O
omega
[EDIT]
Supposed to have read: "I did NOT test out in a thorough manner [...]"
Supposed to have read: "I did NOT test out in a thorough manner [...]"
B
Bob Adkins
I wouldn't do a surface test if I were you. That's a relic from the RLL/MFM
and early IDE days.
Frequent surface scanning stresses the HDD so brutally it can actually LEAD
to failure. I think it's best to surface test only to trouble shoot frequent
drive errors.
With modern HDD controllers, bad sectors are isolated and ignored. If bad
sectors are actually present, there will be many lockups and glitches, so
you will know. If bad sectors are actually found with a utility, usually the
drive's life is over anyway.
Even de-fragging is overdone. If done more than once per month, it's
satisfying obsession more than speeding up the computer.
Bob
R
rvanek
Don't see mention of the porduct from Vilma "Vilma Registery Editor"Sietse said:
found it by accident and am quite impressed
O
omega
Sietse Fliege said:
I'm glad you bring this up. There is a common misunderstanding around,
about PE file sizes. People praise an exe's file size and compare it with
others, without taking into account whether they're viewing it at its native
size - or instead a compressed version of it. The conclusion of Marek's post
in that thread, it is similar to what he notes in is FAQ for KeyNote.
| That said, I'll eventually start compressing my applications with UPX,
| because of the number of questions and complaints I see regarding file
| size. Whenever one of my apps gets compared to App X and App X is
| smaller, I download it and see that App X has been compressed. Every
| time. Pure illusion, pure marketing, pure perception, no real gain at
| all, but there you are
It was not that long back, less than a couple of years ago, when I'd become
aware of the issues surrounding compressed sizes. I did some amount of
searching and reading on the subject. My general conclusion is that there
are two kinds of cases in which it would be to your advantage to have your
local PE's compressed. One is for floppy disk use (limited storage space)
and the other is in network server-client setup (I read that performance
actually improves in this scenario, with a compressed program).
Other than that, you'll either barely break even, or you'll lose, as far
as memory use. If you run multiple instances of program, or it is big, then
that is when you especially should not want to use a compressed version
of it.
Now, the thread you mention, especially Marek's post, it makes for
particularly valuable reading for me. It addresses the subject of measuring
the memory hit difference when running a compressed instance of a program,
compared to one that is in native form. As a non-programmer sort, there is
a measure of shallowness in my comprehensions in this realm. Such that I
could never have written on the subject as he did. At the same time, the
thoughtful explanations in his article bring for me good light on the
picture.
.. . .
All right, despite the complexities involved with measuring, I've still
been satisfied with some simple output results, on those various occasions
when I checked. The most recent time was when I uncompressed Irfanview's
executable. The memory use is reduced to 80%.
Memload readout for Irfanview (w/ no file loaded).
IrV uncompressed: -4.5mb
IrV compressed: -5.4mb
IrV uncompressed, run 3 instances: -13.4mb
IrV compressed, run 3 instances: -16.1mb
It is common now for folks to have a great deal of RAM, so perhaps results
like the above seem trivial to them. Yet it doesn't change the point, that
using the PE in compressed state generally comes at some measure of cost.
I note in passing that there are corollary issues, beyond RAM use, such as
the time spent for the whole compressed executable to decompress each time
it is called up for launch (or when it is being scanned by an AV). Here
again, I do not have adequate depth of comprehension to much speak long on
the subject. It's instead those insightful programmers - as those in the
referenced thread - who are able to discuss with authority the subject of
the things that go on when a compressed PE is run....
.. . .
Thanks, Sietse, I'll have to download and check it out.
Another. Not a tiny, UPX-specific tool like the one above. But a larger
utility that includes similar ability. Scanning a path for compressed
PEa's. It's "PE Tools."
http://www.uinc.ru/files/neox/PE_Tools.shtml
I really value this one. I have it on my context menu, and use it quite
often for a quick read on what language a program is written in, or else
what PE compressor was used.
