Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Ok, now that I've upgraded from 256 MB to 512 MB some more elementary
questions.

1) How will I see the improvement? I got it because from time to time my
disk drive starts and then it slows everything down. I suspect it is due to
indexing and other housekeeping items. I use Ad-Aware and anti-virus s-ware,
so as I said I think it is due to some other tasks. I'm assuming the extra
memory will reduce the need for swap files. But what other improvement
should I see (I don't use heavy media stuff).

2) I have a fairly large WORKS spreadsheet. As it got larger, when I copy
cells, I always get the message to the effect that due to limited memory I
cannot use the Undo command for that process. That's no problem since I can
undo it anyway without using that command. I thought maybe the added memory
might eliminate that message. It does not. Is it just that WORKS itself can
only access a certain amount of memory? I use WORKS 4.5.

Mel

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote in message
news:ySGSe.2328$tc7.604@fe03.lga...
> Ok, now that I've upgraded from 256 MB to 512 MB some more elementary
> questions.
>
> 1) How will I see the improvement? I got it because from time to time my
> disk drive starts and then it slows everything down. I suspect it is due
> to indexing and other housekeeping items. I use Ad-Aware and anti-virus
> s-ware, so as I said I think it is due to some other tasks. I'm assuming
> the extra memory will reduce the need for swap files. But what other
> improvement should I see (I don't use heavy media stuff).
>
> 2) I have a fairly large WORKS spreadsheet. As it got larger, when I copy
> cells, I always get the message to the effect that due to limited memory I
> cannot use the Undo command for that process. That's no problem since I
> can undo it anyway without using that command. I thought maybe the added
> memory might eliminate that message. It does not. Is it just that WORKS
> itself can only access a certain amount of memory? I use WORKS 4.5.
>
> Mel
>

Mel,

The improvements will likely be modest. For 1), I'd suggest you right click
your C: drive in My Computer and uncheck the box that allows the Indexing of
the hard drive for fast searching. The overhead of keeping that index
current is huge compared to the rare times you do a file search. I ALWAYS
turn it off. That should really help.

As for 2), I don't know Works. Is that version pretty current? If not, it
may not be optimized for XP and may be limiting itself to what would work in
Windows 98/Me. Even so, I'm a little surprised the memory didn't fix the
problem.

Tom

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Tom,
When you uncheck the box for indexing, do you allow it to include the
subdirectories as well?
"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:WcHSe.5441$p_1.3262@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote in message
> news:ySGSe.2328$tc7.604@fe03.lga...
>> Ok, now that I've upgraded from 256 MB to 512 MB some more elementary
>> questions.
>>
>> 1) How will I see the improvement? I got it because from time to time my
>> disk drive starts and then it slows everything down. I suspect it is due
>> to indexing and other housekeeping items. I use Ad-Aware and anti-virus
>> s-ware, so as I said I think it is due to some other tasks. I'm assuming
>> the extra memory will reduce the need for swap files. But what other
>> improvement should I see (I don't use heavy media stuff).
>>
>> 2) I have a fairly large WORKS spreadsheet. As it got larger, when I copy
>> cells, I always get the message to the effect that due to limited memory
>> I cannot use the Undo command for that process. That's no problem since I
>> can undo it anyway without using that command. I thought maybe the added
>> memory might eliminate that message. It does not. Is it just that WORKS
>> itself can only access a certain amount of memory? I use WORKS 4.5.
>>
>> Mel
>>
>
> Mel,
>
> The improvements will likely be modest. For 1), I'd suggest you right
> click your C: drive in My Computer and uncheck the box that allows the
> Indexing of the hard drive for fast searching. The overhead of keeping
> that index current is huge compared to the rare times you do a file
> search. I ALWAYS turn it off. That should really help.
>
> As for 2), I don't know Works. Is that version pretty current? If not,
> it may not be optimized for XP and may be limiting itself to what would
> work in Windows 98/Me. Even so, I'm a little surprised the memory didn't
> fix the problem.
>
> Tom
>

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Also, what does this feature actually do?

