- End quote ---

Just had a look at some threads related to SSD reliability. Ehmmm (my highlighting :biggrin:)...:

gamebrigada

--- Quote ---From my enterprise experience:

    Samsung: I've yet to see one fail. Far over 1000 in use. Models we use: SM863, SM951, 950 PRO, 950 EVO, 960 PRO, 960 EVO.
    Intel: I don't have any that aren't dead. Probably around 30 total. Wait, just one, an old SLC drive still in its packaging. That one is a Schrodinger, both alive and dead at the same time. We just stay away from them now, after the 8mb bug that they kept telling us was our fault, after countless times losing all data, we gave up and refuse to buy them.
    Crucial: Very cheap, and reliable. Several hundred in use, now mostly as secondary storage, as they are fairly slow. Model: M500
    SanDisk: I hate these things. Model: A110. We call them dumb sticks. They suck ass and don't have a compatible alternative. Failure rate around 60%. Their firmware doesn't help, although they are happy to constantly replace them. I've seen 4 fail in one laptop in the course of about 2 months.
    Kingston: We have tons of these in use and they work great. My only gripe with them, is that they change hardware in their drives that effects promised performance without telling anyone. Failure rate I would say around 5% over the course of about 5 years.
--- End quote ---

Western Digital is releasing the same drive under both their WD and SanDisk brands. Under the stickers, the hardware is identical.

hutch--:
JJ,

I would second the idea of using an SSD. On both my older i7 and this Haswell I have an SSD, the i7 has a an SSD of about 450 gig which I use as the boot drive with Win7 64 and it takes a normal SATA2/3 plug. The Haswell has an Intel PCIEx4 SSD but it was an expensive one. For a boot drive, any modern SSD is more reliable than a HDD so it may be a good option for you.

zedd151:


[hijack]
SSD's are the wave of the future. I know they are faster than HDD's, just how much faster I wonder.

Not talking about the mfrs specs  but in real world usage. Had anyone here done a study on ssd vs hdd? Would be interesting to see a shootout match between the two. Like when you'd first get the ssd and copy the hdd to the ssd. Time bootup, large file movements  and the like before the switch and after...

[/unhijack]   :biggrin:

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version