When the v1.5 version added the directory scan feature, I was really
pleased. Below is a truncated excerpt from a directory scan (options
include saving to text file):
| D:\EDZ\npads\txt\TT\SDI\cooljot\CoolJot.exe - [Microsoft Visual Basic v5.0]
| D:\EDZ\npads\txt\TT\SDI\ed2x\2xEditor.exe - [Microsoft Visual C++ v5.0/v6.0 (MFC)]
| D:\EDZ\npads\txt\TT\SDI\gun\gun.exe - [UPX v0.80 - v0.84]
| D:\EDZ\npads\txt\TT\SDI\misc\ed99\editor.exe - [Microsoft Visual C++ v5.0/v6.0 (MFC)]
| D:\EDZ\npads\txt\TT\SDI\misc\eq\eq.exe - [Microsoft Visual Basic v5.0]
| D:\EDZ\npads\txt\TT\SDI\misc\NotePare\NotePare.exe - [Unknown]
| D:\EDZ\npads\txt\TT\SDI\misc\expad\ExtremePad.exe - [Borland C++ for Win32 1995]
| D:\EDZ\npads\txt\TT\SDI\misc\gplite\GPlite.exe - [UPX v0.89.6 - v1.02 / v1.05 -v1.22 (Delphi) stub]
| D:\EDZ\npads\txt\TT\SDI\misc\bpp\bpp.exe - [Microsoft Visual Basic v5.0]
| D:\EDZ\npads\txt\TT\SDI\np2\NP2.exe - [Microsoft Visual C++ v5.0/v6.0 (MFC)]
| D:\EDZ\npads\txt\TT\SDI\notehalf\NoteHalf.exe - [Microsoft Visual Basic v5.0]
| D:\EDZ\npads\txt\TT\SDI\pitpad\PitPad.exe - [Unknown]
| D:\EDZ\npads\txt\TT\SDI\pronotes\ProNotes32.exe - [Unknown]
| D:\EDZ\npads\txt\TT\SDI\ted\Ted.exe - [ASPack v2.12]
| D:\EDZ\npads\txt\TT\SDI\ted\Lgi.dll - [ASPack v2.12]
| D:\EDZ\npads\txt\TT\SDI\notex\notex.exe - [Unknown]
| D:\EDZ\npads\txt\TT\SDI\edxor\edxor.exe - [UPX v0.80 - v0.84]
| D:\EDZ\npads\txt\TT\SDI\edxor\zip\edxor_setup.exe - [UPX v0.80 - v0.84]
.. . .
You might guess from my directory scan here, I haven't decompressed much.
Which I could - with UPX (and I also have an ASPack decompresser). It's
in part a matter of spending the time; and in other part, a matter of
considering how my dupes searches, and related, would be affected.
Sometimes, though, I do, pointedly, decompress an exe. Irfanview was my
most recent. These programs are compressed in the first place only for that
certain motive, that their "small size" can be praised.
D
Duddits
Vima Registry Explorer
http://www.vsft.com/products.htm
Vilma ® Software Registry Explorer is a powerful tool that will give to you
the easiest way to rule all aspects of your system. You can create new keys
and values, add them to the registry, or delete the existing ones.
You don't have to make a backup of all your actions as Registry Explorer
does it in the background. If you decide that an action is not useful, or
is wrong, just open the "Backup" window and restore the item by clicking
over the record. Importing and exporting data files is very easy.
Excellent find
regards
Dud
B
Bill Jones
[EDIT]
Supposed to have read: "I did NOT test out in a thorough manner [...]"
I installed Regmagik to take a look at it. It is sadly lacking. Unless I
did something wrong or missed something, it appears that you can only search
one hive (I'm running WinXP) at a time. There are 5 hives in WinXP. This
is a serious deficiency.
Now remember, I previously reported that with RL that I did a complete
search through all 5 hives (110,000 keys) for a particular key (Filtergate)
in 11 seconds using RL. Trying this same search through Regmagik, I
discovered that I could only search one hive at a time. I did the first one
(Classes_Root) for the same key (Filtergate). It took 1 minute and 17
seconds! to find no results. That was enough for me to remove it from my
system.
Now I can't say anything about Win98 since it has been years since I've had
it installed. Realily, it is obsolete. Given that you can get a decent
brand new system with WinXP, a 40GB hard drive and at least 256MB of memory
for around $500, I find it hard to understand why anyone who has a job would
still be running Win98...
Supposed to have read: "I did NOT test out in a thorough manner [...]"
I installed Regmagik to take a look at it. It is sadly lacking. Unless I
did something wrong or missed something, it appears that you can only search
one hive (I'm running WinXP) at a time. There are 5 hives in WinXP. This
is a serious deficiency.
Now remember, I previously reported that with RL that I did a complete
search through all 5 hives (110,000 keys) for a particular key (Filtergate)
in 11 seconds using RL. Trying this same search through Regmagik, I
discovered that I could only search one hive at a time. I did the first one
(Classes_Root) for the same key (Filtergate). It took 1 minute and 17
seconds! to find no results. That was enough for me to remove it from my
system.
Now I can't say anything about Win98 since it has been years since I've had
it installed. Realily, it is obsolete. Given that you can get a decent
brand new system with WinXP, a 40GB hard drive and at least 256MB of memory
for around $500, I find it hard to understand why anyone who has a job would
still be running Win98...
B
Bob Adkins
I find registry editors of this type are trying to re-invent the wheel. They
are little more than window dressing, and add little functionality to the
WinXP registry editor.
It's beyond my understanding too. XP is pricey, and requires (realistically)
a P3 800, 256mb of RAM, and a 20gb HDD to run. But golly,not a week goes by
that I don't discard or donate the above parts to kids to experiment with.
Bob
M
ms
Bob said:
Bob, surface scan being an option of scandisk.
So frequent (weekly) standard scandisk/defrag would not be a problem?
I have never, IIRC, seen a bad sector in a scandisk on hard drive, did
on floppy disks. So maybe even standard scandisk is not too useful
except rarely?
My W98SE is old enough since install, about 5 years, so I now start to
see glitches in programs frequently. Therefore, I plan to do the weekly
defrag to help some of the applications run better.
Even though I don't install much anymore- in defrag details, I see file
segments all over the screen normally when defrag starts.
Comment?
