One of the reasons why Defragmentation is slow on Vista

[freak_power]

The problem is Volume Shadow Copy. If you disable system restore VSS wont create backups of files so in that case defragmentation goes to standard XP method which is fast and it does it good. Vista with System Restore along with VSS creates terrible fragmented hard drive causing defragmentation utility to be slow, and defragmentation is not good.

I said that Microsoft should get rid of System Restore along with Volume Shadow Copy, or better say rewrite the whole damn thing by having Windows to create a virtual/hidden partition where the data will be stored and be merged with backup. They did great with Backup Computer and Backup Files.

Also, i have to point out that Superfetch makes things to be slugish and it causes thing like Not Responding for a brief moment. It's a terrible idea for technical point of view and no matter how much some people are defending it, i'm telling ya that it causes a lot of problems. Your computer wont slow down because you disabled Superfetch, trust me. Readyboost is good idea but has no really affect on anything.

Windows Search has to be rewritten and all indexing deal is a wrong idea as well.

And I hope Microsoft gets rid of registry with the next Windows Release.

Edited November 28, 2007 by freak_power

[NateB1]

Um, how did you discover this? Personal experience? Volume shadow copy is extremely useful and enables previous versions of files to be stored in the free space on your HDD. This is not a replacement for backup, but provides a quick and easy way to restore a previous version of a file. The defragmenter in Vista just defrags enough to improve performance of the files - a large file in two fragments isn't going to result in a performance decrease. This method is the same as Diskeeper and other defragmenters. The current system works well and I about a terabyte of mostly filled and changing files (raw video eats up space like nothing else).

About SuperFetch, it works much, much better than XP's memory management system. My mom only uses Outlook and Word, and now those apps open instantaneously from a cold start. I don't notice the benefits as much, since I have 4 Gb of ram and run many different programs, but it seems quicker and more responsive than XP. You are simply wrong in saying that it is a poorly implemented technology. Notice your memory useage - it should stay around 50% in normal use. Notice as you load an app, the memory does not rise much above 50% (unless you have 1 Gb or lower, or the app is a major memory hog). The only performance decrease I have seen is when closing an app that uses all 4 Gb (After Effects in x64), and then the hard drive chugs for 30 seconds or so, but SP1 RC1 mostly cleared up that issue, and unlike XP, once the cache is rebuilt, my computer is as speedy as ever. On XP, it would be sluggish after multiple launches of memory intensive apps and would need to be rebooted. On Vista I don't have this issue.

Indexing works well for me and I have thousands and thousands of files. I must say that SP1 has definitely sped up the speed at which results are populated. I don't see why it needs to be rewritten - it seems to work like a charm. It definitely is miles ahead of Spotlight in OS X as far as storing metadata is concerned - the NTFS filesystem can store metadata along with the file, whereas Spotlight uses its own database as HFS+ does not have this capability. This means the metadata in a file stored using the NTFS filesystem will stay with the file after multiple transfers (All on NTFS partitions, of course). The same is not true with files stored with HFS+.

Windows Desktop Search is the most efficient indexing service out there, and I have not noticed a performance decrease, especially with I/O prioritization.

Oh, and the registry is a great idea - if properly implemented. It is incredibly useful as an app developer - you can store various settings in the registry, and not create a settings folder in the user's folder (remember that writing files to the Program Files folder requires elevated permissions). The problem is that app developers abused it. Vista virtualizes registry keys that try to put themselves in places that require elevated permissions. This is one step in the right direction.

Ideally, one should be able to copy the app's folder in the "Program Files" folder to another computer and be able to run the program. Because of the app developers' abuse of the registry, this often cannot be done. This, however, is the fault of the app developer, and not Microsoft.

Edited November 28, 2007 by NateB1

[Angel Blue01]

It depends on the defragger somewhat.

On my Vista system it was 5% fragmented. Disk Defrag only took 30 minutes which is surprising considering that I've moved lots of large files in the last few months.

[freak_power]

Um, how did you discover this? Personal experience? Volume shadow copy is extremely useful and enables previous versions of files to be stored in the free space on your HDD. This is not a replacement for backup, but provides a quick and easy way to restore a previous version of a file. The defragmenter in Vista just defrags enough to improve performance of the files - a large file in two fragments isn't going to result in a performance decrease. This method is the same as Diskeeper and other defragmenters. The current system works well and I about a terabyte of mostly filled and changing files (raw video eats up space like nothing else).

