Maybe they'll fix these problems in Vista
I
like computers a lot better in the abstract than in concrete, with
their warts and all. We have used our current PC (that runs Windows XP)
for a year now, and I can still remember what a massive speedup this
computer felt like after our old one that we bought when we moved here
in 2001. However, it has begun to look like this computer is gradually
getting slower. I have run the Ad-Aware spyware and malware checker and
it hasn't found anything, so that probably isn't the problem. I have
seen people mention a few times that Windows just naturally
deteriorates and must therefore occasionally be reinstalled to bring it
up to speed, but I have always dismissed this as sheer silliness. These
days, I am not so sure.
It's especially annoying that Windows is so slow in many particular aspects that just ought to be fast, you know? For example, sometimes the Start menu takes ages to come up and show the items in it. What, does the OS think that something has changed there since the last time? Similarly, in the file selection dialogs it often takes a painfully long time for some folder to open and its contents to show up. Couldn't the stupid thing just maintain a database of the files that it has? Sometimes launching a program can take ages, or just trying to bring a program in front by clicking it in the toolbar. I know that bashing Microsoft is so totally nineties, but I think it's pretty obvious that these people don't much care about Tog's design guideline that all user interface events must be given highest possible priority and responded within a split second so that they seem immediate to user, with no exceptions to this rule ever. Somebody should at least inform the Microsoft code jockeys about this handy computer science concept called caching, which might be of great help here.
And don't get me started about the annoyance of trying to find a file with certain name or content in it. This has always been broken in Windows and still hasn't been corrected. You'd think that in this day and age this funcction just could not be as slow as it is, so that you can actually watch how the search goes through the names of the existing files one by one. Which is, like, really great fun when you have thousands of files. Such silliness is something that you'd expect to see in a operating system of a Hollywood movie that uses a 50-point font in all windows (and that this search feature would simultaneously show a cool spinning 3D animation about the contents of each file, regardless of relevancy), but not in a real-world operating system that is designed for the person who actually uses it, instead of the people who are watching over his shoulder.
I have understood that with Apple OS X, searching a file with a given name or contents is immediate so that the list of files shows up as soon as you type in the search terms. Is this true? If it is, why doesn't Windows come with the same feature? The more I think about it, Perhaps in three years or so when it comes time to update the 'puter again, Macs will be able to run Windows software directly or that most software that we use is web-based anyways, and this whole tribal feud will be a thing of the past similar to the feud between Commodore 64 and Spectravideo.
Another problem that we have been having for a few months is that occasionally and seemingly randomly the web browser simply loses the connection to the domain name server, so that if you try to go to a website in which you haven't been in a while, the browser just says "Looking for host ..." and then fails. The internet connection and the web browser are otherwise working, since the sites that you have been in recently work just fine. But if you try to go to any new sites, nothing happens, and the cable modem lights don't even blink, so the problem is probably in this computer instead of the domain name server of our ISP. Rebooting the computer fixes this problem, but it's rather annoying to do, especially since for some mysterious reason, the time required to boot the computer also seems to be increasing. (Of course, here Windows starts showing the desktop pretty quickly, but I consider boot to be finished when the computer actually starts doing what I tell it to do, such as launching the web browser.)
It's especially annoying that Windows is so slow in many particular aspects that just ought to be fast, you know? For example, sometimes the Start menu takes ages to come up and show the items in it. What, does the OS think that something has changed there since the last time? Similarly, in the file selection dialogs it often takes a painfully long time for some folder to open and its contents to show up. Couldn't the stupid thing just maintain a database of the files that it has? Sometimes launching a program can take ages, or just trying to bring a program in front by clicking it in the toolbar. I know that bashing Microsoft is so totally nineties, but I think it's pretty obvious that these people don't much care about Tog's design guideline that all user interface events must be given highest possible priority and responded within a split second so that they seem immediate to user, with no exceptions to this rule ever. Somebody should at least inform the Microsoft code jockeys about this handy computer science concept called caching, which might be of great help here.
