.net framework in xp sp2

[Paul]

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 18:41:43 -0500, Paul wrote:

>

>

>> One reason for not using CCC, is it wastes RAM when it loads. That

>> is my philosophical objection to using it. Software which is not

>> being used, should not burn up RAM for nothing.

>

>

> I don't know anything about CCC (not even what it is), but the

> statement "Software which is not being used, should not burn up RAM

> for nothing" is generally incorrect.

>

> Yes, a program which is started uses RAM, but if other programs need

> RAM, and the program in question is not used, the memory that it uses

> very quickly gets paged out and has no impact on performance at all.

> What gets paged out is the least-recently-used memory.

>



Do you think it is reasonable for a control panel you're not

using at the moment, to consume 50MB, whether paged or not ?

I don't. Especially when the version before CCC came out

was not like that. But such is the price of progress.



I used to work on a CAD computer, that did everything a designer

could ever wish for, with a 32MB footprint. The people writing

the software, were whipped mercilessly by their management,

until all the software fit within that footprint. I guess

all the guys with whips are retired



Paul

 

[mm]

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 18:41:43 -0500, Paul wrote:



>mm wrote:

>> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 15:54:07 -0500, Paul wrote:

>>

>>> mm wrote:

>>>

>>>> Well, I had XP SP3 and it was working fine, then after 3 weeks it

>>>> wasnt' working fine and I had to uncheck Shell and UPS services.

>>>>

>>>> It was working fine then and I don't know if I had anything with .net

>>>> in it. but after I installed a used but newer (ATI 7000, with real

>>>> 3D) video card, then it insisted I install .net Framework. It didn't

>>>> say upgrade, and it took a relatively long time, so I don't think I

>>>> had it before. Without it I could still get some resolutions on my

>>>> monitor, but either I coudlnt't get all or I couldn't run the ATI

>>>> software that does other things to the monitor output.

>>>>

>>>> Maybe computers that come with later model video cards won't work

>>>> without .net framework.

>>> You could have avoided that, if you wished.

>>>

>>> ATI splits their install into "driver" and "control panel". The

>>> control panel software needs .NET 2.0 . If you don't attempt

>>> to install the control panel, but just install the driver, then

>>> you don't need to install .NET 2.0.

>>>

>>> ATI offers downloads in either a combined driver+control_panel package,

>>> or you can download just the driver or just the control panel.

>>

>> I sort of thought that was the case. I especially thought about it

>> when the install was running. grin. I took comfort in the fact that

>> it was free, so I got something free! Whoopee.

>>

>>> I'm currently running my computer, without the ATI CCC control panel,

>>> and just have the driver installed. It means I cannot access advanced

>>> features via CCC, but I can play 3D games just fine.

>>

>> I first wanted a newer card to use Google Earth, but just Thursday I

>> started using it to output to my TVs too.

>>

>> Do you think I could have done that without the ati control panel?

>> Serious question.

>>

>> When I first plugged the tv in, the picture was blank and I had to go

>> into the control panel and set TV Output On. I"m guessing that means

>> I needed the control panel, but maybe not.

>>

>>> Paul

>>

>

>For anything non-trivial, you should have the control panel installed.

>

>And that would include doing things like setting up multiple monitors.



Good. So I needed it.



>I just change OSes, as my Win2K boot disk has CCC installed and

>I can test multiple monitor configurations there if I need to.

>

>One reason for not using CCC, is it wastes RAM when it loads. That

>is my philosophical objection to using it. Software which is not

>being used, should not burn up RAM for nothing. My attitude might have

>been different, if a lightweight process sat there waiting for me

>to click the CCC icon, and then loaded the software at that

>point in time. That would mean most of the time, I'd get to keep

>my RAM for more useful things.