About SuperFetch, it works much, much better than XP's memory management system. My mom only uses Outlook and Word, and now those apps open instantaneously from a cold start. I don't notice the benefits as much, since I have 4 Gb of ram and run many different programs, but it seems quicker and more responsive than XP. You are simply wrong in saying that it is a poorly implemented technology. Notice your memory useage - it should stay around 50% in normal use. Notice as you load an app, the memory does not rise much above 50% (unless you have 1 Gb or lower, or the app is a major memory hog). The only performance decrease I have seen is when closing an app that uses all 4 Gb (After Effects in x64), and then the hard drive chugs for 30 seconds or so, but SP1 RC1 mostly cleared up that issue, and unlike XP, once the cache is rebuilt, my computer is as speedy as ever. On XP, it would be sluggish after multiple launches of memory intensive apps and would need to be rebooted. On Vista I don't have this issue.

Indexing works well for me and I have thousands and thousands of files. I must say that SP1 has definitely sped up the speed at which results are populated. I don't see why it needs to be rewritten - it seems to work like a charm. It definitely is miles ahead of Spotlight in OS X as far as storing metadata is concerned - the NTFS filesystem can store metadata along with the file, whereas Spotlight uses its own database as HFS+ does not have this capability. This means the metadata in a file stored using the NTFS filesystem will stay with the file after multiple transfers (All on NTFS partitions, of course). The same is not true with files stored with HFS+.

Windows Desktop Search is the most efficient indexing service out there, and I have not noticed a performance decrease, especially with I/O prioritization.

Oh, and the registry is a great idea - if properly implemented. It is incredibly useful as an app developer - you can store various settings in the registry, and not create a settings folder in the user's folder (remember that writing files to the Program Files folder requires elevated permissions). The problem is that app developers abused it. Vista virtualizes registry keys that try to put themselves in places that require elevated permissions. This is one step in the right direction.

Ideally, one should be able to copy the app's folder in the "Program Files" folder to another computer and be able to run the program. Because of the app developers' abuse of the registry, this often cannot be done. This, however, is the fault of the app developer, and not Microsoft.

I measured the time for defrag utility to do defragmentation when Volume Shadow Copy is on and off.

I agree, Volume Shadow Copy is very usefull. All I'm saying they could create hidden partition to store those files in there, leaving the rest intact so it's not badly fragmented.

About superfetch, it's hard to tell. I don't use superfetch since day one. And my apps lunch instantly. I never had a problem to have system chocking after running 3-4 memory intensive apps. The bottom line is. More and Faster memory gives you more freedom and no need for any software solution to improve memory management. Simply raw power overcomes everything and any software solution becomes irrelevan because there is no real impact of overall performance. Vista needs at least 2Gb of RAM. Everything below that...good luck.

I didn't say Windows Desktop Search slows down things, but it can be improved. It is something evolved from an idea to overcome the problems by having bad folder/file organization structure in Windows.

Registry is not a great idea...they are other better ways. I'm sure Microsoft will get rid of it.

[NateB1]

I measured the time for defrag utility to do defragmentation when Volume Shadow Copy is on and off.

I agree, Volume Shadow Copy is very usefull. All I'm saying they could create hidden partition to store those files in there, leaving the rest intact so it's not badly fragmented.

But the whole point of VSS is to utilize the free space in your HDD and make it invisible to you. A hidden partition would be like a full-fledged backup system, which is what they wanted to avoid. Adjusting the size of the partition would be a nightmare performance-wise.

About superfetch, it's hard to tell. I don't use superfetch since day one. And my apps lunch instantly. I never had a problem to have system chocking after running 3-4 memory intensive apps. The bottom line is. More and Faster memory gives you more freedom and no need for any software solution to improve memory management. Simply raw power overcomes everything and any software solution becomes irrelevan because there is no real impact of overall performance. Vista needs at least 2Gb of RAM. Everything below that...good luck.

If you haven't used SuperFetch, how do you know that it runs sluggish? I don't know about your apps, but Photoshop definitely launches faster with SuperFetch enabled (from a cold start, of course).

I didn't say Windows Desktop Search slows down things, but it can be improved. It is something evolved from an idea to overcome the problems by having bad folder/file organization structure in Windows.

How can it be improved? Performance? That is a given, and will come with time. How would you implement the folder/file structure in an OS? The current way works fine, and the filtering/stacking options in Explorer work great.