Thanks
"Kevin M" <kmisenhxxx@charter.net> wrote in message
news:uzISe.23892$1g2.4501@fe05.lga...
> Tom,
> When you uncheck the box for indexing, do you allow it to include the
> subdirectories as well?
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> news:WcHSe.5441$p_1.3262@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>
>> "MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote in message
>> news:ySGSe.2328$tc7.604@fe03.lga...
>>> Ok, now that I've upgraded from 256 MB to 512 MB some more elementary
>>> questions.
>>>
>>> 1) How will I see the improvement? I got it because from time to time my
>>> disk drive starts and then it slows everything down. I suspect it is due
>>> to indexing and other housekeeping items. I use Ad-Aware and anti-virus
>>> s-ware, so as I said I think it is due to some other tasks. I'm assuming
>>> the extra memory will reduce the need for swap files. But what other
>>> improvement should I see (I don't use heavy media stuff).
>>>
>>> 2) I have a fairly large WORKS spreadsheet. As it got larger, when I
>>> copy cells, I always get the message to the effect that due to limited
>>> memory I cannot use the Undo command for that process. That's no problem
>>> since I can undo it anyway without using that command. I thought maybe
>>> the added memory might eliminate that message. It does not. Is it just
>>> that WORKS itself can only access a certain amount of memory? I use
>>> WORKS 4.5.
>>>
>>> Mel
>>>
>>
>> Mel,
>>
>> The improvements will likely be modest. For 1), I'd suggest you right
>> click your C: drive in My Computer and uncheck the box that allows the
>> Indexing of the hard drive for fast searching. The overhead of keeping
>> that index current is huge compared to the rare times you do a file
>> search. I ALWAYS turn it off. That should really help.
>>
>> As for 2), I don't know Works. Is that version pretty current? If not,
>> it may not be optimized for XP and may be limiting itself to what would
>> work in Windows 98/Me. Even so, I'm a little surprised the memory didn't
>> fix the problem.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Tom Scales wrote:
> "MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote in message
> news:ySGSe.2328$tc7.604@fe03.lga...
>
>>Ok, now that I've upgraded from 256 MB to 512 MB some more elementary
>>questions.
>>
>>1) How will I see the improvement? I got it because from time to time my
>>disk drive starts and then it slows everything down. I suspect it is due
>>to indexing and other housekeeping items. I use Ad-Aware and anti-virus
>>s-ware, so as I said I think it is due to some other tasks. I'm assuming
>>the extra memory will reduce the need for swap files. But what other
>>improvement should I see (I don't use heavy media stuff).
>>
>>2) I have a fairly large WORKS spreadsheet. As it got larger, when I copy
>>cells, I always get the message to the effect that due to limited memory I
>>cannot use the Undo command for that process. That's no problem since I
>>can undo it anyway without using that command. I thought maybe the added
>>memory might eliminate that message. It does not. Is it just that WORKS
>>itself can only access a certain amount of memory? I use WORKS 4.5.
>>
>>Mel
>>
>
>
> Mel,
>
> The improvements will likely be modest. For 1), I'd suggest you right click
> your C: drive in My Computer and uncheck the box that allows the Indexing of
> the hard drive for fast searching. The overhead of keeping that index
> current is huge compared to the rare times you do a file search. I ALWAYS
> turn it off. That should really help.
>
An excellent alternative to Indexing Service is slocate; it's part of
almost every linux distro and way faster than anything else I've used.
On Windows it's available in Cygwin; just run updatedb every so often
and it will write everything to a database. When you want to find
$something, type locate $something; it will show all instances (up to
the last time you ran updatedb) and keep the database in memory
temporarily so that any other searches will be almost instantaneous.

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Kevin M" <kmisenhxxx@charter.net> wrote in message
news:VjJSe.23547$ih4.15036@fe02.lga...
> Also, what does this feature actually do?
>
> Thanks

http://tinyurl.com/6mbjv



Stew

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

The Indexing service works on a drive-by-drive basis, including all
subdirectories. It maintains a file used to search and find information
quickly. But, like Internet Explorer file caching and history files, it has the
unintended consequence of slowing down overall system performance rather than
speeding it up. I'm sure that the Microsoft apologists can cite benchmark after
benchmark and quote satisfied customers as to its wonders. But, I find it
pretty useless... Ben Myers

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 17:04:55 -0400, "Kevin M" <kmisenhxxx@charter.net> wrote:

