December 13, 2007

Improve Windows XP Pro’s NTFS performance by disabling the Accessed timestamp

Date: December 11th, 2007

 

Author: Greg Shultz

 

The New Technology File System (NTFS) is essentially a huge database that keeps track of all the files on your Windows XP Pro hard disk. When you create a file, or edit and then resave that file, the NTFS creates an entry and records the date in the Created or Modified timestamp so you can access the Properties sheet of the file and check the Created or Modified entries later.

 

NTFS also creates and keeps track of another timestamp called Accessed. The timestamp lists the date on which the file was last accessed and whether the file was opened and read or changed and saved. Each time NTFS updates a file’s Properties sheet, an accompanying disk read/write operation occurs. Since the Accessed timestamp does not add much useful information, you may consider the read/write operation incurred to record it wasteful.

 

If you have an application, such as a search tool, that frequently accesses many files for a simple read operation, the operation required to update each file’s Accessed timestamp can drain your system’s performance. Fortunately, you can use disable the Accessed timestamp using the FSUtil command. Here’s how:

 

  1. Open a Command Prompt window.
  2. Type the following command line:

 

FSUTIL behavior set disablelastaccess 1

cialis plus font-family: Verdana” align=”center”> 

If you wish to turn the Accessed attribute back on, simply repeat the command and replace 1 with 0.

 

Note: This tip applies only to Windows XP Professional.

Permalink • Print • 1 Comment

December 1, 2007

Leopard and Vista – Has the photocopying gone too far?

November 30th, 2007

Posted by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Remember that “Redmond, start your photocopiers” jibe back when Tiger was released?  Are Vista and Leopard all the proof we need that the photocopiers have been running flat out both at Redmond and Cupertino?

Leopard and Vista - Has the photocopying gone too far?Oliver Rist of PC Magazine wrote a piece called “Leopard is the New Vista, and It’s Pissing Me Off” which looks at a number of similarities between the two operating systems.  But before looking at the similarities Rist offers up his assessment of the new platform:

I’m not sure what ticks me off more about Leoptard (I can’t take credit for that nickname—some Brit coined it): the fact that so many of the semi-important changes don’t work, the fact that Apple turned a stable OS into a crash-happy glitz fest, or that the annoying, scruffy Live Free or Die Hard actor infecting my TV (and our Web site, by the way) is pretending that Leopard is better than Vista. It’s not better than Vista. Leopard is Vista. And Tiger is better than both of them!

A month of using Leopard with the same software I had under Tiger and the OS has dumped six times. That’s six cold reboots for Oliver. Apple isn’t even honest enough to admit that Leopard is crashing: The OS just grays out my desktop and pops up a dialog box telling me I’ve got to reboot. Like the whole thing is my fault.

I’m not sure that I’d complain if my PC fell over six times a month, but then again if an upgrade had taken the platform from not crashing into crashing more than once a week, that’s something that I’d probably notice, and which would probably annoy me too.

Onto the similarities.

Wait for a Service Pack—Perpetually

This is an interesting one:

Even our own reviewer, who loves Leopard, says not to upgrade until 10.5.1. And now that Apple has coughed that up, he’ll probably say to wait for 10.5.2. Or .3. Now where have I heard that advice before? Oh yeah, every time I reviewed Vista.

What makes it worse is this convoluted argument that my Apple friends give me: They’re more upset at Microsoft on account of it being in perpetual service pack limbo because Vista was supposed to be a ground-up redesign, whereas Leopard is really just a juicy point release. That makes zero sense to me. As far as I’m concerned, they both suck.

My guess is that operating systems have become so complex that serious bugs will be inevitable in the x.0 release.  If you want any guarantees relating to compatibility or stability, wait and see what other suckers users have to say.

The other issue that’s facing Apple is that the Mac ecosystem is growing.  One the population consisted of a bunch of elitists (some would say self-proclaimed elitists) who subscribed to the teachings of the Cult of Mac.  Now that core of devoted followers is being diluted by … ugh … consumers.  These people show little loyalty and just want things to work, and when they don’t work, they complain. 