And don't get me started about the annoyance of trying to find a file with certain name or content in it. This has always been broken in Windows and still hasn't been corrected. You'd think that in this day and age this funcction just could not be as slow as it is, so that you can actually watch how the search goes through the names of the existing files one by one. Which is, like, really great fun when you have thousands of files. Such silliness is something that you'd expect to see in a operating system of a Hollywood movie that uses a 50-point font in all windows (and that this search feature would simultaneously show a cool spinning 3D animation about the contents of each file, regardless of relevancy), but not in a real-world operating system that is designed for the person who actually uses it, instead of the people who are watching over his shoulder.
I have understood that with Apple OS X, searching a file with a given name or contents is immediate so that the list of files shows up as soon as you type in the search terms. Is this true? If it is, why doesn't Windows come with the same feature? The more I think about it, Perhaps in three years or so when it comes time to update the 'puter again, Macs will be able to run Windows software directly or that most software that we use is web-based anyways, and this whole tribal feud will be a thing of the past similar to the feud between Commodore 64 and Spectravideo.
Another problem that we have been having for a few months is that occasionally and seemingly randomly the web browser simply loses the connection to the domain name server, so that if you try to go to a website in which you haven't been in a while, the browser just says "Looking for host ..." and then fails. The internet connection and the web browser are otherwise working, since the sites that you have been in recently work just fine. But if you try to go to any new sites, nothing happens, and the cable modem lights don't even blink, so the problem is probably in this computer instead of the domain name server of our ISP. Rebooting the computer fixes this problem, but it's rather annoying to do, especially since for some mysterious reason, the time required to boot the computer also seems to be increasing. (Of course, here Windows starts showing the desktop pretty quickly, but I consider boot to be finished when the computer actually starts doing what I tell it to do, such as launching the web browser.)
Try Google Desktop. For me it has done a great job in indexing everything on my computer, and I hardly file anything, but can find anything I want.
There are some warts. Sometimes a file will not be available even after it is "found". I think what happens is that the system has found a version which has been deleted, and that tends to block the version that is available.
Posted by Robert Hume | 1:10 PM
Personally, when I tried those desktop search thingies, I liked MSN Desktop Search more. Google desktop always opened a new window when I searched, MSN had a "search-as-you-type" kinda feature on more mac-like little box.
You might give them a try, as you seem to be in need of a windows reinstall anyway. You DO have your data and work files on a different partition, havent you? :)
Many people seem to "know" the gradual windows slowdown is the fault of the registry database which tends to get bloated and different searches windows makes (for example right-click on desktop-new-> takes some time, as the things in the menu are in the registry.) So, some registry cleaner might work, but personal experience has taught me that only reinstall brings notable speed-up. Cannot understand why.
Or, you could do as I read somewhere most people do: "This computer is getting slow. I must buy a new one."
-----------------------
Linux is not an option for you? Might not be, as I remember your wife uses ms movie maker and such stuff.
Posted by Anonymous | 4:27 AM
And furtermore, Windows XP DOES need defragging the system disk sometimes - of course the reinstall takes care of that problem also, at least if you empty the system disk completely.
Posted by Anonymous | 5:38 AM
Years ago, my brother told me that the speed of a computer is psychological. I still think that he was right even if ad-ware and company are the usual suspects when computers start slowing down. His theory is that users always want better performance from their computers... Gee, I'm too lazy to think and write all this down, but you get the idea.
Posted by Eddy Young | 1:04 PM
Try Copernic Desktop Search for indexing files and emails: http://www.copernic.com/
en/products/desktop-search/
As already pointed out, Windows can speed up a lot if the hard disk is defragmented properly. It is too bad that the tools provided with Windows XP are unable do the defragmentation well enough.
Posted by Anonymous | 11:49 AM