Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 
  • Country

    Hong Kong

Posts posted by rms

  1. Then, try to set it to "no pagefile" and reboot. Then create it again and reboot again.

    If the same happens, try to reboot in safe mode, and see if the problem still there. If not, chances are that something autostarting is causing this problem.

    Check if you are not using Norton AV or something else from Symantec(with autostart).

    Try to do this :

    boot in safe mode and disable pagefile for all drives, reboot.

    boot in safe mode and delete manually pagefile.sys from all drives, reboot.

    boot in safe mode and change pagefile as you want, reboot.

    Pagefile settings are here, see how it changes:

    HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management

  2. The player needs to set the region before it can play region coded DVDs.

    Of course, player does not need to set anything. In fact, it does not have any legal rights to do so(apply irreversible changes to hardware, without owner's consent, and, in addition, call them "user changes").

    Do I, or do I have not the rights to leave the drive with region set to "none" ? (say, I want to sell it later?)... and as a result, of course, not be able to play region-coded DVD's. Or, M$ has taken over some of my rights already - for my own "good" :realmad: ?

    Did you know that there are several places, where you can - completely legally - buy DVD's of ALL the regions in the shops? And where ALL stand-alone DVD players are sold multi-zone? Region coding thing simply does not work(in addition to being basically illegal and just pushed by lots of money), and therefore forcing me to set some stupid code is not only illegal, it's also sick.

    But, of course, I was not asking that.

    I was asking - what exactly is setting the code. Is it a some Windows service through which MP is seting the code(which then could be disabled), or is it entirely the media player itself, in which case everybody should be alerted of the illegal operations this player is performing on its own.


  3. What exactly sets the region, is it media player? Because it is not drive itself - simply inserting disk in the drive, or browsing files with Windows explorer doesn't set the region.

    If it is a player, what rights it have to change hardware settings without my permission, is it mentioned somewhere in the license agreement(I could not find anything)? I am about sure that WMP10 did not do that automatically, but maybe I am wrong.

    Anyway, it seems to me like too much over the limits of acceptable.

  4. Could it be that Windows Media Player 11 is automatically setting region code of DVDRW drive?

    I have never set region code on my drives. After installing new second drive (they come with region "none") I inserted some region1 dvd, and got digital rights violation error from WMP. To check, I put it in other drive and got the same error. I have never seen any errors like that before, must have come from WMP11.

    After that, I discovered that region of both drives is set to 1 (!?).

    Any ideas, how is that possible?

  5. PerfectDisk's services can be set to manual, unless you want to allow it's scheduled defrags to run, then you leave them alone.

    Indeed, it can be done and it was relatively ok with PD7.

    Now, in PD8 they have made some improvements. Engine will not stop automatically. Even more, scheduler(or, whatever it is called now) actually is guarding and restarting Engine. So, after defragmenting you first kill scheduler and then PDEngine.

    And, to be complete, after discovering this behaviour, I wrote to PD support a bug report - engine will not shut down, and received an answer that on their computer it does shut down automatically.

    After observing the same thing on 3 more machines, I wrote again to receive from somebody else, that it is so by design and I need not worry, because these services do not consume anything(!!?).

    Indeed, brilliant design and great support.

    For sake of politeness, no comments this time.

  6. Native Command Queueing has nothing to do with disk fragmentation, does nothing to help prevent it and does nothing to reduce the effects of disk fragmentation.

    Quite a funny statement. Normally, you would need to learn the subject a bit, before making such.

    But, what about common sense? It was declared present a while ago.

    If file is fragmented, read commands will be issued that lead to random read head movements. If these commands are re-ordered to minimize head movements, how is it "nothing"?

    Of course, it will happen only under certain conditions(ie. when there is a queue), but in many cases, especially when several files are accessed simultaneously, it can (and does) significantly reduce the effects of fragmentation.

    And, this effect is quite measurable, it is possible to test it.

    The evidence has already been brought fourth, a simple count of the number of files on a typical modern computer is more then enough evidence in itself to justify defragmentation. Considering that 8GB hard drive were landmarks less then 6 or 7 years ago, 320+GB hard drives filled to the brim with thousands of files are in much greater need of defragmentation then a mear couple hundred files that used to fill computers.

    Not true. Simple count of files, or even count of file fragments is not evidence.

    Couple hundred files is simply not true, and on those 8GB drives were much more sensitive to even slight fragmentation.

    Evidence to justify defragmentation is degraded performance, if you can measure it on the real system. Plus, I didn't say defragmentation is not necessary, so it is difference between built-in defrag and miracle tool.

    ...it is not a complete substitute for fully defragmenting the disk. Users should still defragment their drives regularly.".

    Well, that is probably exactly the reason why built-in defragmenter exists.

    InvisiTasking does exactly what it says it does. It makes Diskeeper seem invisible in a perceptual sense. It retains it's work for period where the entire system is idle, and stops immediately whenever the system is no longer idle. Hence, giving the perception of not running.

    Really? Well, it may be in the perceptual sense of somebody who would not benefit from defragmentation anyway.