Well, I don't think I normally load it, but I'm not positive. It

gives an option to put an icon in the systray, but I have that turned

off, and I will use an icon on the desktop on the rare times I plan to

use it. I'm expecting that now that I have set it, the tv output will

work without starting it. Yes, I think so. I changed the station on

the DVDR to E1 and the TV connected to it shows my computer screen.



I don't think I started CCC this session, but I'm not positive. I'll

reboot if you want to know for sure.



Right nown in cntl-alt-delete there is running AT2EVXX.exe with 1,284K

and a second occurrence with 736K mem usage. I don't know why they

are running. (I wrote this before I checked my DVDR/TV output. I guess

I could close these processes and watch if the tv picture disappeared.

Well, I stopped the smaller one and the picture is just as good as it

was. The larger entry seems to have disappeared when I stopped the

smaller one.) And is there a way to tell if they have been swapped

out???



Nothing to do with RAM but both listed as zero percent of cpu. The

only cpu users are Firefox, from 50-90%, Windows Media player 5% (I"m

listening to Gunsmoke from 1952), explorer up to 1%, task manager up

to 2%, Agent up to 4 percent (I'm typing in Agent now)



>I only own one good monitor, and the TV output on my video card

>sucks so bad, I have no wish to use that again. So at least while

>I'm running WinXP, the single monitor and no CCC works out fine.

>

>(Why do I run Win2K ? That is my "dirty" OS, where I test cruft, like

>200MB commercial software packages. I try to keep WinXP a little cleaner,

>by not installing the junk I use on the Win2K partition. If the Win2K

>partition falls over, there isn't much to lose.)

>

> Paul

 

[Paul]

mm wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 18:41:43 -0500, Paul wrote:

>

>> mm wrote:

>>> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 15:54:07 -0500, Paul wrote:

>>>

>>>> mm wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Well, I had XP SP3 and it was working fine, then after 3 weeks it

>>>>> wasnt' working fine and I had to uncheck Shell and UPS services.

>>>>>

>>>>> It was working fine then and I don't know if I had anything with .net

>>>>> in it. but after I installed a used but newer (ATI 7000, with real

>>>>> 3D) video card, then it insisted I install .net Framework. It didn't

>>>>> say upgrade, and it took a relatively long time, so I don't think I

>>>>> had it before. Without it I could still get some resolutions on my

>>>>> monitor, but either I coudlnt't get all or I couldn't run the ATI

>>>>> software that does other things to the monitor output.

>>>>>

>>>>> Maybe computers that come with later model video cards won't work

>>>>> without .net framework.

>>>> You could have avoided that, if you wished.

>>>>

>>>> ATI splits their install into "driver" and "control panel". The

>>>> control panel software needs .NET 2.0 . If you don't attempt

>>>> to install the control panel, but just install the driver, then

>>>> you don't need to install .NET 2.0.

>>>>

>>>> ATI offers downloads in either a combined driver+control_panel package,

>>>> or you can download just the driver or just the control panel.

>>> I sort of thought that was the case. I especially thought about it

>>> when the install was running. grin. I took comfort in the fact that

>>> it was free, so I got something free! Whoopee.

>>>

>>>> I'm currently running my computer, without the ATI CCC control panel,

>>>> and just have the driver installed. It means I cannot access advanced

>>>> features via CCC, but I can play 3D games just fine.

>>> I first wanted a newer card to use Google Earth, but just Thursday I

>>> started using it to output to my TVs too.

>>>

>>> Do you think I could have done that without the ati control panel?

>>> Serious question.

>>>

>>> When I first plugged the tv in, the picture was blank and I had to go

>>> into the control panel and set TV Output On. I"m guessing that means

>>> I needed the control panel, but maybe not.

>>>

>>>> Paul

>> For anything non-trivial, you should have the control panel installed.

>>

>> And that would include doing things like setting up multiple monitors.

>

> Good. So I needed it.

>

>> I just change OSes, as my Win2K boot disk has CCC installed and

>> I can test multiple monitor configurations there if I need to.