Also, as the Mac ecosystem grows it has to support more and more hardware and software.  The problems of scale (in the form of reduced compatibility and reliability) that have caused problems for Windows users for years are now causing problems for Mac users.  The OS is a victim of its own success.

Needless Graphics Glitz

Poof, here’s Leopard, and the first thing the Apple folks want to show me is window transparency. Now all of a sudden that’s the coolest thing ever and an obvious example of cutting-edge OS evolution. I had to check to make sure my ears were working when I heard that one.

Does all this interface glitz that Microsoft and Apple have crammed into their respective OSes make the OS any better of easier to use?  I have to be honest and say that I’m not all that convinced.  Sure, it looks cool but there’s much more to usability than how something looks. 

The other issue is that while the interface is the bit that you see and interact with, any changes done to it can’t cialis order online really be considered to be improvements, because while some people will hail them the best thing in the history of best things, others will think that they suck and impact productivity.  When I look at the list of features that were dropped from Vista/Longhorn, I would have happily exchanged Aero for, say, WinFS.  The more we become focussed on the packaging, the more we lose sight of what’s important.

Pointless User Interface “Fixes”

Who’s responsible for Apple’s redesigned dock? I could understand a programmer thinking a mirrored dock would look great on his résumé. But I can’t imagine that a UI expert looked at it and said it was more functional than Tiger’s. A stupid cornflower-blue fuzzball is no replacement for Tiger’s clear, dark arrow that let me know what apps I had open. I could actually see the arrow. The blue fuzzy thing just blends in with the pointless mirrored reflections of the app icons, so now I’ve got to squint for the same information.

Again, it’s style over function. 

Nuked Networking

Leopard’s networking sees the physical part of the network just fine, wired or wireless. And if there’s an AFP share, that pops up like a puppy for a doggie treat. But the Web abounds in complaints—plaintive cries as to why Leopard seems to ignore Windows shares, and semi-effectual fixes. Or it sees Windows shares for a little while and then in a fit of pique decides to drop them again. It’s like the French waiter of networking. Oh, but who cares, Oliver? After all, it’s not as if networking were in any way related to business functionality. Or that interacting peaceably with Windows is in any way required. As long as we can talk to the iPod and Apple TV we’re good, right?

It seems to me that neither Apple nor Microsoft has done a good job of revamping the network stacks – I find that both Vista and Leopard are picky when it comes to seeing other systems.  For people who are trying to make these platforms work (as opposed to just playing with them) this is a real deal-breaker.  Networking is so critical to both home and enterprise users that to get it wrong, and so badly wrong, is simply incredulous.

Bundled Apps as New Features That Suck

Sidebar is a decent example of a New Feature That Sucks, but SideShow is a great example.

For Leopard, the sad bundled app-as-feature is Time Machine. To hear Mac moonies tell it, this is the best thing to happen to backup since the letter b. In reality, however, it sucketh and it sucketh huge.

Yep, Sidebar sucks.  SideShow sucks whole lemons.  But I have to say that while Time Machine could be a lot better, it’s not the suckiest bundled Leopard app by a long shot.  That prize in my opinion has to go to iTunes.

Conclusion

I’ve come to the conclusion that what’s holding back adoption of Vista is XP.  XP was around for too long, became too entrenched and was too good in comparison to Vista.  I’m detecting hints that the same might be true for Tiger.  It was good and around for a lot longer than any of the previous Mac OS X incarnations, and that allowed it to become the norm.  The longer that something is considered the norm the more resistance there is to change.

Thoughts?

Permalink • Print • Comment

November 15, 2007

Remove clutter with Windows XP SP2’s Duplicate Finder tool

by Greg Shultz | Feb 21, 2007

Takeaway: Hidden clutter exists on your Windows XP machine in the form of duplicate files. Here's how to free up valuable hard disk space by doing some early spring cleaning with the Duplicate Finder tool.