Mike Sa
B
Bob Adkins
Mike,
I wouldn't worry about "fragments" as visualized in the Defrag graphical
display. What you're worried about is *percentage* of fragmentation. 10% is
barely noticeable. I think 15% is a good threshold to consider running
Defrag.
It's also unnecessary to run Scandisk frequently. Unless there is a crash or
misbehaving software, once a month is fine in Win98. In XP running NTFS,
once ever 2 or 3 month is more than enough.
I've been running Buzzsaw for about a month, and it seems to keep my HDD
organized without any thrashing around.
Bob
O
omega
Bob, tell me this. Does the XP registry editor have an addressbar?Bob Adkins said:
.. . .
[snip anti- 98 users stuff, for the moment]
O
omega
Bill Jones said:
In the Find dialog, where it says,
"Search Under the Following Key"
You have a dropdown list. The first in the list is "All registry keys."
Next are individual hives. After that, is the current path, from where
you launched the Find dialog. You can also paste in whatever custom
starting point you might wish to use, in that same dialog box.
HTH
.. . .
[snip anti- w98 users stuff, for now]
B
Bob Adkins
No, but it has search, and it returns to the last key you visited. You'll
have to explain to me what useful purpose an address bar serves.
Karen, I am not anti-'98.
Bob
O
omega
Bob Adkins said:
It's the most essential component I can think of, for a registry editor. I
can't imagine that it's not true for everyone, that 99 times out of a 100,
when you launch the reg editor, you have some particular key in mind where
you want to get to? Ok, aside from the circumstance where you're doing a
search first. So how do you get there? The natural way to do this is pasting
that regkey address into an addressbar. Without one, you have to click click
click click carpal-tunnel click click infinitum. Right?
B
Bob Adkins
Address bar? In Regmajik? Where? All I see is a "Go" button that takes you
to a specified key. It's not even hypertext.
Bob
O
omega
Bob Adkins said:
Excepting those made by MSFT, every registry editor I can remember having
used (at least a dozen) includes an addressbar.
Regmagik does not keep its addressbar visible on the interface. I would
prefer that it did so, but I have adjusted anyway. Its addressbar still
has the essential functionality: Paste any key into it.
It also has an additional feature. It automatically reads a regkey that
is in your clipboard. Makes the whole process very speedy: CTRL-G, then
Enter, and you're there.
I don't understand what that means. Think of Windows Explorer's addressbar.
Or the addressbar in the browsers. The Regmagik addressbar works the same
way. As do the addressbars in other registry editors - with varying levels
of features, such as whether a drop-down history of typed addresses is
avail.
I don't see where hypertext comes in. That's within a document. A reg
editor supporting hyptertext, you mean getting launched from a string
like <reg:\\HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software> ? Registrar Lite has this
feature, and while it possibly might not be unique, it is unusual.
B
Bob Adkins
As you type the string into the search bar, it scrolls to the first instance
starting with that letter. Just like hypertext help. Saves a lot of typing.
Regmajic is cool, OK? I know when I can't win.
Bob
O
omega
Bob Adkins said:
You're talking about the search bar, then, not the addressbar. Regmagik
has the feature, in its search dialog, of keeping a drop-down history of
recent search phrases. Without looking, I might guess its not as long a
history as kept by the XP reg editor. User pref, whether that matters,
how much you like stored there.
.. . .
There are also dedicated registry search programs, that have no editor.
I've installed some, but have not yet come up with much circumstance where
I could see to use them. The only search-and-replace I've found need to do
on a routine basis is for moving apps, and COA2 takes care of that.
COA2 has always worked well for me -- /except/ within the MSI key. COA2
failure is due to MSI's use of a screwy syntax for a local path. Weirdly
contains a question mark character. If I ever decide to attempt again to
develop a functional relationship with MSI*, that's when I expect to make
a point of testing registry search and replace programs.
--
Karen S.
(* At present, MSOffice 2000+ and I are undergoing a trial separation;
divorce outcome not clear. I asked it to choose between MSI and me, and
it chose MSI.)
M
ms
Bob said:
Thanks, Bob.
Have you run Crackup in W98SE?
It worked well for me in W95, I had 1 GB partitions, got good fragment
nos. Now, with 4 GB partitions, it always shows 0.5% frag or so, never
gets much bigger, maybe realistic, but I did defrag maybe monthly, still
Crackup showed very small number before defrag.
Mike Sa
O
omega
Bob Adkins said:Regmajic is cool, OK? I know when I can't win.
Thaz right, dude! Since the registry has been my primary focus for several
years, you'd be best off calling me into a different boxing ring than this,
were we to duke it out.
It does happen that there are three things I would like to see changed in
Regmagik. Making the addressbar visible, as you brought up, that is one of
them. It's third on my list. My other two wishes, I'm going to keep them a
SEKRIT. Someone who takes on sincere use of Regmagik, I'd be curious to
observe whether they develop the same cravings. Hint, these two wishes are
only small and basic things, like the visible addressbar. As opposed to
development of some grand feature set (eg an Undo feature).
B
Bob Adkins
Crackup looks nice. Wonder if there's anything similar that runs under XP?
Bob