Registry is not a great idea...they are other better ways. I'm sure Microsoft will get rid of it.

How are there better ways? Have each app store a settings.ini file in the user folder? The registry is an excellent idea - the trick is to get app developers to utilize it correctly.

[bobbba]

The problem is Volume Shadow Copy. If you disable system restore VSS wont create backups of files so in that case defragmentation goes to standard XP method which is fast and it does it good. Vista with System Restore along with VSS creates terrible fragmented hard drive causing defragmentation utility to be slow, and defragmentation is not good.

I said that Microsoft should get rid of System Restore along with Volume Shadow Copy, or better say rewrite the whole damn thing by having Windows to create a virtual/hidden partition where the data will be stored and be merged with backup. They did great with Backup Computer and Backup Files.

Also, i have to point out that Superfetch makes things to be slugish and it causes thing like Not Responding for a brief moment. It's a terrible idea for technical point of view and no matter how much some people are defending it, i'm telling ya that it causes a lot of problems. Your computer wont slow down because you disabled Superfetch, trust me. Readyboost is good idea but has no really affect on anything.

Windows Search has to be rewritten and all indexing deal is a wrong idea as well.

And I hope Microsoft gets rid of registry with the next Windows Release.

Such factual points, I'm sure they'll listen to you... :wacko:

[freak_power]

But the whole point of VSS is to utilize the free space in your HDD and make it invisible to you. A hidden partition would be like a full-fledged backup system, which is what they wanted to avoid. Adjusting the size of the partition would be a nightmare performance-wise.

If you haven't used SuperFetch, how do you know that it runs sluggish? I don't know about your apps, but Photoshop definitely launches faster with SuperFetch enabled (from a cold start, of course).

How can it be improved? Performance? That is a given, and will come with time. How would you implement the folder/file structure in an OS? The current way works fine, and the filtering/stacking options in Explorer work great.

How are there better ways? Have each app store a settings.ini file in the user folder? The registry is an excellent idea - the trick is to get app developers to utilize it correctly.

NTFS is old and outdated. We need a new more flexible file system. I have Adobe and Visual Studio, and i haven't notice that loads any faster with or without superfetch. I used Superfetch, and did a lot of comparison on my current system. It simply doesn't give me any benefits.

How I would implement folder/file structure in an OS is a discussion for like 50+ pages. I can't talk about it now.

Developers will never utilize registry correctly. Also you don't need registry to store anything in it in order to have app working.

Such factual points, I'm sure they'll listen to you... :wacko:

I'm pretty sure they will not :laugh: But If was a head of the company such as Microsoft i would start on developing a new OS from the scratch long time ago along with the new releases based on the current tech. Maybe they are on it...who knows...

Let's forget about NTFS and everything we know about Windows and start over. All they need is some fresh good ideas, implementation is not a problem...everything is possible.

[Guest xiphi]

Why is this even in Windows Vista Support?

Any of the points the OP has made clearly show he has no idea what he's talking about and does not know how to use Windows Vista. I always get a good laugh when people think they are suddenly "experts".

VSC and SR are both worth keeping around. SR has improved a LOT since XP, and VSC's "Previous Versions" has saved my ass quite a few times. There's nothing wrong with it's current implementation.

What you've said about Superfetch is completely wrong. There is no sluggishness or no brief moments of non-responsivenss.

Applications load way faster then they did XP. So why would I want to remove/disable a feature that takes advantage of my system by using the "free" ram to cache? I honestly think Superfetch is a great idea.

I've had no problems with Windows Search. It's able to find any file instantly among the ten's of thousands it has indexed. So why should it be re-written and why is the indexing wrong?

I'm just glad this guy isn't the director of the Windows division.

[NateB1]

NTFS is old and outdated. We need a new more flexible file system.

Having the most expansive feature set, most robust file system is "old and outdated"? What would be an example of a "New, more flexible file system"? ZFS? The filesystem that no OS can boot from?

NTFS is an excellent filesystem - there is absolutely no reason to replace it.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

I measured the time for defrag utility to do defragmentation when Volume Shadow Copy is on and off.

I agree, Volume Shadow Copy is very usefull. All I'm saying they could create hidden partition to store those files in there, leaving the rest intact so it's not badly fragmented.