>>

>> One reason for not using CCC, is it wastes RAM when it loads. That

>> is my philosophical objection to using it. Software which is not

>> being used, should not burn up RAM for nothing. My attitude might have

>> been different, if a lightweight process sat there waiting for me

>> to click the CCC icon, and then loaded the software at that

>> point in time. That would mean most of the time, I'd get to keep

>> my RAM for more useful things.

>

> Well, I don't think I normally load it, but I'm not positive. It

> gives an option to put an icon in the systray, but I have that turned

> off, and I will use an icon on the desktop on the rare times I plan to

> use it. I'm expecting that now that I have set it, the tv output will

> work without starting it. Yes, I think so. I changed the station on

> the DVDR to E1 and the TV connected to it shows my computer screen.

>

> I don't think I started CCC this session, but I'm not positive. I'll

> reboot if you want to know for sure.

>

> Right nown in cntl-alt-delete there is running AT2EVXX.exe with 1,284K

> and a second occurrence with 736K mem usage. I don't know why they

> are running. (I wrote this before I checked my DVDR/TV output. I guess

> I could close these processes and watch if the tv picture disappeared.

> Well, I stopped the smaller one and the picture is just as good as it

> was. The larger entry seems to have disappeared when I stopped the

> smaller one.) And is there a way to tell if they have been swapped

> out???

>

> Nothing to do with RAM but both listed as zero percent of cpu. The

> only cpu users are Firefox, from 50-90%, Windows Media player 5% (I"m

> listening to Gunsmoke from 1952), explorer up to 1%, task manager up

> to 2%, Agent up to 4 percent (I'm typing in Agent now)

>



I don't think CCC uses any CPU cycles, so it isn't bad from that point

of view. But when I first installed it, I noticed a rather large chunk

of RAM used by having it present.



I evaluate software on a cost/benefit basis. Three things have been

kicked off my computer. ATI CCC. My webcam software (which continues

to run, even if the webcam is unplugged). My printer software (I use

the printer so seldom, I just install the software when needed). The

rest of the software got to stay on the computer, because I got some

benefit from it, and it only used resources while I was actually using it.

The printer and webcam failed in that respect, using resources

when they weren't needed.



What I expect to get with hardware, is unobtrusive drivers, the kind

of drivers where you hardly know they are there. Companies used to

know how to make drivers like that, but I guess they just couldn't

resist the urge to "take over the machine".



Paul

 

[mm]

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 21:57:53 -0500, Paul wrote:



>

>> Well, I don't think I normally load it, but I'm not positive. It

>> gives an option to put an icon in the systray, but I have that turned

>> off, and I will use an icon on the desktop on the rare times I plan to

>> use it. I'm expecting that now that I have set it, the tv output will

>> work without starting it. Yes, I think so. I changed the station on

>> the DVDR to E1 and the TV connected to it shows my computer screen.

>>

>> I don't think I started CCC this session, but I'm not positive. I'll

>> reboot if you want to know for sure.



Well, I started a new session and I know I didn't start anything by

hand this session, and it's still running, 2976K and 2238K, which is

2.5 or so times last time (quoted below)

>>

>> Right nown in cntl-alt-delete there is running AT2EVXX.exe with 1,284K

>> and a second occurrence with 736K mem usage. I don't know why they

>> are running. (I wrote this before I checked my DVDR/TV output. I guess

>> I could close these processes and watch if the tv picture disappeared.

>> Well, I stopped the smaller one and the picture is just as good as it

>> was.



The picture was fine for 5 or 10 minutes, but then it disappeared from

the monitor! I went to the DVDR in the other room and changed to

External Port 1 and the picture was gone there too! The Listen Live

web-radio was still playing from the computer.



Even cntl-alt-delete wouldn't show up on the screen and Win-U-R didnt'

do anything so I turned the computer off. It wouldn't restart because

it runs a little hot, so I took a bath, and now it's fine again.