>Also, what does this feature actually do?
>
>Thanks
>"Kevin M" <kmisenhxxx@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:uzISe.23892$1g2.4501@fe05.lga...
>> Tom,
>> When you uncheck the box for indexing, do you allow it to include the
>> subdirectories as well?
>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>> news:WcHSe.5441$p_1.3262@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>
>>> "MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote in message
>>> news:ySGSe.2328$tc7.604@fe03.lga...
>>>> Ok, now that I've upgraded from 256 MB to 512 MB some more elementary
>>>> questions.
>>>>
>>>> 1) How will I see the improvement? I got it because from time to time my
>>>> disk drive starts and then it slows everything down. I suspect it is due
>>>> to indexing and other housekeeping items. I use Ad-Aware and anti-virus
>>>> s-ware, so as I said I think it is due to some other tasks. I'm assuming
>>>> the extra memory will reduce the need for swap files. But what other
>>>> improvement should I see (I don't use heavy media stuff).
>>>>
>>>> 2) I have a fairly large WORKS spreadsheet. As it got larger, when I
>>>> copy cells, I always get the message to the effect that due to limited
>>>> memory I cannot use the Undo command for that process. That's no problem
>>>> since I can undo it anyway without using that command. I thought maybe
>>>> the added memory might eliminate that message. It does not. Is it just
>>>> that WORKS itself can only access a certain amount of memory? I use
>>>> WORKS 4.5.
>>>>
>>>> Mel
>>>>
>>>
>>> Mel,
>>>
>>> The improvements will likely be modest. For 1), I'd suggest you right
>>> click your C: drive in My Computer and uncheck the box that allows the
>>> Indexing of the hard drive for fast searching. The overhead of keeping
>>> that index current is huge compared to the rare times you do a file
>>> search. I ALWAYS turn it off. That should really help.
>>>
>>> As for 2), I don't know Works. Is that version pretty current? If not,
>>> it may not be optimized for XP and may be limiting itself to what would
>>> work in Windows 98/Me. Even so, I'm a little surprised the memory didn't
>>> fix the problem.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Tom:

Actually, that is an older version of Works (for Windows 95!!), but it is
actually the best version .

I do have Works 7.0, but I don't use it. However, I just tried it with the
file and got the same message.

If I save the spreadsheet in Exel format, and use it with my generic Open
Office, there is no such message (but it might be that it uses less memory
to begin with or that Works will just not access that extra memory0. I'm
posting this in the Works group; I'll see what they say.

Mel

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:WcHSe.5441$p_1.3262@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote in message
> news:ySGSe.2328$tc7.604@fe03.lga...
>> Ok, now that I've upgraded from 256 MB to 512 MB some more elementary
>> questions.
>>
>> 1) How will I see the improvement? I got it because from time to time my
>> disk drive starts and then it slows everything down. I suspect it is due
>> to indexing and other housekeeping items. I use Ad-Aware and anti-virus
>> s-ware, so as I said I think it is due to some other tasks. I'm assuming
>> the extra memory will reduce the need for swap files. But what other
>> improvement should I see (I don't use heavy media stuff).
>>
>> 2) I have a fairly large WORKS spreadsheet. As it got larger, when I copy
>> cells, I always get the message to the effect that due to limited memory
>> I cannot use the Undo command for that process. That's no problem since I
>> can undo it anyway without using that command. I thought maybe the added
>> memory might eliminate that message. It does not. Is it just that WORKS
>> itself can only access a certain amount of memory? I use WORKS 4.5.
>>
>> Mel
>>
>
> Mel,
>
> The improvements will likely be modest. For 1), I'd suggest you right
> click your C: drive in My Computer and uncheck the box that allows the
> Indexing of the hard drive for fast searching. The overhead of keeping
> that index current is huge compared to the rare times you do a file
> search. I ALWAYS turn it off. That should really help.
>
> As for 2), I don't know Works. Is that version pretty current? If not,
> it may not be optimized for XP and may be limiting itself to what would
> work in Windows 98/Me. Even so, I'm a little surprised the memory didn't
> fix the problem.
>
> Tom
>

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Ben:

ASSUMING that's what's causing the problem (sudden disk activity that lasts
for 3-4 minutes coupled with delays), then it IS a MAJOR pain especially
considering its limited benefits.

I'm going to see what happens with the new memory, but I suspect that will
not reduce the problem and then I'll just follow Tom's suggestion.