Even if you're a conscientious computer user (i.e., you regularly delete unnecessary files, empty the Recycle Bin, and run Disk Defragmenter), you may be unaware of a potentially big waster of hard disk space: duplicate files. Applications can litter your hard disk with duplicate files, or you can actually create duplicate files by copying files from one folder to another.

Windows XP's default installation doesn't provide you with a decent utility for tracking down duplicate files. However, Microsoft does have a tool called Duplicate Finder, which is part of the Windows XP Service Pack 2 Support Tools. Here's how to install and use the Duplicate Finder tool:

  1. Download the Windows XP Service Pack 2 Support Tools and follow the instructions for installing the Complete installation version.
  2. Open the Run dialog box by pressing [Windows]R.
  3. Type Dupfinder in the Open text box and click OK.
  4. Once DupFinder loads, simply select the drive or folder to search and then click the Start Search button.
  5. When DupFinder cialis mail order completes its search, you can scan through the list and examine the duplicate files.

Here are tips for working with the list of duplicate files:

  • Use either the Print Report or Export Data commands on the File menu to create a permanent record of the duplicate files.
  • Use the Sort command on the View menu to reorganize the list for better analysis.
  • To get more detailed information about any file, select the file, pull down the File menu, and select the Info command.
  • Leave duplicate files in the Windows folder and its subfolders alone.
  • If you don't recognize the duplicate file, it's better to use the Rename or Move commands on the File menu rather than the Delete command.

Note: This tip applies to both Windows XP Home and Windows XP Professional.

Permalink • Print • Comment

November 9, 2007

XP Home vs. XP Pro networking: What’s the difference?

by Jim Boyce | Apr 16, 2002

Takeaway: Windows XP has brought networking to a new level. But there are major differences between the Windows XP Professional version and Windows XP Home edition. Jim Boyce takes a look at both versions and the differences between networking features.

Whether you’re getting ready to roll out Windows XP for your users or you just want to get up to speed with it on your own computer, which Windows XP flavor is right for you in terms of networking features? Do you go with the vanilla Home Edition version or spring for the chocolate, nuts, and marshmallow chunks in Professional? The answer isn’t just about money, although with a $100 difference between the two, those extra munchies don’t come cheap. I’ll explain the main differences in networking features between the two versions of Microsoft’s newest operating system to help you decide which one fits your appetite.

No domains at Home
One of the biggest differences for networking features between Windows XP Professional and Windows XP Home Edition is the lack of domain membership support in Home Edition. A Windows XP Professional computer can join a domain and function as a domain member. Domain membership extends the benefits of distributed security to the Windows XP desktop, enabling users to easily access domain resources. It also lets the user share resources with other users and authenticate those users against the domain rather than require individual accounts on the local computer.

By contrast, computers running XP Home Edition cannot be domain members, although they can access resources on a domain member in the same way workgroup members running other Windows platforms can access domain resources. They can connect to and use network file and printer shares, provided they have a valid account in the domain.

One of the biggest drawbacks to the lack of domain support in Home Edition is the corresponding lack of support for group policies. You can configure local policies on a Home Edition computer, but the computer naturally can’t obtain group policies during domain logon because it can’t be a domain member. This means you can’t deploy the operating system with RIS, deploy applications with IntelliMirror, apply change control or restrictions, perform folder redirection, or accomplish any of the other feats of magic made possible by group policies.

Another advantage to using Windows XP Professional is that it defaults to using Kerberos for authentication. Kerberos offers the ability to reuse authentication credentials, providing single-sign-on capability. Although Home Edition provides password caching just like other Windows platforms (although it’s more secure), it doesn’t offer the same level of single-sign-on support provided by Windows XP Professional.

