How to open folders with tons of files in XP as fast as other commande

[Kmuland]

I use XP,SP2, folders using always list view (no thumbs or other crap) and when I need to browse a folder with tons of files.. (>10.000 pics for example) with XP windows/explorer.. I have to wait long time.. same waiting when I select 10.000 files and I press copy/cut/paste...

I have noticed that using Norton commander like apps the waiting time is really smaller, also if I have accessed to one of these big folders recently and I return to the folder, the access is done instantly (some cache somewhere?)

There is any registry hack of fix for XP to get same speed when browsing/editing these big folders with the XP explorer as the other Commanders?

(PLZ.- Im not a newbie so don't reply about use antivirus/malware removal. I know that this is a "Feature" of XP.. the delay is cause XP reads some extra data on each file when accessing, and I want to get rid that process. Just display the files and names)

[Guest]

I don't know. But you may want to have a look at the following excerpt from about.com:

[...] you should see an image on the left side of the folder when you select a.bmp,.jpg,.gif, or other compatible file format. Unfortunately, this feature can disappear when a poorly designed installation program tampers with the Registry settings for the image files Windows is to preview. [...]

[...] launch the Registry Editor. Click the plus sign (+) next to the HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT folder icon, or double-click the icon itself. From there, navigate to the folder (called a key in Registry lingo) corresponding to the extension of the file type that Explorer is not previewing properly. For example, to fix the preview information for.jpg files, go to the.jpg key. If it has a plus sign next to it, click that to expand the tree diagram for the complete.jpg key. There you'll find a key called ShellEx. (If you don't see it, no problem: Just right-click the.jpg icon in the left pane and choose New, Key. Then type ShellEx and press Enter.)

Click the plus sign next to the ShellEx key to expand the keys underneath. There should be a key named {BB2E617C-0920-11d1-9A0B-00C04FC2D6C1}. If it's not there, take a deep breath, right-click the ShellEx key in the left pane, and choose New, Key. Then type {BB2E617C-0920-11d1-9A0B-00C04FC2D6C1} and press Enter. (You can now exhale.)

[jaclaz]

I use XP,SP2, folders using always list view (no thumbs or other crap) and when I need to browse a folder with tons of files.. (>10.000 pics for example) with XP windows/explorer.. I have to wait long time.. same waiting when I select 10.000 files and I press copy/cut/paste...

I have noticed that using Norton commander like apps the waiting time is really smaller, also if I have accessed to one of these big folders recently and I return to the folder, the access is done instantly (some cache somewhere?)

There is any registry hack of fix for XP to get same speed when browsing/editing these big folders with the XP explorer as the other Commanders?

(PLZ.- Im not a newbie so don't reply about use antivirus/malware removal. I know that this is a "Feature" of XP.. the delay is cause XP reads some extra data on each file when accessing, and I want to get rid that process. Just display the files and names)

I guess you should run an antivirus/malware removal utility ANYWAY. (they are not only for "newbies").

Now, seriously, that "delay" is INHERENT to using Explorer as a filemanager, NC or similar simply behave differently.

There may be also a .dll version problem:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/873414/en-us

If you are using NTFS, NTFS Last Access Time and NTFS 8.3 Filenames may be part of the problem:

http://home.comcast.net/~SupportCD/OptimizeXP.html

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/121007/en-us

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc785435(WS.10).aspx

Drive indexing may be another cause.

http://forums.techarena.in/guides-tutorials/3829.htm

http://forums.techarena.in/guides-tutorials/3829.htm#post38730

Do not underestimate conflicts with some software you have installed, and particularly with Context Menu handlers and with file associations, a semi-random example:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=464700

jaclaz

[Kmuland]

@jaclaz thanks for the help. I tried with the info in your links but the problem is present yet.

Seem that its a problem of XP architecture. As I was reading in other places Explorer enumerates all files to count total size and to display a progress bar.

I also think that explorer read properties of each file.. not only names... so imagine the delay with a folder with tons on files.

Its a pity that win98 and win2000 were faster displaying these big folders than newer OSs..

[jaclaz]

Hmm, no.

AFAIK, it's not an "XP problem" is "Explorer in XP".

Try using some other filemanager, as suggested in one of the given links, try XPlorer:

http://www.zabkat.com/x2lite.htm

or do a "paradigm shift", personally I use 7-zip as a file manager as though not exactly OFM (reference):

http://www.softpanorama.org/OFM/index.shtml

it can use two panes, and I cannot live without this feature.

