backtop


Print 96 comment(s) - last by KamiXkaze.. on Jul 15 at 12:08 AM


Microsoft suggests disabling ReadyBoost until SP1
Microsoft plans numerous fixes including an update to ReadyBoost

Microsoft officially launched Windows Vista for volume licensing on November 30. The company also simultaneously launched Office 2007 giving Microsoft a 1-2 punch in the realm of operating systems and productivity suites.

"These are game-changing products," said Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer at the launch. "It’s an incredible step forward for business computing in a year of unprecedented innovation from Microsoft. We expect that more than 200 million people will be using at least one of these products by the end of 2007."

Microsoft followed up with the retail launch of both products two months later on January 30. Both software products were made available in over 70 countries and over 40,000 retail locations.

Windows Vista is not even a year old, but Microsoft is already orchestrating the launch of Service Pack 1 (SP1) Beta 1 for the week of July 16. Many companies will not even touch a new Microsoft operating system until the first service pack is released, so the quick rollout of SP1 isn't totally unexpected.

According to ZDNET's Mary Jo Foley, SP1 will RTM in November after just four months of testing. Microsoft will also release Windows Server 2008 at the same time.

Expected updates/fixes included with SP1 will be a revised Desktop Search, faster file copying and shutdown speeds, support for SD Advanced Direct Memory Access, enhancements to BitLocker Drive Encryption and Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI) support on x64 machines.

There will also be changes made to Windows ReadyBoost. There have been numerous complaints around the web concerning ReadyBoost and resuming from S3/S4 sleep. Sluggish performance on resume can be attributed to numerous writes to 'Readyboost.sfcache' on the ReadyBoost storage device.

According to Microsoft’s Robert Hensing, "[ReadyBoost] uses an AES 128 key that is generated once per OS start (the data in the file on the thumb drive is encrypted with this key) . . . the key isn't persisted anywhere (i.e. it lives in memory only) and so apparently when you sleep / hibernate - the key goes bye bye and thus you need to rebuild your 2GB ReadyBoost cache on your USB disk when you resume again."

Hensing continues, "Vista realizes that it needs to regenerate the ReadyBoost cache as soon as it wakes up and loads the USB drivers and realizes the ReadyBoost drive is plugged in and it starts helpfully doing this as soon as it can . . . ya know - while the OS is trying to page all that memory back into my 2GB of system RAM as well and generally restore the OS to a working state  . . . sigh . . ."

The changes made to ReadyBoost in SP1 will ensure that cache data is reused during S3/S4 sleep so that 'Readyboost.sfcache' is not repopulated on resume.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Copy speed
By Griswold on 7/9/2007 10:06:44 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I hope this solves the incredibly slow performance when handling the content of ZIP archives. Its just ridiculous how slow the built in zip routines copy files from an archive to another location - according to vista, the datarate is sometimes (when it is alot of small files) below 1MB/s.

On the other hand, I've never had any performance problems when copying files from A to B - as long as neither A nor B is a zip file.




RE: Copy speed
By TomZ on 7/9/2007 10:16:02 AM , Rating: 2
I think what you're seeing is the extra CPU and IO time required due to the compression/decompression. I don't think the speed figure you cited is out of bounds.

Using the latest version of WinZip (which is pretty performance optimized) I get similar copy rates here. I just did a test of unzipping a ZIP archive containing 4455 files totaling 26MB, and that took about 40 seconds. Zipping (compressing) would be a little slower. My machine's a 955EE dual core @ 3.5Ghz with dual raptors.


RE: Copy speed
By Mitch101 on 7/9/2007 10:20:02 AM , Rating: 2
Could also be anti-virus software. Trend Micro used to have problems when copying compressed files because it would have to expand the file and scan it causing additional performance hit even if the file was already scanned and confirmed virus free.

If we could get away without having to have AV, firewall, malware, and spyware software running all the time well then we would get a nice boost in performance. Probably one of the big reasing a 733mhz x-box can play FarCry but it crawls on a PC with twice the ability.