But i think ATI2EVXX.exe does something important!



> The larger entry seems to have disappeared when I stopped the

>> smaller one.) And is there a way to tell if they have been swapped

>> out???

>>

>> Nothing to do with RAM but both listed as zero percent of cpu. The

>> only cpu users are Firefox, from 50-90%, Windows Media player 5% (I"m

>> listening to Gunsmoke from 1952), explorer up to 1%, task manager up

>> to 2%, Agent up to 4 percent (I'm typing in Agent now)

>>

>

>I don't think CCC uses any CPU cycles, so it isn't bad from that point

>of view. But when I first installed it, I noticed a rather large chunk

>of RAM used by having it present.

>

>I evaluate software on a cost/benefit basis. Three things have been

>kicked off my computer. ATI CCC. My webcam software (which continues

>to run, even if the webcam is unplugged).



I was going to put in a webcam and I wondered about that. I have no

one to talk to who cares what I look like and also would use a

computer to talk on the phone, but I still plan to install it someday.



>My printer software (I use

>the printer so seldom, I just install the software when needed). The



I plan to use my printer again as soon as I find my refill ink. But

it's been over a year since I printed anything from this one.



>rest of the software got to stay on the computer, because I got some

>benefit from it, and it only used resources while I was actually using it.

>The printer and webcam failed in that respect, using resources

>when they weren't needed.

>

>What I expect to get with hardware, is unobtrusive drivers, the kind

>of drivers where you hardly know they are there. Companies used to

>know how to make drivers like that, but I guess they just couldn't

>resist the urge to "take over the machine".



Almost everyone wants to feel important.



> Paul

 

[Paul]

mm wrote:



>

> But i think ATI2EVXX.exe does something important!

>



http://www.tweakguides.com/ATICAT_4.html



"ATI Hotkey Poller (ati2evxx.exe)



Also called the ATI External Event Utility, this service is

primarily needed if you use the ATI Hotkey settings available

in the ATI Catalyst Control Center. However, before disabling

this service note the following:



If you use a third party overclocking utility, you must

disable this service otherwise the utility may not work;



if you have an XT, X1X00 or newer graphics card, disabling

this service can also disable the OverDrive section in the

Control Center, and can also prevent correct clock speeds

being applied in 3D mode;



if you run a laptop with an ATI graphics card, you may need

to keep this service enabled to allow your LCD screen to

switch off properly when the laptop is closed;



if you use Fast User Switching then disabling this service

may also cause problems with that.



If none of the conditions above apply to you, I recommend that

you disable this service."



I'd heard it has something to do with changing clock speed on the

video card, when you start playing a 3D game. But it seems to have

some other functions as well.



HTH,

Paul

 

[mm]

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 22:50:00 -0500, Paul wrote:



>mm wrote:

>

>>

>> But i think ATI2EVXX.exe does something important!

>>

>

>http://www.tweakguides.com/ATICAT_4.html

>

> "ATI Hotkey Poller (ati2evxx.exe)

>

> Also called the ATI External Event Utility, this service is

> primarily needed if you use the ATI Hotkey settings available



I never use Hotkeys for any of these functions. I never set any

hotkeys and I thought it about it too but didn't know what I would

want to do, hotly or not.



> in the ATI Catalyst Control Center. However, before disabling

> this service note the following:

>

> If you use a third party overclocking utility, you must

> disable this service otherwise the utility may not work;



I'm not doing that.

>

> if you have an XT, X1X00 or newer graphics card, disabling

> this service can also disable the OverDrive section in the

> Control Center, and can also prevent correct clock speeds

> being applied in 3D mode;



I sure don't think I'm doing that. It's just a Radeon ATI 7000 series,

and I don't know anything about overdrive. Wasn't even mentioned in

the CCC. Catalyst Control Center.



> if you run a laptop with an ATI graphics card, you may need

> to keep this service enabled to allow your LCD screen to

> switch off properly when the laptop is closed;



It's not a laptop.