Of the actual NC "clones", the one that works best for me on NT based systems is DN:

http://www.ritlabs.com/en/products/dn/

http://www.dnosp.com/

http://www.dn2.byte.nsk.su/

though quite a bit of configuration is needed.

But there are many other Freeware ones, including this one (UNtested by me, but that I have seen mentioned as being a nice one):

http://xiles.net/downloads/#NexusFile

jaclaz

[vinifera]

its most probably problem with VERCLSID.EXE

I had same problem, until people here recomended to replace it with "dud" (google it)

result was ultra speed browsing through folders with many files

[jaclaz]

Nice catch, vinifera , completely forgot about that issue

For the record the dud is here:

http://www3.telus.net/_/dud/

Some info here:

http://volja.hr/dmakriev/moj/articles.html

jaclaz

[Kmuland]

Thanks for the reply pal !

I tested tons of these explorer replacements.Currenty these are the ones that I use (no fav one yet.. but the speed is amazing)

- Nexusfile,

- farmanager http://www.farmanager.com/

- necromancer navigator http://ndn.muxe.com/

About your comment of winzip I was using the winrar explorer for long time too.. its also really fast when browsing

[Kmuland]

its most probably problem with VERCLSID.EXE

I had same problem, until people here recomended to replace it with "dud" (google it)

result was ultra speed browsing through folders with many files

wow I go to check!!! thanks for the tip pal. If its working Ill solve the problem and get rid of these file commanders

edit,.- Its removed already is this nlited version I use

Edited June 6, 2011 by Kmuland

[jaclaz]

About your comment of winzip I was using the winrar explorer for long time too.. its also really fast when browsing

Winzip was NOT mentioned AFAIK, 7-zip has two panes.

And yes, Necromancer is a "branch" of DN.

jaclaz

Edited June 6, 2011 by jaclaz

[vinifera]

Its removed already is this nlited version I use

its still better to replace it since Explorer will still be searching for it, in your case it won't find it, but is still linked to it...

when replaced with dud, it will find it, but as dud's nature is, will unload it/self instantly

you can alternatively hit ctrl+alt+del too see if anything else eats CPU time while your Explorer is lagging

Offtopic:

I even wonder would same thing help windows 7 too

as I see same file in sys32 and loading thumbnails on any file lags Explorer too (tho not that much as on XP)

Edited June 7, 2011 by vinifera

[allen2]

I have seen this behavior on every windows OS (including servers) when browsing more 30 000 files in only one folder with explorer. Never found a proper workaround but i did some tests and saw that even listing the files from a command prompt would take more time but would begin after a few seconds/minutes depending on how many files there are (i suppose, it is enumerating them). Some apps even stopped working with more than 100 000 files in one folder so that problem isn't only explorer related. With more than 1 000 000 files, ntbackup wasn't even able to backup the drive and it took hours to remove some of the files from a command line prompt. So the problem must lie in some system .DLL and its way to enumerate files.

[jaclaz]

Yeah, with more than 10 000 000 files , usually a small white flag is waved out of the PC

Comeon , there are better ways and more suitable tools to access/find a file in a directory with more than a senceful number of files...

jaclaz

[Kmuland]

I have seen this behavior on every windows OS (including servers) when browsing more 30 000 files in only one folder with explorer. Never found a proper workaround but i did some tests and saw that even listing the files from a command prompt would take more time but would begin after a few seconds/minutes depending on how many files there are (i suppose, it is enumerating them). Some apps even stopped working with more than 100 000 files in one folder so that problem isn't only explorer related. With more than 1 000 000 files, ntbackup wasn't even able to backup the drive and it took hours to remove some of the files from a command line prompt. So the problem must lie in some system .DLL and its way to enumerate files.

The thing that I really hate from M$ is that there is not info about why the delay when accessing to a huge folder.

When I use:

- farmanager: http://www.farmanager.com/

At least a file counter appear.. showing what amount of files are being read before display them

Something like that when accessing windows folders would be nice.

Probably all is related to these stupid DLLs that m$ add, like shdocvw.dll, and rest of sh*.dll, zipfldr.dll etc.... Im tempted to install win2000 and check if there is no delay as XP and beyond... The Explorer integrates less of these "fantastic features" that we really dont need and are only slowdowners

[allen2]

Why Microsoft designed a filesystem able to withstand 4 294 967 295 files when its dll are not able to handle the 1/4 ?

The more one million files in one folder was on a small partition about 70Go. Those where logs files (about 1 000 new create each working day) stored there for more than 3 years. Nobody ever thought that they should need to be removed after 1 month.