    But, on the audio workstation, it is possible to reproduce the following - Select large number of tracks, and when invisible defragmentation starts, hit play button and see what happens, to learn what is "immediately". Or, same with record.

    Would be nice if they did that at their miracle works, but that doesn't bring any money, does it?

    Finally, I didn't say those programs are bad. What I am saying is, for home user, they are not worth $100.

    Probably, PerfectDisk is worth its $39.99 in many cases.

    @RMS, if you have a question about newer harddrives and how fragmentation affects them...

    I can measure that, even without asking a question, and have already done it.

    But you guys, who are trying to make innocent people believe they need to spend $100 on defrag, should ask some questions, indeed. :P

  7. You don't need evidence to know that the need to defragment drives is greater than ever before, you only need common sense. More and more people are downloading archives, movies, albums. More people are using video editing software, trying to bring massive systems to their knees, more and more Read/Writes! With more of this happening, defragmenting needs to be done more often (constantly) to keep drives at their peek peformance. Diskeeper 2007 does this without needing you to do anything.

    Common sense is of course a good thing, if it is not affected by defrag software vendors advertising.

    What about disk drives ever advancing caching algorithms and growing cache size, which reduce some effects caused by fragmentation? What about NCQ, which addresses other effects of fragmentation and does it quite effectively?

    Of course, it does not eliminate the need to defragment drives, but to say that this need is greater than ever before, is a bit of loud statement, which may need some clarification, or, indeed, evidence.

    And, what about improvements in Windows system tools, like - built-in defragmenter now optimizes layout.ini files every time manual defragmentaion pass is run? Quite funnily, this fact is "unknown" to experts like Raxco technical suport, and Diskeeper is not advertising it either.

    On the other hand, common sense should tell us that there are no "invisible" services, even if they may be named named like "InvisiTasking".

    It may be difficult to demonstrate the adverse effect of those "invisible" things on the normal home computer (the same way it is nearly impossible to prove the advantage of third-party defrag tools over built-in defragmenter on such computer - except that lazy user doesn't need to press the button once a week), but it is quite easy to show it on the audio workstation. There you can reduce latency from about 256 samples to something like 64 samples, simply by turning off those "invisible " things.

    Finally, but this of course applies only if we are really considering paying $100 for defrag software - for that money one can seriously upgrade system and enjoy real perfomance gain, not one based mostly on placebo effect.

  8. You feel bored of using the same name of software for several years? Does that also mean that you feel bored using Windows for this long?

    If Nero does what you need, then why not keep using it?

    Probably one couldn't really get bored, but something similar may really happen.

    If your burning software, for example, analyzes the inserted disk, then offers you to start CD compilation even if blank DVD is inserted, then after few years you really start to ask where is developer's brain - especially if you have suggested to correct this(or avoid analyzing) to tech support years ago.

    Or, if you inserted blank disk, after analyzing, it still forces you to manually select - start new, or continue multisession disk :thumbup ... and is bloated to 120MB at the same time...then yes, you may want to change something.

  9. I don't agree that defragmenter Services are 'unnecessary'. I use Diskeeper and it adds only one Service, which is set to Automatic. Diskeeper monitors the overall fragmentation level of the harddrive and kicks in the defrag on the fly in the background. The impact this has on system performance is negligable, especially for my system which has 2 GBs of RAM. Considering that, I wouldn't say the Service is useless...

    "Negligable" probably depends on what you are doing. When you are doing real time audio processing with 128 samples or less buffer, there is hardly anything negligible, even that one service - not talking about 'kicking in' of any kind. And, however sophisticated, those automatic algorithms are still primitive anyway. Maybe ok for office work, but for me that background activity is totally unacceptable.

    PerfectDisk adds two Services (PDAgent.exe, PDSched.exe) and both of them can be set to Manual without affecting the functionality of PD at all.

    That is why I am using it, not DK.

    Also, you're statement here is opinionated and biased. It would be nice if someone actually came up with a way to compare defragmenters.

    It is still based on some tests I have made for myself- sorry, not to prove anything here, and also on some real life observations, as I am quite often doing things that are really sensitive to drive fragmentation.

    See, I've noticed the opposite when using PerfectDisk in the past. It has actually made my system seem faster.

    I have actually done some tests, comparing PD8 with Windows defrag on office computer(I was interested in how boot files optimization works). Every time Windows startup was 3-5 sec faster with Windows defrag, and also all the programs I tested (ones with slow startup, like ACAD etc) started a bit faster too. I haven't got those results with me here now, but I sent them to Raxco with some technical inquiries. The answer I got was that they have made their boot optimization algorithm based on Microsoft knowledge, and that I have the option to disable it, if I didn't like it(!). My further questions are unanswered - they simply ignore me.

    Here I have to note that if running Windows defrag after PD, it reorganizes significantly the boot files, and I am quite sure that it wasn't the case about a year ago, so there is some improvement from M$ I think.

    At the same time, what PD does, is quite logical and seems to make sense. PD simply moves all the files, listed in layout.ini to the beginning of disk. Looking in layout.ini gives impression that those files would really belong where PD places them, so I am a bit not clear what M$ does better, but have no time to investigate now.