Mel
<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:431b6fd5.11487520@nntp.charter.net...
> The Indexing service works on a drive-by-drive basis, including all
> subdirectories. It maintains a file used to search and find information
> quickly. But, like Internet Explorer file caching and history files, it
> has the
> unintended consequence of slowing down overall system performance rather
> than
> speeding it up. I'm sure that the Microsoft apologists can cite benchmark
> after
> benchmark and quote satisfied customers as to its wonders. But, I find it
> pretty useless... Ben Myers
>
> On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 17:04:55 -0400, "Kevin M" <kmisenhxxx@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Also, what does this feature actually do?
>>
>>Thanks
>>"Kevin M" <kmisenhxxx@charter.net> wrote in message
>>news:uzISe.23892$1g2.4501@fe05.lga...
>>> Tom,
>>> When you uncheck the box for indexing, do you allow it to include the
>>> subdirectories as well?
>>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>>> news:WcHSe.5441$p_1.3262@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>>
>>>> "MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:ySGSe.2328$tc7.604@fe03.lga...
>>>>> Ok, now that I've upgraded from 256 MB to 512 MB some more elementary
>>>>> questions.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) How will I see the improvement? I got it because from time to time
>>>>> my
>>>>> disk drive starts and then it slows everything down. I suspect it is
>>>>> due
>>>>> to indexing and other housekeeping items. I use Ad-Aware and
>>>>> anti-virus
>>>>> s-ware, so as I said I think it is due to some other tasks. I'm
>>>>> assuming
>>>>> the extra memory will reduce the need for swap files. But what other
>>>>> improvement should I see (I don't use heavy media stuff).
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) I have a fairly large WORKS spreadsheet. As it got larger, when I
>>>>> copy cells, I always get the message to the effect that due to limited
>>>>> memory I cannot use the Undo command for that process. That's no
>>>>> problem
>>>>> since I can undo it anyway without using that command. I thought maybe
>>>>> the added memory might eliminate that message. It does not. Is it just
>>>>> that WORKS itself can only access a certain amount of memory? I use
>>>>> WORKS 4.5.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mel
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mel,
>>>>
>>>> The improvements will likely be modest. For 1), I'd suggest you right
>>>> click your C: drive in My Computer and uncheck the box that allows the
>>>> Indexing of the hard drive for fast searching. The overhead of keeping
>>>> that index current is huge compared to the rare times you do a file
>>>> search. I ALWAYS turn it off. That should really help.
>>>>
>>>> As for 2), I don't know Works. Is that version pretty current? If
>>>> not,
>>>> it may not be optimized for XP and may be limiting itself to what would
>>>> work in Windows 98/Me. Even so, I'm a little surprised the memory
>>>> didn't
>>>> fix the problem.
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Yes. Absolutely.
"Kevin M" <kmisenhxxx@charter.net> wrote in message
news:uzISe.23892$1g2.4501@fe05.lga...
> Tom,
> When you uncheck the box for indexing, do you allow it to include the
> subdirectories as well?
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> news:WcHSe.5441$p_1.3262@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>
>> "MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote in message
>> news:ySGSe.2328$tc7.604@fe03.lga...
>>> Ok, now that I've upgraded from 256 MB to 512 MB some more elementary
>>> questions.
>>>
>>> 1) How will I see the improvement? I got it because from time to time my
>>> disk drive starts and then it slows everything down. I suspect it is due
>>> to indexing and other housekeeping items. I use Ad-Aware and anti-virus
>>> s-ware, so as I said I think it is due to some other tasks. I'm assuming
>>> the extra memory will reduce the need for swap files. But what other
>>> improvement should I see (I don't use heavy media stuff).
>>>
>>> 2) I have a fairly large WORKS spreadsheet. As it got larger, when I
>>> copy cells, I always get the message to the effect that due to limited
>>> memory I cannot use the Undo command for that process. That's no problem
>>> since I can undo it anyway without using that command. I thought maybe
>>> the added memory might eliminate that message. It does not. Is it just
>>> that WORKS itself can only access a certain amount of memory? I use
>>> WORKS 4.5.
>>>
>>> Mel
>>>
>>
>> Mel,
>>
>> The improvements will likely be modest. For 1), I'd suggest you right
>> click your C: drive in My Computer and uncheck the box that allows the
>> Indexing of the hard drive for fast searching. The overhead of keeping
>> that index current is huge compared to the rare times you do a file
>> search. I ALWAYS turn it off. That should really help.
>>
>> As for 2), I don't know Works. Is that version pretty current? If not,
>> it may not be optimized for XP and may be limiting itself to what would
>> work in Windows 98/Me. Even so, I'm a little surprised the memory didn't
>> fix the problem.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In theory it caches information about searches that you might do in the
futures. Unfortunately, it's really, really slow and intensive.
"Kevin M" <kmisenhxxx@charter.net> wrote in message
news:VjJSe.23547$ih4.15036@fe02.lga...
> Also, what does this feature actually do?
>
> Thanks
> "Kevin M" <kmisenhxxx@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:uzISe.23892$1g2.4501@fe05.lga...
>> Tom,
>> When you uncheck the box for indexing, do you allow it to include the
>> subdirectories as well?
>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>> news:WcHSe.5441$p_1.3262@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>
>>> "MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote in message
>>> news:ySGSe.2328$tc7.604@fe03.lga...
>>>> Ok, now that I've upgraded from 256 MB to 512 MB some more elementary
>>>> questions.
>>>>
>>>> 1) How will I see the improvement? I got it because from time to time
>>>> my disk drive starts and then it slows everything down. I suspect it is
>>>> due to indexing and other housekeeping items. I use Ad-Aware and
>>>> anti-virus s-ware, so as I said I think it is due to some other tasks.
>>>> I'm assuming the extra memory will reduce the need for swap files. But
>>>> what other improvement should I see (I don't use heavy media stuff).
>>>>
>>>> 2) I have a fairly large WORKS spreadsheet. As it got larger, when I
>>>> copy cells, I always get the message to the effect that due to limited
>>>> memory I cannot use the Undo command for that process. That's no
>>>> problem since I can undo it anyway without using that command. I
>>>> thought maybe the added memory might eliminate that message. It does
>>>> not. Is it just that WORKS itself can only access a certain amount of
>>>> memory? I use WORKS 4.5.
>>>>
>>>> Mel
>>>>
>>>
>>> Mel,
>>>
>>> The improvements will likely be modest. For 1), I'd suggest you right
>>> click your C: drive in My Computer and uncheck the box that allows the
>>> Indexing of the hard drive for fast searching. The overhead of keeping
>>> that index current is huge compared to the rare times you do a file
>>> search. I ALWAYS turn it off. That should really help.
>>>
>>> As for 2), I don't know Works. Is that version pretty current? If not,
>>> it may not be optimized for XP and may be limiting itself to what would
>>> work in Windows 98/Me. Even so, I'm a little surprised the memory
>>> didn't fix the problem.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Yeah, Tom. So, why have it on. This means every day things slow up in order
to save me a few seconds on the few times I do a search. Right??

