sdt
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by sdt
-
-
definitely found it much faster than even lightweight linux distros based on debian
0 -
On 3/27/2016 at 7:35 AM, dencorso said:
Here's further confimation of NoelC's findings:
i think the difference is cuz of a fresh install vs "mid-january level" system.
0 -
the only thing that works for my system is SURT 947821 +3102810 + 3138612 on a fresh install. otherwise no go.
0 -
17 hours ago, NoelC said:
Please be more specific. What did you install, and did you find that AFTER waiting through the install and reboot, the NEXT time it was still slow?
-Noel
the update 9852. yes! it was still slow. and high memory usage.
0 -
On 3/19/2016 at 9:51 AM, sdt said:18 hours ago, NoelC said:
When I started with mid-January level software, I would see about a half hour of CPU looping both before and after the point where you select updates to install.
The update to the Windows Update process itself, KB3138612 seems to only resolve the CPU loop delay after selecting updates.
KB3139852, all by itself, solves the problem on both ends. They must have changed something in the kernel to fix this and piggybacked it on a security update.
-Noel
yes in my experience ive needed 3102810 at minimum or sometimes a combination of 3138612 947821 and 3102810
didnt work for me.
0 -
On 3/20/2016 at 3:42 PM, jaclaz said:
Which I will translate to "at the time/date I did the search on google, in my localized results it came out as second result".
Just for the record a google search result is not carved in stone, and can be in a different position (or be not there at all) in a subsequent search, and as well results may change depending on the location from which the search was originated, and will definitely vary when using "national" google sites (as opposed to google.com) and even from the same site and originating location on local OS/browser settings.
jaclaz
my post is also not carved in stone. it was meant for immediate consumption. the new version is out and is on iscloud.
0 -
second result in google search.
On 3/18/2016 at 6:07 AM, netbookdelgob said:Can you post the link? Maybe others are searching for it.
0 -
already given the solution guys. scroll up n read.
0 -
yes in my experience ive needed 3102810 at minimum or sometimes a combination of 3138612 947821 and 3102810
0 -
ok found it online.
0 -
i cant understand chinese at all. can someone please upload the latest dism++ to googledrive for easier download?
0 -
yep. i have a dual boot - xp and win 7 but always use windows xp. the hype of OSes beyond XP is just that hype.
0 -
I wish you had chosen to expand the Clocks field in the first screen grab.
-Noel
id guess it would be around 800 mhz since the voltage is similar.
0 -
@noel thanks for posting the data. I notice the minimum cpu voltage in windows 10 at 1.083V where as it is 0.6 in windows 7. Something is off in that regard. possibly why the temps are being reported higher in win10.
0 -
What Andre is trying to say is ....
-Noel
noel awaiting your results.
0 -
@tripredacus - seems like windows 10 is improving its html5 experience since it is the best of the 3 OSes as far as temps are concerned. overall though win8.1 with chrome and flash seems to be doing the best.
its interesting win10 uses win8.1 drivers yet win8.1 doesnt match its html5 experience.
PS i didnt suggest windows 10 runs hotter or cooler, i just suggested we test it. thanks for posting those figures
@noel youtube doesnt require codecs for 4k videos. wat about using VLC for houkouonchi videos? how does it compare on windows 10 from your testing?
0 -
playng a youtube video is a universal thing which 99% of the computers sold will do at some point in their life. So it is expected that hardware/software codecs/drivers/browsers/OS etc would be well optimised for it and if it not then it will show as greater heat output
Plus heat reduces life of a machine exponentially. If a machine runs cooler while doing the same task on XYZ OS then it is more efficient.
heat measurement in this test should show all efficiencies and inefficiencies combined in a system.
Lets get some test results. I would like to see how win10 is doing vs win7.