> if you use Fast User Switching then disabling this service

> may also cause problems with that.



I never switch users. I'm the only user.



> If none of the conditions above apply to you, I recommend that

> you disable this service."



Thanks for this.



Last time I closed it, my picture went away, but I must say that it

didn't do anything special on restart, like suggesting chkdsk. I

don't why not, but the webradio was playing until I pressed the hard

Reset button on the computer, so I must have turned it off

abnormallly.



I'm willing to end that process again sometimes, but proably not

tonight. I'm sort of tired.



When I check some more, can I put your name in the Subject Line of a

new thread?. I'm not crazy about doing that for some reason, even

though I don't see how it could hurt anyone.



>I'd heard it has something to do with changing clock speed on the

>video card, when you start playing a 3D game. But it seems to have

>some other functions as well.



Maybe one the guy you quote never found.



>HTH,

> Paul

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 20:17:58 -0500, Paul wrote:



> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> > On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 18:41:43 -0500, Paul wrote:

> >

> >

> >> One reason for not using CCC, is it wastes RAM when it loads. That

> >> is my philosophical objection to using it. Software which is not

> >> being used, should not burn up RAM for nothing.

> >

> >

> > I don't know anything about CCC (not even what it is), but the

> > statement "Software which is not being used, should not burn up RAM

> > for nothing" is generally incorrect.

> >

> > Yes, a program which is started uses RAM, but if other programs need

> > RAM, and the program in question is not used, the memory that it uses

> > very quickly gets paged out and has no impact on performance at all.

> > What gets paged out is the least-recently-used memory.

> >

>

> Do you think it is reasonable for a control panel you're not

> using at the moment, to consume 50MB, whether paged or not ?





If you want to have it handy, so whenever you want it, you can get to

it quickly without having to load it, yes I think it's reasonable.

Having 50MB (a small amount of memory, by the way) in the page file

doesn't hurt you.



On the other hand, if you are unlikely to want to use it, then don't

load it. But either way has essentially the same impact on

performance--none.





> I don't. Especially when the version before CCC came out

> was not like that. But such is the price of progress.

>

> I used to work on a CAD computer, that did everything a designer

> could ever wish for, with a 32MB footprint. The people writing

> the software, were whipped mercilessly by their management,

> until all the software fit within that footprint. I guess

> all the guys with whips are retired

>

> Paul



--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

 

[Paul]

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:



>

> On the other hand, if you are unlikely to want to use it, then don't

> load it. But either way has essentially the same impact on

> performance--none.

>



There is actually a penalty. It takes time for that cruft to load

at boot. And that is noticeable.



Paul

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:46:46 -0500, Paul wrote:



> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

>

> >

> > On the other hand, if you are unlikely to want to use it, then don't

> > load it. But either way has essentially the same impact on

> > performance--none.

> >

>

> There is actually a penalty. It takes time for that cruft to load

> at boot. And that is noticeable.





As far as I'm concerned, that's a negligible penalty. I, and many

other people, boot once a day, when I get up in the morning. I power

on when I get up, then go get my coffee. When I return, it's done

booting. I don't know how long it took, and I don't care.



Ken



--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

 

[C]

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:46:46 -0500, Paul wrote:

>

>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

>>

>>> On the other hand, if you are unlikely to want to use it, then don't

>>> load it. But either way has essentially the same impact on

>>> performance--none.

>>>

>> There is actually a penalty. It takes time for that cruft to load

>> at boot. And that is noticeable.

>

>

> As far as I'm concerned, that's a negligible penalty. I, and many

> other people, boot once a day, when I get up in the morning. I power

> on when I get up, then go get my coffee. When I return, it's done

> booting. I don't know how long it took, and I don't care.

>

> Ken

>



And if when you return from making your coffee it hasn't loaded and

still hasn't in ten more minutes would you care?



--

C

 

[Unknown]

Paging requires time!