Mel
"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:flLSe.13154$xl6.4644@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> In theory it caches information about searches that you might do in the
> futures. Unfortunately, it's really, really slow and intensive.
> "Kevin M" <kmisenhxxx@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:VjJSe.23547$ih4.15036@fe02.lga...
>> Also, what does this feature actually do?
>>
>> Thanks
>> "Kevin M" <kmisenhxxx@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:uzISe.23892$1g2.4501@fe05.lga...
>>> Tom,
>>> When you uncheck the box for indexing, do you allow it to include the
>>> subdirectories as well?
>>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>>> news:WcHSe.5441$p_1.3262@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>>
>>>> "MB_" <mel@prodigy.invalid.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:ySGSe.2328$tc7.604@fe03.lga...
>>>>> Ok, now that I've upgraded from 256 MB to 512 MB some more elementary
>>>>> questions.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) How will I see the improvement? I got it because from time to time
>>>>> my disk drive starts and then it slows everything down. I suspect it
>>>>> is due to indexing and other housekeeping items. I use Ad-Aware and
>>>>> anti-virus s-ware, so as I said I think it is due to some other tasks.
>>>>> I'm assuming the extra memory will reduce the need for swap files. But
>>>>> what other improvement should I see (I don't use heavy media stuff).
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) I have a fairly large WORKS spreadsheet. As it got larger, when I
>>>>> copy cells, I always get the message to the effect that due to limited
>>>>> memory I cannot use the Undo command for that process. That's no
>>>>> problem since I can undo it anyway without using that command. I
>>>>> thought maybe the added memory might eliminate that message. It does
>>>>> not. Is it just that WORKS itself can only access a certain amount of
>>>>> memory? I use WORKS 4.5.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mel
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mel,
>>>>
>>>> The improvements will likely be modest. For 1), I'd suggest you right
>>>> click your C: drive in My Computer and uncheck the box that allows the
>>>> Indexing of the hard drive for fast searching. The overhead of keeping
>>>> that index current is huge compared to the rare times you do a file
>>>> search. I ALWAYS turn it off. That should really help.
>>>>
>>>> As for 2), I don't know Works. Is that version pretty current? If
>>>> not, it may not be optimized for XP and may be limiting itself to what
>>>> would work in Windows 98/Me. Even so, I'm a little surprised the
>>>> memory didn't fix the problem.
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>