RE: Copy speed
By cochy on 7/9/2007 1:05:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Probably one of the big reasing a 733mhz x-box can play FarCry but it crawls on a PC with twice the ability.


Hmmm probably not. Probably something to do with the port being optimized poorly for the PC.


RE: Copy speed
By Mitch101 on 7/9/2007 2:05:11 PM , Rating: 3
It was released for the PC first then ported to the Xbox.


RE: Copy speed
By Omega215D on 7/10/2007 12:43:09 AM , Rating: 2
Would it have to do something with the different resolutions between the PC and XBOX?

A 733 - 800 PIII with a Geforce 3 can probably handle the game at 640 x 480 but move to 800 x 600 and it may crawl.*

*I haven't and won't try this out.


RE: Copy speed
By sxr7171 on 7/10/2007 12:55:20 AM , Rating: 3
Exactly. Who on their PC plays it at 640x480 no AA no AF? I play that game at 1920x1200 8x AA and 16X AF and it purrs on a 8800GTS, it did fine on a 7800GT also. You could today probably run the game at 640x480 with a budget card or even some of the better integrated solutions and a budget CPU. Also, they dumb down things like textures for console versions and implement performance enhancements by taking away things that would scarcely be visible on an analog TV (which the XBox was designed for).


RE: Copy speed
By shortylickens on 7/10/2007 4:10:03 PM , Rating: 3
While I have to say this is a little off topic it is also VERY true. I always find it amusing when people tell me how much faster consoles are than computers and its exactly because of this sort of thing.

Back on topic:
As soon as SP1 becomes final and official, I think I will finally make the transition to Vista.


RE: Copy speed
By PrinceGaz on 7/11/2007 9:53:38 AM , Rating: 2
I'm afraid if Microsoft think that rushing out SP1 very early will make those people currently holding-off feel confident to switch, then they are wrong. An early release of SP1 will mean I'll probably hold off until SP2.

It's not like there is anything wrong with XP which Vista could do better (at least for me), and there's a lot which Vista would do worse (especially when it comes to drivers and compatibility with certain apps I need). In a year or so, SP2 should be on its way and by then Vista will probably seem a lot more tempting. As it is, I've got a partition already available for installing Vista, and a copy of Vista RTM ready to install, but I really don't see the point just yet.


RE: Copy speed
By Imazalil on 7/12/2007 2:32:51 PM , Rating: 2
Finished the game on a GeForce 2 GTS 32Mb (w a Athlon XP 1.4Ghz, 768Mb Ram) card playing 800x600, there were a couple parts that would consistently crash the game, too much info for the 32Mb video ram was my guess as to why - just had to enter a few cheat codes to bypass the level segments that crashed it.

And yes, the game looked like ass, but hey I wasn't complaining, it played. Q4 played surprisingly well too, except in the areas with more than half-dozen characters on screen at once.

A Geforce 3 should make up for the slower CPU and play the game about the same.


RE: Copy speed
By darkpaw on 7/9/2007 10:24:55 AM , Rating: 2
No, Vista really has a problem with Zip files. It probably would have taken hours with that 4455 file archive using the built in decompression routinue.


RE: Copy speed
By omnicronx on 7/9/07, Rating: 0
RE: Copy speed
By darkpaw on 7/9/2007 11:05:37 AM , Rating: 2
I don't use the integrated, but a lot of people that don't know better do and it is much worse then it was in XP.


RE: Copy speed
By darkpaw on 7/9/2007 10:23:19 AM , Rating: 2
This is so true. The built in zip function in Vista is the worst. On one Vista PC I was working on that had no other zip program installed, it was estimating 2 hours to extract 7000 files from an archive. Thankfully, there are some really good open-source zip programs out there.


RE: Copy speed
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/9/2007 11:02:02 AM , Rating: 4
Winzip, the defacto standard, is closed source, and freeware. No need to push the "Open source is better" mentality without reason.

If you want options WinZip, WinRar, WinACE, and more!


RE: Copy speed
By darkpaw on 7/9/2007 11:05:04 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not pushing the open source is better then everything mentality at all. Its much better then the built in system in Vista by a long shot.