0 -
Ok thanks. I will give it a shot next week when I have access to the system again. I will note that I will be using a notebook to do these tests. Specifically, this one:
http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/173469-uefi-installation-on-a-4k-native-display/
You did not specify what type of computer or what hardware you are using, it could be possible that I will get different results. Drivers may also play a part in seeing a difference. I do know that Windows 7 is not natively compatible with 4k resolution, which might also be a factor. Since the notebook I have is not to be used with Windows 7, I will also try Windows 8.1.
that laptop looks fine, you could playback a 4k video on a non 4k display as well since the idea is to test the processor heat only.
yes my hardware is different but it wont matter because the idea is to see the percentage increase/decrease in temperatures and not the absolute degrees finally.
checking system performance this way is the ultimate benchmark because it checks for all system efficiencies and inefficience in one round figure of heat output! if the OS/drivers/programs are becoming more efficient with win10 it will show up as a net percentage decrease in temperature over windows 7 while doing the same task using the same default software on the same hardware compared to windows 10. Otherwise it will show a decrease in efficiency.
0 -
I don't think it will work out for me to try this. Do you have any other examples of seeing this temperature difference that doesn't involve downloading movies?
You can play this
and select the highest setting possible (1080p/1440p/2160p) and note the temperatures in both operating systems.0 -
@triredacus
you could download the full video before playing locally if continuous playback over the net (such as streaming via VLC) is an issue due to bandwidth limitations. Either way is ok.
0 -
there wont be any backtracking even if win10 fails. maybe a slight modification like windowed metro apps. but essentially they are firm on the path from the looks of it.
spartan would be good with stylus integration.
0 -
dudes this is a serious question! its pretty easy to check for someone willing to oblige thanks!
NoelC this one is for you if you can take it up, since you are the main win10 tester here with oodles of time in your hands.
Thanks!
0 -
For example hows 10074s processor temps running a 4k video vs windows 7 for around 5 minutes using VLC?
0 -
Is this the required log?
TestDisk 7.0, Data Recovery Utility, April 2015
Christophe GRENIER <grenier@cgsecurity.org>
http://www.cgsecurity.org
OS: Windows XP SP3
Compiler: GCC 4.8, Cygwin 1007.34
Compilation date: 2015-04-18T13:01:55
ext2fs lib: 1.42.8, ntfs lib: 10:0:0, reiserfs lib: 0.3.1-rc8, ewf lib: 20120504, curses lib: ncurses 5.9
disk_get_size_win32 IOCTL_DISK_GET_LENGTH_INFO(/dev/sda)=500107862016
disk_get_size_win32 IOCTL_DISK_GET_LENGTH_INFO(/dev/sdb)=3965190144
disk_get_size_win32 IOCTL_DISK_GET_LENGTH_INFO(\\.\PhysicalDrive0)=500107862016
disk_get_size_win32 IOCTL_DISK_GET_LENGTH_INFO(\\.\PhysicalDrive1)=3965190144
disk_get_size_win32 IOCTL_DISK_GET_LENGTH_INFO(\\.\C:)=64877494272
disk_get_size_win32 IOCTL_DISK_GET_LENGTH_INFO(\\.\D:)=42723180544
disk_get_size_win32 IOCTL_DISK_GET_LENGTH_INFO(\\.\E:)=338814828544
disk_get_size_win32 IOCTL_DISK_GET_LENGTH_INFO(\\.\F:)=53689015296
disk_get_size_win32 IOCTL_DISK_GET_LENGTH_INFO(\\.\G:)=2564476928
disk_get_size_win32 IOCTL_DISK_GET_LENGTH_INFO(\\.\H:)=3960995840
Hard disk list
Disk /dev/sda - 500 GB / 465 GiB - CHS 60801 255 63, sector size=512
Disk /dev/sdb - 3965 MB / 3781 MiB - CHS 482 255 63, sector size=512