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message

news:u5num5l5c76a2k3hs9luaoar1t3hbtmml2@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 18:41:43 -0500, Paul wrote:

>

>

>> One reason for not using CCC, is it wastes RAM when it loads. That

>> is my philosophical objection to using it. Software which is not

>> being used, should not burn up RAM for nothing.

>

>

> I don't know anything about CCC (not even what it is), but the

> statement "Software which is not being used, should not burn up RAM

> for nothing" is generally incorrect.

>

> Yes, a program which is started uses RAM, but if other programs need

> RAM, and the program in question is not used, the memory that it uses

> very quickly gets paged out and has no impact on performance at all.

> What gets paged out is the least-recently-used memory.

>

> --

> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003

> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

 

[Unknown]

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message

news:4be0n5lmrhttn6nutbauq87okeveres08k@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 20:17:58 -0500, Paul wrote:

>

>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

>> > On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 18:41:43 -0500, Paul wrote:

>> >

>> >

>> >> One reason for not using CCC, is it wastes RAM when it loads. That

>> >> is my philosophical objection to using it. Software which is not

>> >> being used, should not burn up RAM for nothing.

>> >

>> >

>> > I don't know anything about CCC (not even what it is), but the

>> > statement "Software which is not being used, should not burn up RAM

>> > for nothing" is generally incorrect.

>> >

>> > Yes, a program which is started uses RAM, but if other programs need

>> > RAM, and the program in question is not used, the memory that it uses

>> > very quickly gets paged out and has no impact on performance at all.

>> > What gets paged out is the least-recently-used memory.

>> >

>>

>> Do you think it is reasonable for a control panel you're not

>> using at the moment, to consume 50MB, whether paged or not ?

>

>

> If you want to have it handy, so whenever you want it, you can get to

> it quickly without having to load it, yes I think it's reasonable.

> Having 50MB (a small amount of memory, by the way) in the page file

> doesn't hurt you.

>

> On the other hand, if you are unlikely to want to use it, then don't

> load it. But either way has essentially the same impact on

> performance--none.

This is an erroneous statement. A program loaded into memory but not

used will have an effect on performance if it causes paging.



>> I don't. Especially when the version before CCC came out

>> was not like that. But such is the price of progress.

>>

>> I used to work on a CAD computer, that did everything a designer

>> could ever wish for, with a 32MB footprint. The people writing

>> the software, were whipped mercilessly by their management,

>> until all the software fit within that footprint. I guess

>> all the guys with whips are retired

>>

>> Paul

>

> --

> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003

> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

 

[Unknown]

What would you do if you didn't drink coffee?

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message

news:t1i0n5hupqsn6b4vjfn5kr0i58vap62ogf@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:46:46 -0500, Paul wrote:

>

>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

>>

>> >

>> > On the other hand, if you are unlikely to want to use it, then don't

>> > load it. But either way has essentially the same impact on

>> > performance--none.

>> >

>>

>> There is actually a penalty. It takes time for that cruft to load

>> at boot. And that is noticeable.

>

>

> As far as I'm concerned, that's a negligible penalty. I, and many

> other people, boot once a day, when I get up in the morning. I power

> on when I get up, then go get my coffee. When I return, it's done

> booting. I don't know how long it took, and I don't care.

>

> Ken

>

> --

> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003

> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:21:07 +0100, C

wrote:



> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> > On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:46:46 -0500, Paul wrote:

> >

> >> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> >>

> >>> On the other hand, if you are unlikely to want to use it, then don't

> >>> load it. But either way has essentially the same impact on

> >>> performance--none.

> >>>

> >> There is actually a penalty. It takes time for that cruft to load

> >> at boot. And that is noticeable.

> >

> >

> > As far as I'm concerned, that's a negligible penalty. I, and many

> > other people, boot once a day, when I get up in the morning. I power

> > on when I get up, then go get my coffee. When I return, it's done

> > booting. I don't know how long it took, and I don't care.