Personally, I like WinZip the best.


RE: Copy speed
By darkpaw on 7/9/2007 11:09:52 AM , Rating: 2
Hate to reply again, but WinZip isn't freeware, its commercial and well worth the licensing fee.

I've probably used it more then any other utility ever.

For people that don't want to pay or can't afford it for all their systems, the open source alternatives are ok and like I said way better then Vista's built in system.


RE: Copy speed
By ultimaone on 7/9/2007 12:40:33 PM , Rating: 1
he never did say "winzip" at any point in his first comment
and just said "open source"

so give the guy a break

and i'm thinking he meant "freeware" as well


RE: Copy speed
By darkpaw on 7/9/2007 12:46:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Winzip, the defacto standard, is closed source, and freeware


Guess you didn't read the post I was replying too or you just replyed to the wrong post. Yah I meant freeware as well in my first response.


RE: Copy speed
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/9/2007 11:26:52 AM , Rating: 5
WinZip? Pfff.

I personally use 7-Zip. It's completely free, light and efficient.


RE: Copy speed
By AlexWade on 7/9/2007 11:35:22 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah, 7-Zip is the best. It offers a 64-bit version, it supports multi-core CPU's, 7-zip compression is awesome. It is fast and efficient. Nothing is better than 7-Zip.


RE: Copy speed
By yehuda on 7/10/2007 12:09:42 AM , Rating: 1
7-Zip is nice but I don't like the way it handles drag'n'drop. Ever tried to drag a file or folder off a zip archive? For some reason, this operation uses a temporary folder as an intermediate stage and I find it very annoying.


RE: Copy speed
By GTMan on 7/10/2007 11:47:51 AM , Rating: 4
All unzip programs work this way. Windows is designed so that the application has no idea where the drop destination is. The output is supplied to Windows via a temporary location on your system drive and Windows takes care of moving it to the final location.


RE: Copy speed
By yehuda on 7/10/2007 12:58:53 PM , Rating: 2
I see. Thanks for pointing that out. It didn't occur to me it was a Windows limitation. It makes sense, now that I think of it, because the destination could be something other than a folder path name, like an office or e-mail application.


RE: Copy speed
By TomZ on 7/10/2007 1:40:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
All unzip programs work this way. Windows is designed so that the application has no idea where the drop destination is. The output is supplied to Windows via a temporary location on your system drive and Windows takes care of moving it to the final location.

Incorrect. WinZip 11.1 doesn't do this, for example. There is nothing in Windows that forces an application to be programmed in the way that you describe.


RE: Copy speed
By darkpaw on 7/9/2007 12:33:17 PM , Rating: 2
Whenever I've refurbed an old system to give to a family member or whatever, this has been what I've installed.

Its really great and its the only thing I've found for free that runs reliably on Vista 64.


RE: Copy speed
By VooDooAddict on 7/10/2007 3:32:14 AM , Rating: 2
yup only 64-bit Vista Zipper.


RE: Copy speed
By AsicsNow on 7/10/2007 1:34:32 PM , Rating: 2
Izarc is a nice program as well.


RE: Copy speed
By Parhel on 7/9/2007 11:39:42 AM , Rating: 2
I highly recommend 7-Zip, and I'm honestly not one to push open source software for ideological reasons.

A few years ago, it wasn't anything special, but today it's really worth the download. I do a lot of zipping and unzipping, and I haven't used anything but 7-Zip in at least a year.

It has a decent interface, it supports all common compression types except for ACE, and although you may not use it for compatibility reasons it's own compression algorithm (7z) consistently outperforms the others that I use.


RE: Copy speed
By Ringold on 7/9/2007 1:48:16 PM , Rating: 4
If it had recovery records and all the features of WinRAR.. I'd switch. Given that rar compresses nearly as well as .7z in some situations, and is faster, and also utilizes dual cores.. I prefer WinRAR. But if I didn't need any of that. 7zip aint bad.