How would creating a hidden partition help at all? That would actually be a very silly idea as it would create solid reservations on space. The current setup is very fluid with SR and VSC adjusting itself based on your HD's free space. Partitions cannot adjust that way as their deisgn is to appear like seperate drives. Also, what advantage would be served? File fragmentation only slows down reading of the fragmented files, nothing else. So if I have this 1 file that is so fragmented it read 60% slower than if it weren't so fragmented, but I only access it once every year it doesn't give me any serious advantages to go jumping through hoops to end that fragmentation.

SR was the one feature I wrote off as silly in XP (never used it and probably won't in Vista either, but in Vista I keep it on for VSC) as it really didn't do much IMHO and I preferred to go in by hand and actually fix the problem (though for some users it was a big help). VSC is a whole seperate story! It works well and is implemented in the best possibly manner. It "just works"! You don't have to configure anything or plug in seperate HDs (like the new Time Machine in OS X) and you can restore your files in 2 or 3 clicks. MS won't drop that feature and they shouldn't. It is a solid reason to go for Vista Business or Ultimate IMHO anyways.

About superfetch, it's hard to tell. I don't use superfetch since day one. And my apps lunch instantly. I never had a problem to have system chocking after running 3-4 memory intensive apps. The bottom line is. More and Faster memory gives you more freedom and no need for any software solution to improve memory management. Simply raw power overcomes everything and any software solution becomes irrelevan because there is no real impact of overall performance. Vista needs at least 2Gb of RAM. Everything below that...good luck.

I see... So you haven't used the feature, but you write it off as a waste... Based on that I can now see the holes in your whole smokes and mirrors argument...

SuperFetch is one of those features that you can't loose with. How much of a performance gain do I get with it? Hard to say in exact numbers as I have never run Vista with it off, but I don't see a reason to. It takes FREE RAM and uses it as a Cache... If I'm not using the RAM then why not throw something in there. If it gives me a 1% performance gain then I'm happy as otherwise that RAM was wasted. I didn't add 4GB of RAM to my machine to have it wasted! I want it 100% full 100% of the time...

I didn't say Windows Desktop Search slows down things, but it can be improved. It is something evolved from an idea to overcome the problems by having bad folder/file organization structure in Windows.

It does? I don't notice any performance hit from it... It is fast and "just works". My HD is barely ever on so I don't know when the thing indexes... Maybe it determines my sleeping hours or something lol... It doesn't need any improvement that I can see at the moment... Maybe it is another one of those things you complain about, but haven't actually used again?

Registry is not a great idea...they are other better ways. I'm sure Microsoft will get rid of it.

The registry is one of those loved and hated features in Windows and it has its place. The idea for teh registry was a centralized place to store basic application settings. It was designed not to toally replace .ini files, but to augment them. That way applications could share settings easier and etc., but like most things people misuse it...

MS has been telling Developers to not use the Registry as a primary source for application settings for eons now. The initial version of .NET 1.0 (VS 2002) shipped with no built in support to access the Windows Registry! They are promoting XML configuration files as the proper way to do things as developers should have always been doing things (configuration files specifically not directly saying XML)...

It probably won't ever leave Windows though due to its requirement to maintain backwards compatibility. And the senerios where it is a better solution than configuration files ;).

[freak_power]

How would creating a hidden partition help at all? That would actually be a very silly idea as it would create solid reservations on space. The current setup is very fluid with SR and VSC adjusting itself based on your HD's free space. Partitions cannot adjust that way as their deisgn is to appear like seperate drives. Also, what advantage would be served? File fragmentation only slows down reading of the fragmented files, nothing else. So if I have this 1 file that is so fragmented it read 60% slower than if it weren't so fragmented, but I only access it once every year it doesn't give me any serious advantages to go jumping through hoops to end that fragmentation.

SR was the one feature I wrote off as silly in XP (never used it and probably won't in Vista either, but in Vista I keep it on for VSC) as it really didn't do much IMHO and I preferred to go in by hand and actually fix the problem (though for some users it was a big help). VSC is a whole seperate story! It works well and is implemented in the best possibly manner. It "just works"! You don't have to configure anything or plug in seperate HDs (like the new Time Machine in OS X) and you can restore your files in 2 or 3 clicks. MS won't drop that feature and they shouldn't. It is a solid reason to go for Vista Business or Ultimate IMHO anyways.

I see... So you haven't used the feature, but you write it off as a waste... Based on that I can now see the holes in your whole smokes and mirrors argument...