> >

> > Ken

> >

>

> And if when you return from making your coffee it hasn't loaded and

> still hasn't in ten more minutes would you care?





Of course I would care. But what you describe is *extremely* unlikely.





--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

 

[C]

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:21:07 +0100, C

> wrote:

>

>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

>>> On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:46:46 -0500, Paul wrote:

>>>

>>>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> On the other hand, if you are unlikely to want to use it, then don't

>>>>> load it. But either way has essentially the same impact on

>>>>> performance--none.

>>>>>

>>>> There is actually a penalty. It takes time for that cruft to load

>>>> at boot. And that is noticeable.

>>>

>>> As far as I'm concerned, that's a negligible penalty. I, and many

>>> other people, boot once a day, when I get up in the morning. I power

>>> on when I get up, then go get my coffee. When I return, it's done

>>> booting. I don't know how long it took, and I don't care.

>>>

>>> Ken

>>>

>> And if when you return from making your coffee it hasn't loaded and

>> still hasn't in ten more minutes would you care?

>

>

> Of course I would care. But what you describe is *extremely* unlikely.

>

>



I've seen it happen a few times. Power outages and the subsequent switch

to PIO did it.



--

C

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 01:27:05 +0100, C

wrote:



> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> > On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:21:07 +0100, C

> > wrote:

> >

> >> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> >>> On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:46:46 -0500, Paul wrote:

> >>>

> >>>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> >>>>

> >>>>> On the other hand, if you are unlikely to want to use it, then don't

> >>>>> load it. But either way has essentially the same impact on

> >>>>> performance--none.

> >>>>>

> >>>> There is actually a penalty. It takes time for that cruft to load

> >>>> at boot. And that is noticeable.

> >>>

> >>> As far as I'm concerned, that's a negligible penalty. I, and many

> >>> other people, boot once a day, when I get up in the morning. I power

> >>> on when I get up, then go get my coffee. When I return, it's done

> >>> booting. I don't know how long it took, and I don't care.

> >>>

> >>> Ken

> >>>

> >> And if when you return from making your coffee it hasn't loaded and

> >> still hasn't in ten more minutes would you care?

> >

> >

> > Of course I would care. But what you describe is *extremely* unlikely.

> >

> >

>

> I've seen it happen a few times. Power outages and the subsequent switch

> to PIO did it.





The subject here was the result of loading a particular program.

"Power outages and the subsequent switch to PIO" are irrelevant.



--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

 

[C]

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 01:27:05 +0100, C

> wrote:

>

>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

>>> On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:21:07 +0100, C

>>> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

>>>>> On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:46:46 -0500, Paul wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> On the other hand, if you are unlikely to want to use it, then don't

>>>>>>> load it. But either way has essentially the same impact on

>>>>>>> performance--none.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>> There is actually a penalty. It takes time for that cruft to load

>>>>>> at boot. And that is noticeable.

>>>>> As far as I'm concerned, that's a negligible penalty. I, and many

>>>>> other people, boot once a day, when I get up in the morning. I power

>>>>> on when I get up, then go get my coffee. When I return, it's done

>>>>> booting. I don't know how long it took, and I don't care.

>>>>>

>>>>> Ken

>>>>>

>>>> And if when you return from making your coffee it hasn't loaded and

>>>> still hasn't in ten more minutes would you care?

>>>

>>> Of course I would care. But what you describe is *extremely* unlikely.

>>>

>>>

>> I've seen it happen a few times. Power outages and the subsequent switch

>> to PIO did it.

>

>

> The subject here was the result of loading a particular program.

> "Power outages and the subsequent switch to PIO" are irrelevant.

>



To that yes, but to how long it can take to boot up, no, and your

standard answer to any question about booting up is the above. In

addition, if normally it takes less than a minute and that suddenly

changes to three minutes, one should be concerned.



--

C