RE: Copy speed
By Screwballl on 7/11/2007 11:03:00 AM , Rating: 2
I have been a WinRAR fan for a long time... I have tried almost every major (and many many minor) compressions programs. WinRAR is the best IMHO


RE: Copy speed
By kamel5547 on 7/9/2007 12:09:15 PM , Rating: 2
Since when is WinZip freeware?

WinZip is NOT free, check their website and the EULA.


RE: Copy speed
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/9/2007 1:32:59 PM , Rating: 2
Your never "forced" to purchase it, simply ignore the message. Much like SmartFTP.


RE: Copy speed
By TomZ on 7/9/2007 1:37:33 PM , Rating: 2
But that violates the terms of use; WinZip is commercial software, and they expect to get paid if you use it.

Just because it doesn't employ a strong license manager doesn't mean that you are legally or morally permitted to use it for free beyond the trial period.


RE: Copy speed
By nullCRC on 7/9/2007 2:00:55 PM , Rating: 2
Just because it doesn't employ a strong license manager doesn't mean that you are legally or morally permitted to use it for free beyond the trial period.

Exactly what is "morally permitted"?


RE: Copy speed
By TomZ on 7/9/2007 2:10:10 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I forgot we are supposed to write posts that are 100% perfect in grammar, spelling, diction, etc. Sheesh. I think you know what I mean, even if the wording is not just right.

In other words - I'll spell it out for you - WinZip clearly states they give you a 45-day free trial period, and that you are expected to pay for a license after that. If you continue to use it beyond that, then you are being naughtly. OK, clear?


RE: Copy speed
By nullCRC on 7/9/2007 2:21:33 PM , Rating: 3
I understood what you meant from the beginning. However, I wanted to know where Corel (Winzip) states that you are morally obligated to do anything. I read the EULA, and I found where the stipulations would legally bind someone, but not morally.

Lighten up.


RE: Copy speed
By TomZ on 7/9/07, Rating: -1
RE: Copy speed
By nullCRC on 7/9/07, Rating: -1
RE: Copy speed
By oTAL on 7/11/2007 12:43:27 PM , Rating: 2
A little guy walks into a bar, slips on a little pool of vomit next to the stools, and everybody starts laughing at him.
He gets up and sits down on a stool.
A few minutes later, a huge gets out of the bathroom, passes close to the little guy a slips on the vomit.
No one laughs... amidst the silence the little guy says "Man, I just did that!"
The huge guy beats him up.

Everyone laughs...


RE: Copy speed
By cpeter38 on 7/11/2007 7:35:27 AM , Rating: 2
Individual consumers are absolutely free to ignore the EULA - I am sure that most people will not feel guilty about it.

Corporations cannot ignore EULAs!

The liability is unacceptable. Picture unauthorized use on 10,000 computers. 1 disgruntled employee could sting you for $6 per installed program. An IT person in a large organization (if they are worth their salary) needs to be vigilant by preventing the unauthorized installs of proprietary software that is not in the budget/licensed. Even better, be proactive and remote load the most cost effective software on all machines BEFORE your users try to break into their machines.

I am not trying to be "preachy" - just pointing out that relative morality doesn't matter. The bottom line and risks do matter.


RE: Copy speed
By Some1ne on 7/9/2007 6:14:59 PM , Rating: 3
I've never been happy with the performance of the built in archiver on any flavor of Windows.

That's why WinRAR/Winzip rank amont the very first things I install after putting Windows on a new system.


RE: Copy speed
By Flunk on 7/10/2007 11:33:09 AM , Rating: 2
This is silly logic, you're saying the integrated zip functionality is allowed to suck because I expect it to. Just because Microsoft has never made a decent zip file decompressor is no reason why they shouldn't. There is no excuse for the world's largest software company to bungle something so simple.

Even saying that there is some sort of horrible bug that effects the Vista version making it completely unusable (not just slow but super slow). Also, file copies take longer in Vista for no reason (even same disk to same disk) let's hope they fix that too.


RE: Copy speed
By KamiXkaze on 7/15/2007 12:08:17 AM , Rating: 2
I'm more of a winzip fan myself have been using it for 7 years.

KxK


"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki