ff/tb quite slow on windows7- 64 bit

[V S Rawat]

xpost - ff, tb ngs

I had been using windows 7 32 bit for last 3 years.

yesterday I installed windows7 64 bit on the same pc making it dual boot.

I am finding that ff/tb both are quite slow on windows7- 64 bit. after
pressing a key, or clicking mouse there is a gap of seconds before the
effect of that keystroke of click is seen.

could it be due to os converting 32 bit aps to 64 bit, that is causing
the delay, or is there some other reason.

Any solution for that?
--

However, I do confirm that my existing windows7 - 32 bit profile got
used seemlessly in that. I just changed the profile.ini of tb/ff in 64
bit's Users folder, and ever since it has been using that same profile
on 32 bit and 64 bit without showing any difference. That is great.

I previously had worries about using 32 bit profile on 64 bit os. No
problem found there at all.

Thanks.
--
Rawat

[Big_Al]

IIRC, ff/tb are both 32 bit apps. Try waterfox if you want a 64 bit
FF. It runs with your current profile, or it did with mine.

[Ron Hunter]

Something is quite wrong, then. My win7 64 bit machines run very fast,
except for the laptop which is cheap, but merely adequate.

[Alex Balfour]

+1

AlexB

[The Wanderer]

On 11/11/2012 04:36 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:

> On 11/11/2012 2:36 PM, V S Rawat wrote:
>
>> xpost - ff, tb ngs
>>
>> I had been using windows 7 32 bit for last 3 years.
>>
>> yesterday I installed windows7 64 bit on the same pc making it dual boot.
>>
>> I am finding that ff/tb both are quite slow on windows7- 64 bit. after
>> pressing a key, or clicking mouse there is a gap of seconds before the
>> effect of that keystroke of click is seen.
>>
>> could it be due to os converting 32 bit aps to 64 bit, that is causing the
>> delay, or is there some other reason.
>>
>> Any solution for that?
>>

>> However, I do confirm that my existing windows7 - 32 bit profile got used
>> seemlessly in that. I just changed the profile.ini of tb/ff in 64 bit's
>> Users folder, and ever since it has been using that same profile on 32 bit
>> and 64 bit without showing any difference. That is great.
>>
>> I previously had worries about using 32 bit profile on 64 bit os. No
>> problem found there at all.
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> Something is quite wrong, then. My win7 64 bit machines run very fast,
> except for the laptop which is cheap, but merely adequate.

Concurred. The only "slowness" problems I've seen on Win7 - 64-bit or otherwise,
since I've had some experience with both - have been caused by three things:
slow remote servers for domain login, slow I/O and/or other processing for
antivirus, and hugely slow and flaky I/O in a weird situation where we were
accessing an IDE drive via a SATA port and an el-cheapo adapter unit.

That said, I've seen something like the kind of slowness V S Rawat describes -
in both Firefox and Thunderbird - in the past, albeit limited to when typing in
a text field; unfortunately, the only way I fixed it was by moving to a
different computer, including a full OS reinstall (of Debian, in my case). For
what it's worth, IIRC in that case the slowness was on a 32-bit OS, and the
normal speed came on a 64-bit one...

--
The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

Every time you let somebody set a limit they start moving it.
- LiveJournal user antonia_tiger

[Wayne]

On 11/11/2012 3:36 PM, V S Rawat wrote:
> xpost - ff, tb ngs
>
> I had been using windows 7 32 bit for last 3 years.
>
> yesterday I installed windows7 64 bit on the same pc making it dual boot.
>
> I am finding that ff/tb both are quite slow on windows7- 64 bit. after
> pressing a key, or clicking mouse there is a gap of seconds before the
> effect of that keystroke of click is seen.
>
> could it be due to os converting 32 bit aps to 64 bit, that is causing
> the delay,

in a word, no

might be a driver.
determine whether it happens with OS started in safe mode.
determine if it's IO, memory or CPU related.
etc.

[WaltS]

What are your CPU, RAM and Graphics card specifications?

--
Fedora 17 (64-bit) KDE 4.9.2
Thunderbird Beta (17.0) Install and test it
And it is said that "The [insert deity of choice] helps those who choose
to help themselves."

[Rick]

I am running both programs in Win7 64 bit and the speed is incredible
You might need more memory.

[goodwin]

On 11/11/2012 06:20 PM, Rick wrote:

> You might need more memory.

Think there is an ob quirk there somewhere... :)

[Vic Moz Garcia]

Your system is not up to Win7 64, both application run fine in mine.

[Robert Alexander]

On 11/11/2012 2:36 PM, V S Rawat wrote:

How much ram is installed in your computer. I was running Firefox and
Thunderbird on my other Laptop with 2Gb and had trouble with them being
slow or sometimes they would stop responding altogether. I upgraded to
8GB and have not had any problem since. May not be your problem, but it
is something to look into.

--
Robert

[V S Rawat]

mine is 3-4 year old dual core 2.0 GHz with 2 GB DDR2 RAM, so I guess it
would now qualify in the cheap category. is that the reason for slow
performance?

Thanks.
--
Rawat

[V S Rawat]

I have been using tb/ff on w7-32 bit on the same machine using the same
set of program and same internet provider.

so I was used to whatever speed I was getting.

on w7-64 bit, I have install exactly the same set of programs, and I can
say as it is just 2 days old installation, it is much trimmer and
cleaner than the 32 bit installation that has accumulated all junk
during 3-4 years. And ISP is the same.

Still I am facing a noticeable change of speed. I would say it is
literally like hiccups. It stops responding for a few seconds, and then
responds, though nothing is lost, it quickly types out all the
characters I had pressed in between.

Thanks.
--
Rawat

[V S Rawat]

On 11/12/2012 5:27 AM, WaltS wrote:
> On 11/11/2012 03:36 PM, V S Rawat wrote:
>> xpost - ff, tb ngs
>>
>> I had been using windows 7 32 bit for last 3 years.
>>
>> yesterday I installed windows7 64 bit on the same pc making it dual boot.
>>
>> I am finding that ff/tb both are quite slow on windows7- 64 bit. after
>> pressing a key, or clicking mouse there is a gap of seconds before the
>> effect of that keystroke of click is seen.
>>
>> could it be due to os converting 32 bit aps to 64 bit, that is causing
>> the delay, or is there some other reason.
>>
>> Any solution for that?
>> --
>>
>> However, I do confirm that my existing windows7 - 32 bit profile got
>> used seemlessly in that. I just changed the profile.ini of tb/ff in 64
>> bit's Users folder, and ever since it has been using that same profile
>> on 32 bit and 64 bit without showing any difference. That is great.
>>
>> I previously had worries about using 32 bit profile on 64 bit os. No
>> problem found there at all.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>
> What are your CPU, RAM and Graphics card specifications?
>

Dear Walts,

Mentioned them elsewhere in this thread.

Whatever these are, it is the very same machine on which I don't face
this intermittent slowing down in 32 bit installation of w7.

Thanks.
--
Rawat

[WaltS]

It appears your system meets some of the system requirements for 64-bit
Windows7.



1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor

1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit)

16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)

DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver


Size of the hard drive?

Is it your system using a lot of swap memory?

Do you have a DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver?

--
Fedora 17 (64-bit) KDE 4.9.2
Thunderbird Beta (17.0) Install and test it

Every day offers a new opportunity, a new set of choices to make -- and
this day is no different.

[Ron Hunter]

Turn off the Windows Security Essentials for a while. IF it is scanning
its own directory, this can happen. If it seems to be the cause, then
set it to not scan its own directory.

[Millwood]

V S Rawat wrote:
> mine is 3-4 year old dual core 2.0 GHz with 2 GB DDR2 RAM, so I guess it
> would now qualify in the cheap category. is that the reason for slow
> performance?

A 64 bit OS uses more memory than a 32 bit OS, since addresses in data
structures are twice as large, and often some integers are also enlarged
from 32 to 64 bits. And there is a small additional cost when 32 bit
applications need to get kernel services.

Which leads to the question - why are you running the 64 bit version on
a 2GB machine? The fundamental advantage of the 64 bit version is that
it can exploit 4GB and larger memories, and run the 64 bit versions
applications which can exploit virtual memories larger than 4GB, of
course backed by enough physical memory to make it useful.

[Wayne]

minimum requirements, especially MS', are too often BS.

The problem might not be memory, but I wouldn't run XP 32bit on less
than 2GB. 2GB for windows 7 64bit?? cough, cough, cough.

That said, its dead easy to check your memory usage with taskmgr.

[Ron Hunter]

I am sure that if I had more RAM, my 2GB laptop with Win7 64 bit would
run faster, but it is the 2.2ghz processor that bogs it down.
Still, it has no trouble handling most jobs, and seems always to have
1GB of RAM free.

[V S Rawat]

On 11/12/2012 2:57 AM, Big_Al wrote:

> IIRC, ff/tb are both 32 bit apps. Try waterfox if you want a 64 bit
> FF. It runs with your current profile, or it did with mine.
>

Yes, I found on the net that pale moon, waterfox, opera 12, ie9 are 64
bits browser.

Any 64 bit mail app also that you know about?

waterfox and I guess pale moon also are build on mozilla base, so there
will be direct use of ff profiles in them.

Shall try some day.

Thanks.
--
Rawat

[V S Rawat]

Big thing. I will think again before tempering with security setting
that too while accessing mail/ net on tb/ ff.

I shall ask for more info about that in some forum and then decide.

Thanks for the tip.
--
Rawat

[V S Rawat]

I had been using 32 bit w7 for 3-4 years. got fed up, so went for a change.

I was not even aware of my computer being capable to run 64 bit things.
w8 preview version 64 bit had failed to install, didn't even start for 1
minute and the person giving me w8 cd had declared that my pc is not
capable for running 64 bit. And I had accepted that as my fate.

Then, while installing w7 on another partition, I got mixed up on that
x86 and x64 and ended up pressing x64 thinking that is the code for 32
bit that I wanted to install. it ran for quite some time and aborted.
later I realized that x86 is for 32 bit, and I had run 64 bit install,
and was amazed how it ran up to "48% completed" before aborting, so I
tried again, this time installing from pen drive. and it got installed.
I was happy that it proved 64 bit compatibility of my old pc. so
continuing with it.

memories are surely 2GB - 32bit 333 XHz (don't know GHz or MHz), that
too DDR2. installed 64 bit in 30 GB partition of a 40 GB 10 year old
hdd. have another 250 GB disk, 4 year old, on which w7 32 bit is running.

I was even thinking about going for I3 or i5 core, that would have meant
15,000 INR expenditure, to get 64 bit capability. Now I could save that
money. Shall run as long as it runs.

IT is switching from 32 to 64 bit. It is high time we all switch. 2
years ago one would not have found 64 bit drivers for simple hardware
and had got stuck. Not almost all apps are having 64 bit versions.

Thanks.
--
Rawat

[V S Rawat]

On 11/13/2012 1:20 AM, Millwood wrote:

My task manager shows ff, tb, orbit downloader, flashnote and rocketdock
as the only 32 bit running apps, rest are all 64 bits.

Chrome is also 32 bit and they are not even trying to go 64.

What are ff/tb's plans to go for 64 bit?

It should otherwise it will loose market share fast. I have heard that
even next size "84 bits" apps and drivers have started coming out. How
long can mozilla remain with 32 bit.

All these rapid release didn't add much benefit to users in GUI, so much
bandwidth wasted in downloading updates again and again. So mozilla can
take load when it wants. Hope it would take load in the direction of 64
bit also.

I wonder if there are mozilla users still using 8bit or 16 bit mozilla
software.

Thanks.
--
Rawat

[Vic Moz Garcia]

On 11/13/12 02:51, V S Rawat wrote:
> On 11/13/2012 1:20 AM, Millwood wrote:
>> V S Rawat wrote:
>>> mine is 3-4 year old dual core 2.0 GHz with 2 GB DDR2 RAM, so I guess it
>>> would now qualify in the cheap category. is that the reason for slow
>>> performance?
>>
>> A 64 bit OS uses more memory than a 32 bit OS, since addresses in data
>> structures are twice as large, and often some integers are also enlarged
>> from 32 to 64 bits. And there is a small additional cost when 32 bit
>> applications need to get kernel services.
>>
>> Which leads to the question - why are you running the 64 bit version on
>> a 2GB machine? The fundamental advantage of the 64 bit version is that
>> it can exploit 4GB and larger memories, and run the 64 bit versions
>> applications which can exploit virtual memories larger than 4GB, of
>> course backed by enough physical memory to make it useful.
>
> My task manager shows ff, tb, orbit downloader, flashnote and rocketdock
> as the only 32 bit running apps, rest are all 64 bits.
>
> Chrome is also 32 bit and they are not even trying to go 64.
>
> What are ff/tb's plans to go for 64 bit?
>
> It should otherwise it will loose market share fast. I have heard that
> even next size "84 bits" apps and drivers have started coming out.

Current Windows, does NOT support 84 bits applications.
The only option to run a '84 bit' OS is the Mac Pro G6
running Mac OS XXX Giant-Super-Lion OS, see here for the review of the
old model:

http://www.mycorporatehell.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=831

> How long can mozilla remain with 32 bit.
>
> All these rapid release didn't add much benefit to users in GUI, so much
> bandwidth wasted in downloading updates again and again. So mozilla can
> take load when it wants. Hope it would take load in the direction of 64
> bit also.
>
> I wonder if there are mozilla users still using 8bit or 16 bit mozilla

Sure, my CBM-64 still runs FF -0.0.0.i

> software.
>
> Thanks.
>
/sarcasm

[Wayne]

iirc, most of these issues have already been well hashed out in other
newsgroups (including m.d.planning/m.d.platform). I believe the current
state of Firefox 64 bit is still summed up in
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/mozilla.dev.planning/HMg_Cef17-M

You can expect Thunderbird to follow Firefox's lead in this area.

[Ron Hunter]

So, the short answer is 'not now'.
For those who want to see what difference it would make, try Waterfox
(note they include things you may not want in the install). I found
bypassing the 'extras' (I call it malware), more trouble than the
program was worth, so it is not on my desktop machine any more.

[Lynn McGuire]

On 11/11/2012 2:36 PM, V S Rawat wrote:
> xpost - ff, tb ngs
>
> I had been using windows 7 32 bit for last 3 years.
>
> yesterday I installed windows7 64 bit on the same pc making it dual boot.
>
> I am finding that ff/tb both are quite slow on windows7- 64 bit. after pressing a key, or clicking mouse there is a gap of seconds
> before the effect of that keystroke of click is seen.
>
> could it be due to os converting 32 bit aps to 64 bit, that is causing the delay, or is there some other reason.
>
> Any solution for that?

> --

>
> However, I do confirm that my existing windows7 - 32 bit profile got used seemlessly in that. I just changed the profile.ini of tb/ff
> in 64 bit's Users folder, and ever since it has been using that same profile on 32 bit and 64 bit without showing any difference.
> That is great.
>
> I previously had worries about using 32 bit profile on 64 bit os. No problem found there at all.
>
> Thanks.

How much ram do you have? 8 GB is needed,
16 GB is better. 4 GB is almost unusable.

Lynn

[Lynn McGuire]

You need 8 GB of ram to run any apps on Windows
7 x64. 16 GB is better.

Lynn

[Wilf]

On 13/11/2012 16:35, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> You need 8 GB of ram to run any apps on Windows
> 7 x64. 16 GB is better.

You do? I thought 4GB was ok?

--
Wilf

[Millwood]

It sure is for me - sent from 64 bit Win 7 on a 4GB Thinkpad.

[WaltS]

Not using Windows, but apps run OK on my 4GB system.

[The Wanderer]

On 11/13/2012 11:50 AM, Wilf wrote:

At my workplace, we're doing OK (although not better than that) with only 2GB on
many machines. The ones with 4GB or more certainly do better, but the ones with
only 2GB are still OK.

--
The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

Every time you let somebody set a limit they start moving it.
- LiveJournal user antonia_tiger

[goodwin]

On 11/13/2012 08:33 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> 4 GB is almost unusable.

Isn't that a bit of hyperbole?

I just bought a 64 bit machine with 2 gig ram and win7. I'm planning on
wiping the windows and installing linux when I'm done rearranging the
office. 2 more gig is planned (its cheap enough) but I wasn't planning
on going further yet.
I've been thinking 4 gig would be fine but haven't had 64 bit before...

Thanks

[goodwin]

Ok, I hadn't read the earlier parts of this thread (Tbird split it up
for whatever reason it does these things. Having just done so, seems I
wasn't alone in asking but looks like windows is what needs this, Win 7
runs well enough on the new box but I've not connected it to a network
yet (and won't with windows) so new apps are down the road a few more days.

[V S Rawat]

I have 2 GB DDR2.

And it is working great.

:-) Don't go by what MS declares as minimum requirements. they might be
getting some benefit from RAM, HDD vendors to recommend higher
capacities. :-)

Thanks.
--
Rawat

[nobody]

Sorry, Lynn, but that is incorrect. Most Win7 boxes run just fine with
4 GB ram for nearly anything short of manipulating video, operating VMs,
or running HUGE excel spreadsheets. Even manipulating still photography
works just fine with 4GB.
For what most people do on a computer they will see little difference
between 4 and 8GB ram.

[nobody]

Still incorrect. :) 4GB is plenty for Win7. 2GB is too little, but 4
is enough.

[Ron Hunter]

My desktop machines run 4GB, and as I sit here with TB open, I have
2.116GB free. I have never seen it dip below 1GB free, except when
trying to move files to my phone with iTunes.

[Ron Hunter]

Unless you are one of those people who think because it is a virtual RAM
machine, you can just keep loading in applications without ending them,
you will find 2GB just fine for most uses. It is adequate on my laptop.

[Lynn McGuire]

I stand by my suggestion. I have found that PCs
running Windows 7 x64 and running Excel, Word,
TB and another app or two require more than 4 GB
of ram. I am using 5 GB at the moment and am
not even running our ACT! customer database.

Lynn

[Lynn McGuire]

On 11/13/2012 2:51 PM, nobody wrote:

I stand by my suggestion. I have found that PCs
running Windows 7 x64 and running Excel, Word,
TB and another app or two require more than 4 GB
of ram. I am using 5 GB at the moment and am
not even running our ACT! customer database

which is a ram hog.

And, any unused ram will be automatically used by
Winddows x64 to create a ramdisk to store disk
space on in memory. I am using 5 GB of ram at
the moment and my ramdisk is using 11 GB. Yes,
I am probably what one would consider to be a
power user, not a minimalist.

Lynn

[Peter Holsberg]

Lynn McGuire has written on 11/13/2012 5:01 PM:

> And, any unused ram will be automatically used by
> Winddows x64 to create a ramdisk to store disk
> space on in memory. I am using 5 GB of ram at
> the moment and my ramdisk is using 11 GB. Yes,
> I am probably what one would consider to be a
> power user, not a minimalist.

Don't you need an external ramdisk program, Lynn?

[Lynn McGuire]

Nope. Windows 7 x64 has one built in that automatically
runs. You do not have to do anything for it nor start.

Maybe it would be more appropriately called a disk
cache program instead of a ram disk.

Lynn

[Peter Holsberg]

Lynn McGuire has written on 11/13/2012 5:58 PM:

Win 7 has "write-caching" and that's a far cry from a ram disk.
Write-caching, for those of you who are not power users, means that
anything that is intended to be written to a hard disk is saved in
memory until it is worthwhile to do an actual write. Access times for
hard drives are zillions of times longer than access times for RAM, so
an actual write to the HD every time an app wants to write would slow
the computer considerably.

A RAM disk, OTOH, uses a section of memory as if it were the HD --
writes and reads.

[Ron Hunter]

If you have excel, Word, and TB all running, with another app or two,
then YOU are using more RAM than you really need to. I have one car, it
serves my needs well. The people next door have 5. They could probably
get by with 2, but they like the convenience. Because YOU like the
convenience of having 8GB doesn't mean you couldn't function without
that much, only that you would have to operate in a more frugal mode.
That is NOT the fault of the OS.

[Ron Hunter]

Yes, and if you wanted to add a couple of video editing apps, and run
them at the same time, 8GB probably wouldn't really be comfortable, but
most people don't need that much ram. Right now I have 1.9GB free on
this 4GB machine.
But I am ONLY running TB.

[Ron Hunter]

On 11/13/2012 4:16 PM, Peter Holsberg wrote:

For a conventional ramdisk. What Win7 implements is more a disk buffer
in RAM, than a real ramdisk.

[Ron Hunter]

Along with a structure that allows directories, and files to be defined,
and used exactly as if there were a physical. disk, but VASTLY faster.
]

[nobody]

I DO find that apps like browsers and practically anything to do with
video (even just youtube) noticeably slow down with less than 4 GB, and
VMs are all but useless, but I can see how YMMV. I personally find just
FF and TB operating side by side gets jerky and unstable with 2GB. RAM
is too cheap to let it hold me back.

[Ed Mullen]

Totally not my experience not is it what I've found researching it
online. Stop saying this.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
Rock is dead, long live paper & scissors.

[Ed Mullen]

Mpmsemse/ 2 GB is fine form ost users. I've simultaneously run dozens
of apps in that config with no problem.

[Ed Mullen]

Totally NOT my experience on machines from 8 years old to 1 year old
with varying capabilities. Minimum RAM is 2 Gb, some with 4. I
routinely run multiple apps on these systems chewing up lots of disk
access and processing power with no trouble. Bot Win XP and Win7.

[Ron Hunter]

I am afraid I am not able to actually USE TB and FF at the same time.
However, I often have both loaded on my 2GB laptop, and they work fine,
unless I add too many other things to the mix. At some point, ram
swapping starts, and then it is time to back off.

[Ed Mullen]

Again, totally NOT my experience with half the RAM. And on systems at
least 6 years old.

Let me be specific.

I run, concurrently, Word, Excel, Sony Sound Forge (editing large - 3 GB
wave files) and other apps, natively and over a LAN and have NEWVER run
out of system resources nor seen a systems slowdown.

2 GB RAM. Win XP and Win 7 Pro and Win 7 Ultimate.

Any time I buy a new PC I insist on at least a Windows OEM CD to
accompany the system. The first thing I do is wipe the drive and
install Windows fresh.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/

Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too
dark to read. - Groucho Marx

[Ed Mullen]

Fingers offset ... meant NONSENSE!

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/

If a book about failures does not sell, is it a success?

[Chuck Anderson]

Agreed. My Win 7 64 bit i3 laptop with 4GB of RAM flies while using
Photoshop, FF (>12 tabs), Thunderbird, and other incidental applications I
always have open.

And on top of that, I recently realized that one memory stick was not quite in
all the way, so I'd been using 2GBs for a couple of months (a real "Homer" -
D-oh!) and I'd barely noticed. After plugging the other 2GB back in the only
thing I've noticed is that I come out of sleep/hibernation much faster. 4GBs
is plenty of RAM. If you want to do serious video editing while watching
videos, browsing, and working in Photoshop, I'm sure it would be worth
upgrading to 8GB, even just 6GB. But for me and most people I know, 4GBs is
more than plenty of RAM.


--
*****************************
Chuck Anderson � Boulder, CO
http://cycletourist.com
Turn Off, Tune Out, Drop In
*****************************

[V S Rawat]

(100% OT: nothing related to ff/tb written below)

I have 2 GB DDR2.

Even then my system shows "48% used", so more than 1 GB is still
available free for new programs to run.

I guess it all matches between motherboard-processor-memory-hdd, they
all somehow keep shaking hand with each other in a fruitful way. If I
directly put Core i7 today on this motherboard-memory-hdd (I mean,
somehow), then I would face problem.

Lesser resources teach users good housekeeping.

I had been using w7-32 bit for 3-4 years (without needing to format),
installed in a 50 GB partition, and I never faced space problem.

And then I installed w7-64 bit in a 20 GB partition. within day one,
immediately after installation it threw tantrums that SP1 can't be
installed in remaining 7 GB free, it needs at least 8 GB. gosh. so I
extended partition by 10 GB, making 30 GB and could install SP1.

And then, withing 36 hours, It had shown 30 GB - 0 byte free.

Anyway, I analysed and found about the bottlenecks and bloatware,
removed some 3 GB from the most inflated windows\winsxs folder that was
some 8 GB. Now I have about 10 GB free out of 30 GB.

I noted that installation partition, and windows\winsxs folder in 32
partition is even more inflated than the current 64 bit's, but I never
came to knew in 3-4 years because that was 50 GB, always having 10-15 GB
free. In this 20 GB, I learned about a lot of housekeeping in day 1.

There is no end to how much you can invest in hardware. But it is better
to use limited resources, and learn to utilize them well.

Thanks.
--
Rawat

[Arivald]

W dniu 2012-11-13 22:57, Lynn McGuire pisze:

You just install too many crap on you machine...
Or maybe Your machine participate in zombie network?

--
Arivald

[V S Rawat]

On 11/13/2012 7:21 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
> On 11/13/2012 4:55 AM, Wayne wrote:
>> On 11/13/2012 2:51 AM, V S Rawat wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2012 1:20 AM, Millwood wrote:

>>>> V S Rawat wrote:
>>>>> mine is 3-4 year old dual core 2.0 GHz with 2 GB DDR2 RAM, so I
>>>>> guess it
>>>>> would now qualify in the cheap category. is that the reason for slow
>>>>> performance?
>>>>

>>>> A 64 bit OS uses more memory than a 32 bit OS, since addresses in data
>>>> structures are twice as large, and often some integers are also
>>>> enlarged
>>>> from 32 to 64 bits. And there is a small additional cost when 32 bit
>>>> applications need to get kernel services.
>>>>
>>>> Which leads to the question - why are you running the 64 bit version on
>>>> a 2GB machine? The fundamental advantage of the 64 bit version is that
>>>> it can exploit 4GB and larger memories, and run the 64 bit versions
>>>> applications which can exploit virtual memories larger than 4GB, of
>>>> course backed by enough physical memory to make it useful.
>>>
>>> My task manager shows ff, tb, orbit downloader, flashnote and rocketdock
>>> as the only 32 bit running apps, rest are all 64 bits.
>>>
>>> Chrome is also 32 bit and they are not even trying to go 64.
>>>
>>> What are ff/tb's plans to go for 64 bit?
>>>
>>> It should otherwise it will loose market share fast. I have heard that
>>> even next size "84 bits" apps and drivers have started coming out. How
>>> long can mozilla remain with 32 bit.
>>>
>>> All these rapid release didn't add much benefit to users in GUI, so much
>>> bandwidth wasted in downloading updates again and again. So mozilla can
>>> take load when it wants. Hope it would take load in the direction of 64
>>> bit also.
>>>
>>> I wonder if there are mozilla users still using 8bit or 16 bit mozilla
>>> software.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>
>> iirc, most of these issues have already been well hashed out in other
>> newsgroups (including m.d.planning/m.d.platform). I believe the current
>> state of Firefox 64 bit is still summed up in
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/mozilla.dev.planning/HMg_Cef17-M
>>
>>
>>
>> You can expect Thunderbird to follow Firefox's lead in this area.
> So, the short answer is 'not now'.
> For those who want to see what difference it would make, try Waterfox
> (note they include things you may not want in the install). I found
> bypassing the 'extras' (I call it malware), more trouble than the
> program was worth, so it is not on my desktop machine any more.
>

I downloaded Waterfox just now (16.0.1) and installed that. I didn't
find any single extra, no malware. Not even a mention or ad of any.

It was to-the-point, installed basic full program. and it ran.