IPSec
With an increased emphasis on network security, many companies are looking for ways to secure network traffic across the LAN as well as across the WAN. IP Security, or IPSec, provides that means. IPSec lets Windows XP Professional authenticate and encrypt all IP traffic to and from the computer.

IPSec functions at the endpoints of the connection—only the two computers engaged in the secure connection need to support IPSec. Intermediary routers or computers that route the traffic need not support IPSec. For that reason, IPSec is easy to implement in a variety of scenarios, whether the computers are connected across a LAN, WAN, or remote access connection.

IPSec encrypts the IP traffic before it leaves the local computer, securely encapsulating the data to make it secure from sniffing or other compromise. The receiving computer decrypts the data. The result is a completely secure connection over the most public of networks, such as the Internet. Although IPSec might seem more suited to encrypting traffic between routers, it is also an important security mechanism to secure traffic between individual computers. If you need to provide secure connections between client systems or between client and server, and a router-to-router solution isn’t feasible, IPSec could be a major consideration for choosing Professional over Home Edition.

Remote Desktop
Those of us who have been in the IT community for very long are familiar with remote control applications like pcAnywhere and VNC. In fact, I use VNC and pcAnywhere on a daily basis for remote systems management. I also use them as an alternative to KVM switches for managing systems right in my own office. I like the response speed of pcAnywhere and the price of VNC (free) and its support for UNIX and Macintosh platforms.

Remote Desktop lets you connect to and use a remote computer running Windows XP Professional. Remote Desktop is a bit like a lightweight Terminal Services server, although as with most remote control applications, you can connect only one connection at a time to the remote computer. However, one connection to a client computer is generally all you really need. Remote Desktop works like other remote control applications: It’s similar to sitting in front of the computer, except the performance is slower. The actual speed depends on the available bandwidth between the client and server.

You can use almost any Windows platform as a client to connect to and use a remote Windows XP Professional computer. Windows XP Home Edition includes a Remote Desktop Connection client, but not the server component. In addition, the Windows XP Professional CD includes Remote Desktop client software you can use on any platform.

You might not always have access to a client computer with the Remote Desktop Connection client installed, but that isn’t a problem if you’ve planned ahead. The version of IIS included with Windows XP Professional includes a Remote Desktop Web Connection component—a combination of ActiveX controls and other components that lets remote users initiate a Remote Desktop connection to the computer from a Web browser. The session appears in the browser window rather than in a dedicated Remote Desktop Connection client window. The Remote Desktop Web Connection components don’t have to be installed on the computer to be remotely managed. Instead, you can install the components on a Web server on the same network as the computers to be managed and connect through that one Web server to each of the Windows XP Professional computers on the network that has Remote Desktop enabled. This is a great feature that lets users access their systems from public Internet nodes.

Offline Files
The Offline Files feature in Windows XP originated in Windows 2000 and is carried over to Professional, but not the Home Edition. Offline Files creates a local cache of shared network files and folders, enabling you to continue to work on them even when the shared resource is unavailable—such as when the server is down or the client computer is disconnected from the network.

Offline Files is an excellent way to provide consistent and seamless access to network resources. The feature is nearly transparent to the user, which should mean relatively few support calls. However, you should also implement the Encrypting File System (EFS) if you need to ensure the best possible security.

EFS
EFS provides cialis generic price on-the-fly encryption/decryption of NTFS volumes, folders, and files. EFS is included in Windows XP Professional, but not the Home Edition. Encryption is handled by a secondary file system driver and is completely transparent to the user, who doesn’t even need to know that a given folder on his or her computer is encrypted. The driver encrypts and decrypts the data on the fly, and encrypting a folder and its contents is as simple as setting a single attribute for the folder.

Simple File Sharing
Simple File Sharing (SFS) is one feature that confuses a lot of people who are new to Windows XP. SFS makes sharing pretty much a one-click operation and doesn’t require that the user know anything about permissions. However, SFS causes all remote access to the computer to be authenticated against the local Guest account. While this provides easy sharing for users, it also offers little in the way of granular control over access to resources. You can’t grant read-only access to one user or group and grant change permission to another because they are all authenticating against the same account. SFS is enabled by default for Windows XP Professional computers in a workgroup but is disabled for domain members.

