Recent Topics
-
UNSOLVED The PACL does not extract files from the self-extracting archive
Tech Support3 -
SOLVED Find file in archive.
Wishlist8 -
UNSOLVED PA 19.00.57 - Drawing issue on file type collumn
Tech Support2 -
UNSOLVED PA 19.00.57 crashes Firefox 69.0.1 in module pashlext64.dll | UserCallWinProcCheckWow
Tech Support18 -
UNSOLVED PA standard 2019 can not create PA-archives
Tech Support1 -
UNSOLVED ZIPX-jpeg-compression
Tech Support1 -
UNSOLVED Include all PowerArchive Toolbox features in the offline installer
Tech Support3 -
UNSOLVED PA 2019 explorer preview window always blank
Tech Support3 -
UNSOLVED Encrypt files inside archive that has already been created [.zipx]
Wishlist5 -
UNSOLVED PA 19.00.51 / Access Violation
Tech Support12 -
UNSOLVED PA 19.00.57 (and earlier) Duplicate files possible in .pa archive in some cases.
Tech Support3 -
Fast Ring: PowerArchiver 2019 19.00.51/54/57
Tech Support6 -
UNSOLVED GUI: In need of a complete overhaul
Tech Support3 -
UNSOLVED GUI: move label
Tech Support3 -
UNSOLVED GUI: too much frames
Tech Support2 -
UNSOLVED PowerArchiver shell extensions possibly crashing windows explorer.exe
Tech Support10 -
SOLVED PA 19.00.51 - bug / unwanted code execution
Tech Support8 -
SOLVED Strange file size seen in 2019 portable
Tech Support5 -
SOLVED Fast Extract large files directly to target directory
Wishlist4
Vista vs XP speed issue
-
I use the right-click > extract here item a LOT for multi par RAR-compressed files.
Subjectively, the operation is MUCH faster in Vista than XP.
I wonder if you could check this out under lab conditions?
Cheers
DrT
-
what is faster? start of process or overall speed?
Vista does pre-caching better than XP, so it will be faster in ideal conditions.
-
what is faster? start of process or overall speed?
Vista does pre-caching better than XP, so it will be faster in ideal conditions.Both! The actual progress bars appear faster (in XP takes a sec or two, even on repeated ops, until the dialogue box has filled and started working) and the process itself seems quicker than XP, even after repeated ops under XP.
As repeated runs don’t seem to speed up the operation, is the pre-caching of Vista (superfetch? - the caching of program code not data code) relevant?
This is something quite noticable since returning to XP as my main OS.
Cheers
DrT
-
yeah, vista will be faster as you noticed… prefetch is quite useful. I got XP laptop after having Vista for a while, and my own impression was that XP was slower for stuff that I was using it for.
Of course, Windows 7 is faster than Vista in some major operations (where Vista had bugs), so thats really the best choice if you can deal with some minor issues here and there.
-
p.s. if repeated actions are not fasters, it means it was already cached by prefetch.
-
Just got the Win 7 beta installed and will be checking it out.
Regards
Guy
-
its best ever :).
few small issues but not that annoying.
Actual speed of application is tiny bit slower than Vista, but all internal applications are faster (a lot) and perception is that it is very fast overall.
-
p.s. that small slowdown when starting shell will be gone in 11.5 release
-
p.s. that small slowdown when starting shell will be gone in 11.5 release
Hopefully it wil be available soon. I’m looking for something to do.
