Google Chrome Cancels Paused Downloads
I've been running Google Chrome on both XP and Vista PCs since it became available. I discovered an annoying shortcoming about it a few minutes ago. I started downloading the Linpus Linux Lite Live CD ISO using Chrome. Since the estimated download time is around 15 hours, I decided to pause it and exit Chrome. Firefox allows you to resume a download between sessions. Unfortunately, Chrome does not. Fortunately, I tested this before powering down my Vista PC. So, I fired up Firefox 3, started the download, and paused it. I also tested closing the browser, restarting the browser, and resuming the download. This all worked fine.
The lesson learned here is to start any large file download using Firefox. It lets you pause and resume between separate sessions. Google Chrome does NOT.
Aero Glass Too Much for a Quad-Core w/4GB RAM: Turned Off Aero Glass
My old eMachines T6420 Athlon 3200+ machine running Vista died last month. So, I bought a Dell Inspiron 530 desktop running Vista to replace it. The old machine had a single core AMD chip and 2GB RAM. The new one has a quad-core Intel chip and 4GB RAM. Guess what? It feels like the new quad-core runs slower than the old single-core. Some apps like Corel PaintShop Pro XI are barely useable and often crashes (both PCs run the 32-bit version of Vista, btw). I had planned to switch from my still functional main PC running XP to this Dell running Vista. But, XP on the old PC runs so much faster, I'm having second (and third) thoughts. One thing that really help speed up the Dell and reduce disk thrashing was to turn off all of the Aero and Aero Glass features in Vista Home Premium Edition. You can see the few options I left turned on in the screencap above.
Anti-Virus Slows Down File Copying
Copying files on Windows XP PC is incredibly slow compared to the same operation on a Linux or Mac OS X computer. And, don't get me started on Vista. I just bought a quad-processor box running Vista and it is slower in pretty much everything than my four year old AMD Athlon box running Windows XP.
There are probably a lot of factors involved including file handling routines, the directory management, and general code inefficiency. But, over the years I've added another factor: Microsoft Windows's numerous and multiplying security issues. The real-time anti-virus and anti-spyware software we have to run to help deal with this problem has what looks like a big impact on copying files. This is especially noticeable when a lot of files are being copied.
Here's an example: The PC I had running Vista died a few weeks ago. So, I bought a disappointingly slow quad-processor replacement (no fault of the Dell hardware, btw. The slowness is all Vista's fault). Now, I'm taking the two hard drives from the dead PC (system board issue) and redistributing them to other desktops. I'm moving files from an old 120GB HD in my current main PC running Windows XP to a 160GB drive that came out the dead Vista box. Both are D drives (second drives). So, it is just a matter of moving data files. Copying the files from one drive to the other is taking forever because of a number of annoying factors. One is that Windows file copying is just slow. Another is that Windows stops for annoying reasons like asking if I want to copy a read-only file. Of course, I do? Why not? And, then, of course, there's the anti-virus software doing its job by checking every file as it is copied. I've seen it spike to over 90% processor use during this copy process. And,it tends hover between 35 and 75% of processor use most of the time.
So, the PC is nearly unusable during a simple file copy and the file copy process itself takes an extended time because of security checks. So, the end result is hours of unproductive PC hours and draining electricity too.
Addendum: I should add that the Avast free anti-virus edition I'm using is one of the lighter weight and more efficient anti-virus solutions I've tried. Other anti-virus solutions noticeably slowed down my PC 100% of the time, not just during file copying.
The Legacy Storage Media Problem: 45 Iomega Zip Disks
I've been trying to clean up and organize my home office. In the process I found a bunch of old Iomega 100MB Zip Disks. I also found my old parallel port model Iomega Zip drive. The problem was finding something with a parallel port to plug it in to. It turned out that the PC I had upgraded to Windows Vista has a parallel port. Unfortunately. Iomega does not support Vista and the parallel port drives (not a huge shock). Fortunately, I have an old 2001 era HP notebook running Windows XP Pro with a parallel port that Iomega supports. So, I plugged it in and move all the files off the Zip disks. It turns out I had 45 disks in my collection. That's roughly 4.5GB of total storage or roughly the capacity of the 4GB USB flash drive sitting in front of the disk collection pictured above. About one-fourth of the disks were empty. And, of course, none of the Zip disks were at capacity. It turned out I had 12,061 files taking up 1.03GB on the Zip disks that were used.