With SFS enabled, the Security tab of a folder’s property sheet is hidden, making it rather difficult to set ACLs on the folder. You can turn off SFS on a Windows XP Professional computer to make the computer act just like Windows 2000 in terms of sharing. Windows XP then lets you configure ACLs on the folder and apply restrictions on a per-user or per-group basis. However, Home Edition doesn’t provide a way to turn off SFS. Instead, you have to boot the computer in Safe Mode to access a folder’s Security tab. While this gives advanced users a way to control sharing, it’s hardly a user-friendly approach to controlling file system access.

IIS
Windows XP Professional includes a stripped-down version of Internet Information Services (IIS), enabling a Windows XP Professional computer to host one Web and one FTP site on the computer. Home Edition doesn’t include IIS.

The management interface is the same for IIS as that on Windows 2000. Like IIS on Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Professional is limited to 10 concurrent connections. This makes IIS a good choice for sharing printers that make use of the Internet Printing Protocol (IPP) and provides resources to other computers on the LAN when the traditional resource-sharing methods aren’t ideal. It also lets users host and control their own personal Web sites. Plus, there is nothing to stop a Windows XP Professional computer from acting as a public Internet server in situations where the 10-connection limit isn’t a factor. For example, you might use Windows XP Professional as an inexpensive staging server to test Web sites prior to publishing to the final target server.

IIS also includes the SMTP service to allow the computer to act as an SMTP server. The SMTP service accepts incoming connections as well as outgoing connections, but it is intended more as an SMTP relay service than a full-blown e-mail server. The service doesn’t provide mailboxes but does support a drop folder for incoming messages not forwarded to another server. While you could write an application to pull messages from the drop folder, it isn’t worth the effort considering the minimal cost of the many third-party e-mail servers that run on Windows XP. So the SMTP service is useful mainly as an outgoing e-mail server for messages generated by forms or scripts on the local computer. It’s also useful for users who need to send outgoing messages for accounts hosted on remote servers that don’t allow mail relay from the user’s network.

What they have in common
Both Professional and Home Edition support some new features that simplify networking and add capabilities. For example, both let you bridge network interfaces, which can be handy in a home or small office network where you need to connect two disparate networks, such as a new wireless segment and an existing wired segment. Both also let you maintain an alternate TCP/IP configuration for a network interface. This is great for users who have one configuration for the notebook at the office and a different configuration for it at home.

New wireless technologies are supported by both versions for easy setup and configuration of wireless devices. Another commonality is the lack of NetBEUI. Although NetBEUI is included on the Windows XP CD, Setup no longer lists it as an available protocol. Instead, you have to click Have Disk and browse to the CD to install it.

So which one is right for my company?
What’s the bottom line? If you need domain membership and group policy, improved security through IPSec or EFS, or granular protection of shared folders, Windows XP Professional is the solution. If not, you can take advantage of the other new features and streamlined interface provided by Home Edition. At a difference of $100 a seat, you might save a bundle on your next deployment.

Permalink • Print • Comment

October 24, 2007

Windows automatically updating itself: Case closed?

October 22nd, 2007

Posted by Mary Jo Foley @ 12:52 pm

It’s time for the latest — and possibly final — installment of the seemingly never-ending saga of “Why is my copy of Windows automatically updating and rebooting itself?Windows automatically updating itself: Case closed?

In the last episode, the Windows Update Product team stated on its blog on October 12 that neither Automatic Update (AU) nor the bunch of patches that Microsoft rolled out on October 9, Patch Tuesday, were responsible for reports from Windows users earlier this month that their machines were automatically updating without their approval.