While ff is running, clicking on wf startmenu link opened new window of
ff. I closed ff and then wf started. there also, no ad, nothing. it
checked add-on compatibility like ff does, and started the browser.

It automatically configured everything taking from my ff profile. I have
not yet digged whether it has made a copy to everything in its Users or
somewhere, or is it actually using the very same profile of ff.

As waterfox site page hosts just 3 addons (including silverlight :-) ),
we will have to use mozilla ff's addons for that.

But the above comments of O.P. about extras and malware are absolutely
wrong and misplaced.

so, firefox to waterfox. does anyone know about thunderbird to
waterbird? :-)

--
Rawat

[V S Rawat]

when ff is running and wf is closed, clicking on wf icon on taskbar, or
wf entry in start menu opens another window of ff only.

when wf is running and ff is closed, clicking on ff icon on taskbar, or
ff entry in start menu opens another window of wf only.

what is this puzzle?

One can't use both at the same time.

--
Rawat

[Barbara]

V S Rawat wrote thusly, On 11/11/2012 12:36 PM Pacific Time:
> xpost - ff, tb ngs
>
> I had been using windows 7 32 bit for last 3 years.
>
> yesterday I installed windows7 64 bit on the same pc making it dual boot.
>
> I am finding that ff/tb both are quite slow on windows7- 64 bit. after pressing a key, or clicking mouse there is a gap
> of seconds before the effect of that keystroke of click is seen.
>
> could it be due to os converting 32 bit aps to 64 bit, that is causing the delay, or is there some other reason.
>
> Any solution for that?
> --
>
> However, I do confirm that my existing windows7 - 32 bit profile got used seemlessly in that. I just changed the
> profile.ini of tb/ff in 64 bit's Users folder, and ever since it has been using that same profile on 32 bit and 64 bit
> without showing any difference. That is great.
>
> I previously had worries about using 32 bit profile on 64 bit os. No problem found there at all.
>
> Thanks.

There is a performance chart in Control Panel - check and see What it is showing.

Go to: Control Panel\All Control Panel Items\Performance Information and Tools

There are Help sections to tell you more about the scores displayed. I just recalculated mine because it said it was
out of date. I had not done anything since I bought this computer several months ago and the base score went up quite a
bit after it updated all the components.

Barbara

[Ron Hunter]

As far as I could tell, WF just uses the same profile as FF. Every time
I started it, it didn't like Nuvola theme, and defaulted to the default
theme. When I went back to FF, it was still set for Default theme.

[Ron Hunter]

No. They use the same profile.

[Michael Petch]

On 2012-11-15 13:44, V S Rawat wrote:
> when ff is running and wf is closed, clicking on wf icon on taskbar, or
> wf entry in start menu opens another window of ff only.
>
> when wf is running and ff is closed, clicking on ff icon on taskbar, or
> ff entry in start menu opens another window of wf only.
>
> what is this puzzle?
>
> One can't use both at the same time.

Likely the check in WF and FF to determine if there is another running
copy itself detects the other and then uses what is running to open
another window (I don't know for sure but it sounds that way)

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Opening_a_new_instance_of_your_Mozilla_application_with_another_profile

The -no-remote option should drop the check for a remote running copy. I
am pretty sure you'll need separate profiles for WF and FF if you intend
to run them at the same time, so you should look at using the -P option
by itself or -P with a profile name.

Michael

[Michael Petch]

On 2012-11-15 15:17, Michael Petch wrote:
> The -no-remote option should drop the check for a remote running copy. I
> am pretty sure you'll need separate profiles for WF and FF if you intend
> to run them at the same time, so you should look at using the -P option
> by itself or -P with a profile name.

I forgot to point out that you will want to use these options with BOTH
FF and WF . Just right mouse click the icons you use to launch FF and
WF, then go to properties and append the extra parameters to the end of
the "Target" entry option.

[V S Rawat]

my Windows Performance Score WPI from there is 3.1 (for last 3-4 years,
on w7 32-bit as well as on 64 bit.) primary reason is that Intel 945's
graphics driver is not tailor made for windows 7. :-(

Thanks.
--
Rawat