SuperFetch is one of those features that you can't loose with. How much of a performance gain do I get with it? Hard to say in exact numbers as I have never run Vista with it off, but I don't see a reason to. It takes FREE RAM and uses it as a Cache... If I'm not using the RAM then why not throw something in there. If it gives me a 1% performance gain then I'm happy as otherwise that RAM was wasted. I didn't add 4GB of RAM to my machine to have it wasted! I want it 100% full 100% of the time...

It does? I don't notice any performance hit from it... It is fast and "just works". My HD is barely ever on so I don't know when the thing indexes... Maybe it determines my sleeping hours or something lol... It doesn't need any improvement that I can see at the moment... Maybe it is another one of those things you complain about, but haven't actually used again?

The registry is one of those loved and hated features in Windows and it has its place. The idea for teh registry was a centralized place to store basic application settings. It was designed not to toally replace .ini files, but to augment them. That way applications could share settings easier and etc., but like most things people misuse it...

MS has been telling Developers to not use the Registry as a primary source for application settings for eons now. The initial version of .NET 1.0 (VS 2002) shipped with no built in support to access the Windows Registry! They are promoting XML configuration files as the proper way to do things as developers should have always been doing things (configuration files specifically not directly saying XML)...

It probably won't ever leave Windows though due to its requirement to maintain backwards compatibility. And the senerios where it is a better solution than configuration files ;).

VSC is ok but it's just that causing terrible fragmentation on your hard drive especially if you're dealing (swapping) with 10+ gb of data every day. I don't mind idea, it's good but its implementation is wrong. Talking about separate partition/hidden. Heck, NTFS is so outdated that any advanced idea on it is not possible. Speaking of partitions, even your local account (with files in it) should reside on separate partition. Of course NTFS will see it as different hard drive, but forget about NTFS because NTFS is not for it.

I want my ram being 100% full when i say so, not when system thinks it should be. We are looking at from two different point of view. Superfetch doesn't justify wasted HDD/RAM/CPU processing time. Superfetch is the terrible idea over which you absolutely have no control. And yes, it will make a system slugish.

I didn't say it slows down computer. It needs improvement. By default only few locations are indexed. Let's say you want to search something under windows/system32 folder. That location is not indexed by default. Windows Search just like everything in Vista requires extra one or two necessary clicks. The whole GUI is not intuitive enough. MacOS owns them there. Not to mention Cover Page in MacOS. Spotlight is much better then Windows Search but again Spotlight is perfectly acceptable on MacOS which uses File System which owns NTFS by any means. The only advantage of Vista or any Windows over MacOS is hardware support better say DirectX.

Registry is terrible idea, and to me is it's a crap.

Afterall, only 15% of business adapted Vista. It's really terrible number for OS which is released a year ago. If Superfetch and all other must have feature of Vista are that good it would smoke out XP on the same hardware by any mean. Well, not really...it's still catching up with XP.

There is one key feature in Vista which helps the sale...namely DirectX 10.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

VSC is ok but it's just that causing terrible fragmentation on your hard drive especially if you're dealing (swapping) with 10+ gb of data every day. I don't mind idea, it's good but its implementation is wrong. Talking about separate partition/hidden. Heck, NTFS is so outdated that any advanced idea on it is not possible. Speaking of partitions, even your local account (with files in it) should reside on separate partition. Of course NTFS will see it as different hard drive, but forget about NTFS because NTFS is not for it.

Wow... Just wow...

NTFS is outdated so I should use partitions? And it being recognized as a seperate drive is an NTFS issue? You obviously have no clue to what a file system is and what partitions are...

Also give me some solid, verifiable, facts as to why NTFS is outdated and what's better in all respects...

I want my ram being 100% full when i say so, not when system thinks it should be. We are looking at from two different point of view. Superfetch doesn't justify wasted HDD/RAM/CPU processing time. Superfetch is the terrible idea over which you absolutely have no control. And yes, it will make a system slugish.

Doesn't even deserve a comment...

Maybe you could read a bit more though...

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html

I didn't say it slows down computer. It needs improvement. By default only few locations are indexed. Let's say you want to search something under windows/system32 folder. That location is not indexed by default. Windows Search just like everything in Vista requires extra one or two necessary clicks. The whole GUI is not intuitive enough. MacOS owns them there. Not to mention Cover Page in MacOS. Spotlight is much better then Windows Search but again Spotlight is perfectly acceptable on MacOS which uses File System which owns NTFS by any means. The only advantage of Vista or any Windows over MacOS is hardware support better say DirectX.