The Product Update team continued to investigate. At some point (I’m not sure exactly when, as the time stamp does not reflect the post update time/date) the team updated its blog again, suggesting a few possible causes for the reports by certain Windows users of their machines updating automatically. On the team’s list of possible reasons that AU settings can be (re)set or changed:

  • “During the installation of Windows Vista, the user chooses one of the first two recommended options in the “Out of Box Experience” and elects to get updates automatically from Windows
  • “The user goes to the Windows Update Control Panel and changes the AU setting manually
  • “The user goes to Security Center in Windows Vista and changes the AU setting
  • “The user chooses to opt in to Microsoft Update from the Microsoft Update web site
  • “The user chooses to opt in to Microsoft Update during the installation or the first run experience of another Microsoft application such as Office 2007.”

In short, Microsoft’s explanation was that users were knowingly or unknowingly changing their own Automatic Update settings and complaining about the results.

I went back and asked some of the many readers who complained in the comments on my blog post, as well as the additional ones who sent me e-mail, about both Vista and XP automatically updating even after they had indicated they did not want automatic updates to take effect automatically. I showed them Microsoft’s explanation. To put it politely, many did not feel Microsoft’s explanation was adequate. Here’s one reader response from a user who said that his XP machine rebooted itself this month, despite his AU settings being set to off:

“I’m not buying their explanation. I — for several years — have always shut off Windows update. I don’t want anything installed on my computer unless I know about it. If something is done on my computer, installations or whatever, I want to control it. I don’t allow any software vendor to update my software unless I’m aware of it. This includes Sun, Firefox, Thunderbird and others. I’m a computer tech and am keenly aware of how software changes can have adverse effects on a computer. I especially don’t trust Microsoft. Why and how Microsoft made changes to my computer very much concerns me and makes me more wary of MS than ever.”

Another reader astutely replied that he cialis daily generic thought that the users might be experiencing the problem noted my ZDNet blogging colleague David Berlind back in August. Berlind documented how Vista could force unwanted and immediate reboots on users. Microsoft’s explanation, at that time, was that users running in non-admin mode might be subject (knowingly or unknowingly) to the whims of their administrators. Microsoft’s explanation to Berlind:

“Because an administrative user had configured the machine to automatically stay up to date, the reboot is not postpone-able by a non-admin. Allowing a non-admin to override an admin’s wish is not the right default for security sake. This behavior is also controllable by policy to allow a non-admin user to interact with Windows Update. So yes, what [you] experienced is by design and justifiable as it does not allow a non-admin to go against the wishes of the administrative user. And again if running as a non-admin is his normal mode of operation, then there are policies which can be set to tweak behaviors more to his liking.”

I went back to the spokesperson for the Update team and asked whether it might be possible that this same policy decision was what was causing so many users to report that Vista and XP were automatically updating their machines against their wishes right after Patch Tuesday this month. The spokeswoman forwarded me the same response sent to Berlind, noting that it applied to Vista and XP.

The spokesperson said users who felt these settings were inappropriate should get their admins to change the policy setting in Windows Update so that a restart does not happen automatically after a scheduled install. (As Berlind noted back in August, changing this setting is not something many average users will be able to do easily.)

Microsoft is pointing users to this TechNet article explaining how to stop their machines from patching themselves without their approval, as well as this piece, which is specific to managing Windows Software Update Services settings.

There are still a number of unanswered questions, in my mind, regarding this matter. Why are reports of machines updating themselves automatically surfacing now, over the past several months, and not before now — especially in the case of five-year-old Windows XP? Are we going to start seeing these kinds of complaints flood in every month right around the time of Patch Tuesday? And are there other reasons beyond those Microsoft has suggested as the causes of Windows machines automatically patching and updating themselves which might be at fault here (as the reader I quoted is suggesting)?

Microsoft considers this Windows Update case closed. But is it? And should it be?

Permalink • Print • Comment
« Previous PageNext Page »
Made with WordPress and the Semiologic theme and CMS • Sky Gold skin by Denis de Bernardy