Charlie
Wed Oct 31 12:36:56 PDT 2007
if it's a 32-bit app, it will NOT have access to the real system32 folder.
It will get the SysWOW64 folder, only it will _appear_ to be the system32
folder. Nope, I'll pass. (and yes, you should definitely not be running with
UAC off. BAD idea.)
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
"Carlos" <Carlos@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E1E45E0A-933B-45FB-88A1-892A6A1CBDA9@microsoft.com...
> Charlie:
> I use it without the need for elevation (will it be because I have UAC
> disabled?, "bad idea", I know)
> In any case you can always right click on the icon/shortcut and choose
> "run
> as administrator or elevated" (I am not at my Vista PC now so I can't
> recall
> the exact context menu syntax).
> The MOST beautiful thing about Ztree is that, being a 32-bit app, it can
> access to the real system32 folder without being re-routed to the syswow64
> one!
> Carlos
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
>
>> how well does it handle elevation, Carlos? Do I need to start it in
>> elevated
>> mode? Or will it trigger a prompt when it needs to?
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>>
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>>
>> "Carlos" <Carlos@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:496A8631-B50F-43D4-B50A-35B8BAE01E75@microsoft.com...
>> > Nice Bike,
>> > Try ZtreeWin (
http://www.ztree.com/html/ztreewin.htm) instead of Free
>> > Commander.
>> > It is a text mode clone of the old XTree.
>> > I have used it as my File Manager for many years.
>> > Works on all OS's (excluding DOS).
>> > Once you get used to its speed you will never use Windows Explorer
>> > again.
>> > You can try before you buy.
>> > Carlos
>> >
>> > "Nice Bike" wrote:
>> >
>> >> One of the reasons I asked about WIN XP64 is that when I click in
>> >> Windows Explorer on a drive to explore that drive, Explorer is taking
>> >> a long time to 'scan' thru the whole drive, every time I click on that
>> >> drive. Especially after restarting Explorer because it sometimes
>> >> 'hangs' when it's busy with scanning a drive. I can't seem to make XP
>> >> stop scanning drives. I've turned the Index service off already.
>> >> Another example is when I select allot of files to move to another
>> >> directory and right-click for 'cut', it will take ages for the context
>> >> menu to appear, because explorer is scanning al those files again.
>> >> This is very annoying. I am now trying other 'explorers'
>> >> like FreeCommander. FC seems a bit faster. Not as much scanning of
>> >> drives, but still uses some of Win Explorer's routines.
>> >> I have 1GB RAM, and SATA II harddrives, but are connected to SATA I
>> >> controllers on the mainboard, switching to SATA II controllers could
>> >> yield some speed, but that would mean a new mainboard, and some $$$.
>> >>
>> >> I was thinking that WIN64 would use the 64bit CPU instructions for
>> >> Windows Explorer, so it would be faster.
>> >> I've read that with the XP SP3 there would be a patch for faster drive
>> >> access that fixes the 'bug' of re-scanning a whole drive time after
>> >> time. We'll see...
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for your quick reply.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:07:48 +0100, "Tony Sperling"
>> >> <tony.sperling@db<REMOVE>mail.dk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >If you have a suitable amount of memory (up to 4GB) and good HD(s)
>> >> >and
>> >> >you
>> >> >keep your system trim I can't see any apparent reason why your system
>> >> >should
>> >> >be slow. But then, I am not used to handling that amount of files at
>> >> >one
>> >> >time. With that kind of task, I would investigate using a script (set
>> >> >of
>> >> >scripts?) and run it in the background and forget about it - 64bit or
>> >> >not.
>> >> >
>> >> >The popular wisdom has it that a 64bit system is called for if you
>> >> >must
>> >> >have
>> >> >more than 4GB memory and/or must use a 64bit app.
>> >> >
>> >> >Personally, I have to stress the point that XP x64 handles Virtual
>> >> >Memory
>> >> >much better than anything else I know of. It seems quick and there's
>> >> >nothing
>> >> >much that can bring it to it's knees. But it is a subjective feeling.
>> >> >There
>> >> >are no benchmarks to support that it should be faster, but it
>> >> >certainly
>> >> >seems more responsive - awake - can't wait to get going!
>> >> >
>> >> >I have no use for more memory and I don't do any work that requires
>> >> >64bit
>> >> >processing, but I love it. It is very stable and reliable, and it has
>> >> >an
>> >> >exemplarily decent community, but the snag is that you have to do
>> >> >your
>> >> >own
>> >> >detective-work and make sure you can have 64bit drivers for all the
>> >> >hardware
>> >> >and devices you mean to employ. Anything and everything that needs a
>> >> >driver
>> >> >now, needs a 64bit driver then! This part is still lacking, sadly.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >For all I know, I can only recommend it - if you really need it? -
>> >> >that
>> >> >is
>> >> >doubtfull!
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >What is also doubtfull, is wether you should exchange your OS and
>> >> >install it
>> >> >on the same machine? There is much to indicate that XP x64 might be
>> >> >more
>> >> >demanding on the quality of such things as memory and PSU, and it
>> >> >very
>> >> >often
>> >> >needs a BIOS update. A floppy drive for SATA drivers at installation
>> >> >will be
>> >> >mandatory and a few more specialties.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Tony. . .
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"Nice Bike" <nowhere@beta.info> wrote in message
>> >> >news:077fi3h7gdbkqiessa4e2bdspno8e2h11f@4ax.com...
>> >> >> Using XP pro now. I'm doing allot of large amount-file-moving from
>> >> >> directory to directory. So I'm using Windows Explorer allot with
>> >> >> cut
>> >> >> and paste. WIN XP seems very slow sometimes when accessing
>> >> >> directories
>> >> >> with large amounts of files 20,000+ or so.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So, I was thinking of installing WIN XP-64bit. Will it be faster
>> >> >> for
>> >> >> me with al the file moving and organizing I'm doing? I wont be
>> >> >> using
>> >> >> any 64bit applications per se.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>>