Ah so earlier you complained it used too many resouces with its indexing strategy and now you want them indexing everything? I'm lost...

The rest of your stuff is personal preference ;). Use what you like you don't HAVE to run Vista :p

Registry is terrible idea, and to me is it's a crap.

To each his own...

Afterall, only 15% of business adapted Vista. It's really terrible number for OS which is released a year ago. If Superfetch and all other must have feature of Vista are that good it would smoke out XP on the same hardware by any mean. Well, not really...it's still catching up with XP.

There is one key feature in Vista which helps the sale...namely DirectX 10.

Based on your previous statements you obviously have no idea about anything in technology, so I can't expect you to understand business too...

Companies don't just buy and install the latest software from a company. They have to test it and evaluate it to be sure that it runs their software well and delivers a solid business case for moving forward. That takes more than a year to figure out... A good example is UPS, the largest courier delivery company in the world, which has a corporate policy stating they will stick to Windows 2000. They are evaluating Vista to replace Windows 2000, but since they do not see XP as offering anything useful for them they don't run it on their over 100,000 computers...

Edited November 29, 2007 by Frazell Thomas

[franzon]

The problem is Volume Shadow Copy. If you disable system restore VSS wont create backups of files so in that case defragmentation goes to standard XP method which is fast and it does it good. Vista with System Restore along with VSS creates terrible fragmented hard drive causing defragmentation utility to be slow and defragmentation is not good.

:no:

The Windows Vista hard disk defragmentation utility is highly optimized for Volume Shadow Copy than all other utilities, read this and learn:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/942092/en-us

"Shadow-copy-aware defragmentation:

In shadow-copy-aware defragmentation, defragmentation uses Volume Shadow Copy Service (VSS) in-box software to optimize defragmentation. The VSS software minimizes copy-on-write change blocks. Shadow-copy-aware optimization slows down filling the difference area. This kind of optimization also slows down the reclaiming of old snapshots during defragmentation."

Edited November 29, 2007 by franzon

[bobbba]

:no:

The Windows Vista hard disk defragmentation utility is highly optimized for Volume Shadow Copy than all other utilities, read this and learn:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/942092/en-us

"Shadow-copy-aware defragmentation:

In shadow-copy-aware defragmentation, defragmentation uses Volume Shadow Copy Service (VSS) in-box software to optimize defragmentation. The VSS software minimizes copy-on-write change blocks. Shadow-copy-aware optimization slows down filling the difference area. This kind of optimization also slows down the reclaiming of old snapshots during defragmentation."

Exactly but freak_power never lets facts get in the way of his opinions...

[kilimanjaro]

Well, so how many of the third party defragmenters work well with VSS? The newer 2008 release of Diskeeper is advertised as VSS compatible and is pretty fast on Vista. Any experience with the others?

[freak_power]

Exactly but freak_power never lets facts get in the way of his opinions...

For the defragmentation which takes hours to complete is not a good optimized utility, and after it's done it is not done well.

[freak_power]

Wow... Just wow...

NTFS is outdated so I should use partitions? And it being recognized as a seperate drive is an NTFS issue? You obviously have no clue to what a file system is and what partitions are...

Also give me some solid, verifiable, facts as to why NTFS is outdated and what's better in all respects...

Doesn't even deserve a comment...

Maybe you could read a bit more though...

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html

Ah so earlier you complained it used too many resouces with its indexing strategy and now you want them indexing everything? I'm lost...

The rest of your stuff is personal preference ;). Use what you like you don't HAVE to run Vista :p

To each his own...

Based on your previous statements you obviously have no idea about anything in technology, so I can't expect you to understand business too...

Companies don't just buy and install the latest software from a company. They have to test it and evaluate it to be sure that it runs their software well and delivers a solid business case for moving forward. That takes more than a year to figure out... A good example is UPS, the largest courier delivery company in the world, which has a corporate policy stating they will stick to Windows 2000. They are evaluating Vista to replace Windows 2000, but since they do not see XP as offering anything useful for them they don't run it on their over 100,000 computers...

I never said indexing is taking too much resources. What's the purpose of Windows Search anyway if only few locations are indexed? Why the hell we need it? There are alternative to indexing btw.