    Again, your opinion, not fact. Zxian says his PC seems faster over a period of about a month after using I-FAAST. Sick idea? How is it sick?

    It is sick, because I not necessarily do most often the things where I need most of that speed. But I-FAAST optimizes more those files I access most.

    I was somehow driving back client's BMW740 with adaptive gearbox. Was listening to some music and hanging behind some row of cars and trucks for some 1/2h or so. Then got a call that I am too late, and was going to overtake all those in front of me. But the car that was before like fighter jet, was in the deep sleep, because 'adaptive' had adapted to my 'stile'. It lasted only seconds and finally I didn't get killed, but that is what I call sick.

    The same thing sooner or later happens with anything that does something automatically, be it a car or defrag.

    Question, are you speaking only from what you have read from other people, or have you actually tried PD and DK? It just seems to me like you're not solid in what you say.

    Yes, I have. finally it is DK7, but just for boot time defragmentation and data drives (with 'smart placement' disabled by setting frequently/rarely modified to 0/1 days). DK is too automatic and I do not see any reason to use it, if not I-FAAST.

    For system disks regular defragmentation, I use Windows defrag.

  10. ...I don't think anyone really knows whatdefrag program is truly the best. Until someone finds a way to properly test each one while working around the countless factors that would interfere...

    The question is - for whom the best? For the manufacturer it is the one that brings more money, and thats what they are. It is all based on the known psychosis that some program will magically enhance your system. That is how all the junk like system cleaners and boosters are sold, and that is how defragmenters are sold to home users too - with not very honest advertising methods.

    I am not talking here about servers, where the situation is completely different.

    Now, just think about this - you are nLiting your Windows to carefully delete unnecessary services. Then, you agree to run unnecessary defragmenter services?

    Most of the tests are made with specially junked disks (not defragmented with Windows defrag, as it should be), defragmenting methods are not clearly explained, etc.

    But even with all that - it is quite clear which of defragnmenters is the best and in what.

    PD have the best boot-time defrag method, because it properly places MFT and optimizes its size, too.

    But its smart placement is a nonsense for home user, and boot file optimization simply does not work - it actually reduces perfomance, compared to Windows defrag.

    Then, PD allows to stop its scheduling service(it will auto run when PD starts, if set to manual start), boot file optimization can be disabled (set to 'let Windows manage'), and smart placement can be disabled by altering rare/often modified to 1/0 days.

    Diskeeper with its I-FAAST would without any doubt the absolutely best idea, but...again, it is ok for servers, not home user computers. It is a sick idea to imagine that some kind of monitoring would be going on during the normal activity. And Diskeeper's services cannot be simply stopped - you will need then manually start them before starting DK.

    If they made it like stand - alone application, where you launched I-FAAST manually, to monitor your system while you are performing those tasks where most speed is necessary, and then used acquired information for manual (or scheduled) defragmenting, it would without any doubt, be the best.

    But till then, or when somebody will make nLite for defrag, it will be Windows s..t, that is the best.

    Because, at least you can start it when you want, and stop when the job is done. If money is not a concern, stopped PD is a nice thing, too.

  11. Actually, O&O defrag has boot -time defragmentation, it is just now made more automatic and there is no special setup for it.

    Plus, it does some great part of metadata defragmentation in online mode(for XP and 2003 only), so offline run is not so often necessary.

    That all doesn't change the fact that all above mentioned defrag softwares do suck. Because, unless you are running a file server or something like that, constant running of defrag services is just a display of developer's megalomania, nothing more. O&O's five defrag modes are plain ridiculous(at least for home user), PD does the boot file layout in the way that actually decreases performance.

    Plus, the self comparative reviews they make, are all ridiculous at best - at the level of what you can read for some internet booster, which would increase the speed by 300%.

  12. There are 2 different kinds of bluetooth adapters.

    One uses XP native drivers. I would of course recommend this option. The problem is - you do not always know what you are buying.

    Other needs driver, usually that is BlueSoleil - the best bloatware. I successfully crashed 3 computers with it - to the level that even system restore didn't help.

  13. This defrag thing is just showing, how easy it is to fool people.

    No doubt, PerfectDisk does the job.

    But, just think how not serious is to 'smart' place files according to last modified date. Even if it could theoretically really reduce further fragmentation, it is just plain wrong, and not very 'smart'. After installing some OS update, all updated files will be moved to back of the drive, whereas they should actually be moved to beginning.

    Otherwise, Windows defrag also does the job just fine.

    Another thing (and everybody can test it) is boot file optimization, which is ON by default.

    Just run smart placement defragmentation, and check boot time.

    Then, change boot optimization to 'let Windows manage' and run Windows defrag. Note that it removes all PD 'boot files' from beginning of disk, and places other files at beginning. After that, check boot time again.

    On every XP machine I have tried, Windows defrag wins at least 10 seconds of boot time!.

    It is true for PD7 and also PD8.

    Their support replies like that - if feel you have better boot perfomance with PD not managing layout ini files, you have an option to disable it.

    Well, luckily I have option not to buy that software, too. :thumbup

  • Create New...