Drive C: - 64 GB / 60 GiB - CHS 7887 255 63, sector size=512
Drive D: - 42 GB / 39 GiB - CHS 5194 255 63, sector size=512
Drive E: - 338 GB / 315 GiB - CHS 41191 255 63, sector size=512
Drive F: - 53 GB / 50 GiB - CHS 6527 255 63, sector size=512
Drive G: - 2564 MB / 2445 MiB - CHS 611 64 32, sector size=2048
Drive H: - 3960 MB / 3777 MiB - CHS 481 255 63, sector size=512
Partition table type (auto): Intel
Disk /dev/sda - 500 GB / 465 GiB
Partition table type: Intel
Analyse Disk /dev/sda - 500 GB / 465 GiB - CHS 60801 255 63
Geometry from i386 MBR: head=255 sector=63
NTFS at 0/32/33
NTFS at 13081/254/62
NTFS at 54274/0/1
NTFS at 7887/211/5
get_geometry_from_list_part_aux head=255 nbr=1
get_geometry_from_list_part_aux head=255 nbr=1
Current partition structure:
1 * HPFS - NTFS 0 32 33 7887 178 35 126713856
2 E extended LBA 7887 178 36 13081 244 27 83445760
3 P HPFS - NTFS 13081 254 62 54273 226 57 661747712
4 P HPFS - NTFS 54274 0 1 60801 80 63 104861358
5 L HPFS - NTFS 7887 211 5 13081 244 27 83443712
search_part()
Disk /dev/sda - 500 GB / 465 GiB - CHS 60801 255 63
NTFS at 0/1/1
filesystem size 210146202
sectors_per_cluster 8
mft_lcn 786432
mftmirr_lcn 13134137
clusters_per_mft_record -10
clusters_per_index_record 1
HPFS - NTFS 0 1 1 13080 254 63 210146202
NTFS, blocksize=4096, 107 GB / 100 GiB
NTFS at 13081/254/62
filesystem size 661747712
sectors_per_cluster 8
mft_lcn 36872128
mftmirr_lcn 16021955
clusters_per_mft_record -10
clusters_per_index_record 1
HPFS - NTFS 13081 254 62 54273 226 57 661747712
NTFS, blocksize=4096, 338 GB / 315 GiB
check_part_i386 failed for partition type 07
HPFS - NTFS 54274 26 25 59519 220 29 84273152
file_pread(4,3,buffer,976773183(60801/81/16)) lseek err Invalid argument
file_pread(4,1,buffer,976773183(60801/81/16)) lseek err Invalid argument
file_pread(4,8,buffer,976773199(60801/81/32)) lseek err Invalid argument
file_pread(4,11,buffer,976773246(60801/82/16)) lseek err Invalid argument
file_pread(4,2,buffer,976775168(60801/112/48)) lseek err Invalid argument
file_pread(4,1,buffer,976775167(60801/112/47)) lseek err Invalid argument
file_pread(4,13,buffer,976775170(60801/112/50)) lseek err Invalid argument
file_pread(4,3,buffer,976775183(60801/112/63)) lseek err Invalid argument
file_pread(4,3,buffer,976775230(60801/113/47)) lseek err Invalid argument
file_pread(4,8,buffer,976775246(60801/113/63)) lseek err Invalid argument
file_pread(4,11,buffer,976775293(60801/114/47)) lseek err Invalid argument
file_pread(4,2,buffer,976777215(60801/145/16)) lseek err Invalid argument
get_geometry_from_list_part_aux head=255 nbr=2
get_geometry_from_list_part_aux head=8 nbr=1
get_geometry_from_list_part_aux head=16 nbr=1
get_geometry_from_list_part_aux head=32 nbr=1
get_geometry_from_list_part_aux head=64 nbr=1
get_geometry_from_list_part_aux head=128 nbr=1
get_geometry_from_list_part_aux head=240 nbr=1
get_geometry_from_list_part_aux head=255 nbr=2
Results
* HPFS - NTFS 0 1 1 13080 254 63 210146202
NTFS, blocksize=4096, 107 GB / 100 GiB
P HPFS - NTFS 13081 254 62 54273 226 57 661747712
NTFS, blocksize=4096, 338 GB / 315 GiB
P HPFS - NTFS 54274 26 25 59519 220 29 84273152
interface_write()
1 * HPFS - NTFS 0 1 1 13080 254 63 210146202
2 P HPFS - NTFS 13081 254 62 54273 226 57 661747712
3 P HPFS - NTFS 54274 26 25 59519 220 29 84273152
simulate write!
write_mbr_i386: starting...
write_all_log_i386: starting...
No extended partition
TestDisk exited normally.
0
Clean install Win 7 home premium now can't get win update to work, runs long long time stuck
in Windows 7
Posted
install kb3102810 kb3138612 and kb947821