I was lucky to have an old PC (notebook in my case) with a Parallel port still running an OS supported by Iomega (Windows XP). I'm already out of luck if I want to deal with 5.25 inch floppy disks. And even the 3.5 inch disks are getting more problematic. It was also fortunate that only 1 of the 45 disks (which are 10+ years old) was unreadable. And, even more fortunate was the fact that it looks like 95+% of the files I found had been migrated to other media over the years. Still, I found a couple of old photos and even two short video clips of my daughter that I don't recall seeing in my collection.
Paper photographs may be difficult to preserve. But, they are accessible by any sighted person without any special tools. What happens to digital family photos decades from now when the person who organized them is gone and the retrieval technology is difficult or impossible to obtain and use?
HP PhotoSmart Digital Monitor Uses All Available CPU After July 2008 Patch Tuesday
I rarely use the HP Photosmart C6250 printer/copier/scanner connected to my Vista PC. Moreover, if it is turned on when I boot the PC, Vista locks up. So, the Photosmart is usually turned off and stays that way until I need it. This has worked out ok for the past couple of months.
However, something happened after this week's monthly Microsoft Patch Tuesday. If the printer is off, the HP Digital Imaging Monitor uses nearly all CPU resources if the printer is not turned on. This brings the PC to a near grinding halt. I'm not sure what the specific cause is. But, this definitely started happening only have the Patch Tuesday updates were installed.
Yet another reason I am never buying another HP printer.
Why Windows Is Useless for so Long After Booting
PCs running Windows XP or Windows Vista take a long time to boot up. This is especially true if you use a Mac which seems to be responsive soon after its boots. I've used a variety of Windows PCs over the years. And, everything including the Dell Latitude D620 with a Core 2 Duo processor took many minutes from booting to being usable. In fact, the much older and less powerful Dell Dimension 2400 with a Celeron processor booted much faster and was usable much sooner than the Dell notebook. This was because the Dimension ran Windows XP while the D620 ran Windows Vista. And, the Dimension had a faster 7200rpm hard drive while the notebook had, if I recall correctly, a 5400rpm drive.
A third factor that messes up boot times are the various security and call-home-for-update processes that all fire at start-time. If you look at the processes running soon after boot (as soon as Ctrl-Alt-Del can actually work since it is stymied by the slow boot process too), you will see all kinds of junk apps calling home for updates while various security apps perform their tasks too.
This all leads to what for me is up to a 5 minute wait until my various Windows PCs are responsive and ready for actual work.
Why Does Printing Require 100% of CPU Resources?
I'm constantly amazed and annoyed that printing takes up 100% of CPU resources on any Windows based PC I use. The dips you see are the lulls while the printer waits for one side of the page to dry before printing on the other side of a duplex inkjet printer.
Windows Vista HP Photosmart C6250 Driver Keeps Getting Lost
This Windows Vista driver war with my HP Photosmart C6250 gets nuttier and nuttier all the time. In February, HP's scanning software decided to store scanned images in folders by month. It did not do that for December or January. Over the past few months, Vista seems to lose sight of the HP printer and reinstalls the driver again and again. It just did it again this evening as I was preparing to use the scanner.
Anyone have any comments on the Canon multi-function fax, scanner, copier, printer devices? I'm probably going to be in the market for one by the end of the year.
Have Hardware Vendors Test with Vista BEFORE Windows 7!
This Information Week article...
Windows 7 Testing Must Start ASAP, Microsoft Warns Hardware Makers
...notes that Microsoft is imploring hardware vendors to test with Windows 7. That's good, of course. But, it would also be nice (nicer, in fact) if they would test hardware with Windows Vista now too! Vista still encounters daily internal blue screens with auto-recovery (i.e., I see the message but not the blue screen). Nvidia has been doing a pretty good job of providing updated drivers for my, hmm, four year old PC? But, it hasn't helped much so far.
Based on the comments on this blog, it looks like I'm not alone in having various hardware driver issues with a PC running Windows Vista.
Dealing with Vista UAC (User Access Control)
Information Week has a useful article titled....
How To Tame Microsoft Windows Vista's UAC
Among other tips, it talks about using the impossible to remember utility name Icacls that I learned about when trying to delete unwanted OneCare backup files from my external hard drive.
I don't want to turn off UAC. However, it is so annoying that I find myself using a Mac more often these days.