I really understand technology, i'm not like you who whatever reads it takes it for granted as being true. You're coming from the world where any idea from Microsoft or any other company you consider as being great. The thing is people like you never invented anything...

NTFS is outdated and there could be better solution, and again you can't think outside of the box cause as i said you're the type of the people who just repeat what's already said.

Don't give me UPS as an example....it's too big and the process is slow. I'm talking about average and small business. Do you know why they aren't going to update to Vista...instability, incompatibility, it requires too much of system resources.

[ew2x4]

I never said indexing is taking too much resources. What's the purpose of Windows Search anyway if only few locations are indexed? Why the hell we need it? There are alternative to indexing btw.

I really understand technology, i'm not like you who whatever reads it takes it for granted as being true. You're coming from the world where any idea from Microsoft or any other company you consider as being great. The thing is people like you never invented anything...

NTFS is outdated and there could be better solution, and again you can't think outside of the box cause as i said you're the type of the people who just repeat what's already said.

Don't give me UPS as an example....it's too big and the process is slow. I'm talking about average and small business. Do you know why they aren't going to update to Vista...instability, incompatibility, it requires too much of system resources.

Vista has proven to be plenty stable.

[freak_power]

Vista has proven to be plenty stable.

Maybe for you and me at home, but not corporate environment.

[NateB1]

Maybe for you and me at home, but not corporate environment.

It's at least as stable as Windows XP, if not more so. What takes time is that developers, including ones where I work, store files in folders that require elevation, among numerous other incompatibilities. Once those incompatibilites are ironed out, expect mass adoption, I would say right after SP1 is released.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

If you don't like the registry, where would you put COM registrations? After all, that's what it's for. Some apps store settings and state information there because it's very efficient to do so (the registry had to be architected to be very smart about caching, transactional access, recovery, etc).

The registry isn't a user feature. It's not meant to be editable by hand. I hear lots of people complain about it who don't really understand its purpose, or offer a compelling alternative.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

I never said indexing is taking too much resources. What's the purpose of Windows Search anyway if only few locations are indexed? Why the hell we need it? There are alternative to indexing btw.

Like what? The alternative is to use "grep" style searching, which is what Vista does in non-indexed locations. It's very, very slow because as you search, each file must be cracked with the appropriate IFilter. Furthermore, the index isn't just about full-text searching. It's a database, so you can do advanced sorting and grouping across properties, determine ranges and aggregates, etc - all very, very quickly. And believe me, that indexer is only going to get better...

NTFS is outdated and there could be better solution, and again you can't think outside of the box cause as i said you're the type of the people who just repeat what's already said.

And you're the type of person who complains that things aren't good enough but doesn't offer a better solution. If developing something better than NTFS is so easy, why don't you do it?

Even if you can develop something better, that doesn't mean you can immediately integrate it in a way that's useful to customers, and do it without breaking everything that's out there. Vista included improvements to NTFS and I'm sure more improvements will come, but in the end it's just a filesystem. There's really only so much you can do to improve it (other than really geeky stuff like the maximum file size and what not).

[modernponderer]

If you don't like the registry, where would you put COM registrations? After all, that's what it's for. Some apps store settings and state information there because it's very efficient to do so (the registry had to be architected to be very smart about caching, transactional access, recovery, etc).

The registry isn't a user feature. It's not meant to be editable by hand. I hear lots of people complain about it who don't really understand its purpose, or offer a compelling alternative.

Why not replace the registry with a single configuration file for each application (similar to INI files) and other configuration files for Windows (such as COM registrations)? This would help prevent important settings from being modified and/or deleted.

[Plarkster]

Why not replace the registry with a single configuration file for each application (similar to INI files) and other configuration files for Windows (such as COM registrations)? This would help prevent important settings from being modified and/or deleted.

Yup, I agree - I still prefer the old Windows 3.1 ini file method - delete the folder to remove the app without leaving any junk behind.

[Joel]

Oh, and the registry is a great idea - if properly implemented. It is incredibly useful as an app developer - you can store various settings in the registry, and not create a settings folder in the user's folder (remember that writing files to the Program Files folder requires elevated permissions). The problem is that app developers abused it. Vista virtualizes registry keys that try to put themselves in places that require elevated permissions. This is one step in the right direction.

Why not just use folders in the user's profile (which is not in Program Files, BTW)? Mozilla is managing it.