Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ROTS

Make Vista stop updating, reading, preventing access to records?

22 posts in this topic

Okay these are the things I am searching for currently, to make my Vista Exprience better.

1. How to get full permission access to all folders?

basically many folders are blocked from my view in Vista. I want to access them, in order to remove

and delete personal data. I am talking about the same problem in XP where you lose permissions to

your folders, but this is Vista which is not XP. In this problem VIsta will not give me access period. I need ful ermissions.

2. Stop Vista from reading or writing data to a hard drive? Apparently everytime I insert my second hard

drive, which has more then one partitians. Vista keeps attempting to make a thumb nail or record the names of the files.

Everything is okay, until I start to access that folder.

The problem is so bad, the computer freezes, or the Explorer freezes. It is like Vista is scanning all of my files, even if I turn off.

I just want Vista to stop, going threw my files like a fine tooth comb. It is annoying, because many of my Zip files are also damaged, because Vista keeps looking inside them. It damages my files and makes my computer slow down.

3. Prevent updates periods. The moment I put my Vista online, it is like the computer programs installed and running or not running are on a magical race to update. What I have a problem with, is when the first two things occur with the third. It is like Vista is attempting to look at all my devices and give the most recent updates.

For OSX this is normal and a good thing, because OSX users are either computer savy or not. Windows this a bad thing, because after the update something does not work the same way, like a user created program.

This is one of the reasons why I still like using 98. I do not have to hear the drive work like crazy doing a bunch of things I do not ask it for. It is insane.

Edited by ROTS
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck, Vista was quite arguably the WORST OS MS came out with next to 8.

Windows 7 is MUCH easier to deal with and fix. You might want to look at switching to 7.

Here is a .reg file for taking ownership of those pesky folders.

Once you take ownership deleting them is easier.

Take_Ownership.reg

Edited by Kelsenellenelvian
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no Vista/7 don't differ the way they handle folder permissions. So what does 7 makes better for you in this term or do you only want to troll?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) you got the Take Ownership tweak, if that don't work and you're not on english windows report back and I tell you the fix.

2) Control your index service like this, or if needed one can likely disable the service entirely.

http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/17854-index-locations-add-remove.html

3) Easy enough to disable the Windows Update service. It is a simple reg tweak.

http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/88554-windows-update-enable-disable-access.html

Edited by MrJinje
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I make a new thread, I think the this is the same problem.

I decdied to reformat my USB flashs. On the flash I noticed Windows Vista making a temp folder. This temp folder

delete itself. Now imagine if Vista decided to snap pictures, make txt recordings. I am guessing Vista keeps

making these records, in these folders, and pauses because the ammount of files it has to index.

I want to turn off all indexing. So that it reads a folder, and takes no action at all........just like in Windows 98.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For once in my life, I will support MagicAndre1981 :unsure: (and his good opinion on Vista :ph34r:), possibly only to undermine some of Kelsenellenelvian certainties.

Let's use some logic.

Windows NT 4.00 is NT 4.0 ;)

----------------------------------------

Windows 2000 is NT 5.0

Windows XP is NT 5.1

Server 2003 (or XP 64 bit) is 5.2

-----------------------------------------

Windows Vista is NT 6.0

Windows 7 is NT 6.1

Windows 8 is NT 6.2

------------------------------------------

(I inserted a few separating lines to highlight the points I'll try to make :whistle:)

Windows 7 is nothing but a "service pack" to Windows Vista, or if you prefer an evolution, with very little (if any at all) "dramatic" changes over Vista.

Vista when it came out was the worse OS I have ever seen, but as MagicAndre1981 often points out, once it got it's SP1 and a few updates it became as good as it could be.

If you strip Windows 7 of the added bells and whistles, and of a very few added little features, you find underneath it a Vista alright.

The real mistakes IMHO MS made were two:

  1. to publish Vista at a time when it was NOT mature enough
  2. to have it deployed by the various OEM's on underpowered hardware (and inducing people to install it on existing underpowered hardware)

On proper hardware, and properly updated/configured, VIsta is not at all that bad, and it is not like 7 "shines" in comparison.

@Kel

In other words, if you start to think at Windows 7 as Vista SP3 you will have IMHO a more correct point of view on the matter.

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

except UI improvement of 7 over vista is huge, and that means alot to user

just compare Explorer, vista's is clunky, everything is squished, icon below icon, no organisation, not to mention the annoying scroll to the right thingy
7's explorer finally introduced separation of different folder types, its neater-cleaner-more organised, you have favorites tree which is excelent

vista taskbar = xp + useless thumbnails

7 one is fantastic

desktop, sidebar vs free floating gadgets, 7 wins

start menu ?, small change but instant shutdown button again wins in 7

-

system wise win7 has less agressive superfetch and UAC

Edited by vinifera
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and the less agressive superfetch makes Win7 slower because Win7 has to load more data from disk later.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually prefetch is useless :P
so its best to disable it, especially on SSD

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when Superfetch was born, there were no SSDs available for home users.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its useless on normal HDD too

yes, goal is to load all crap you use frequent in RAM

but to do that OS has to

1. index the stuff

2. constantly analyse and write data of (how they said) "your habits"

3. when it by some miracle finishes within a month

  • it reads .sf files (think that was the extension)
  • then within them sees path to real programs
  • then finally loads your programs into the RAM

this is waste of time, and waste of computer's work, while both vista and 7 do this job, youre better of defragment your HDD and normally run apps
not to mention how superfetch slows down "boot to desktop" process as with case of fonts, OS needs to load this .pf list

and normally biggest fail is when you restart/shutdown PC, all this cached RAM info is gone and process of loading all starts again

at least to me, for any home user this is crap feature, for business and companies ok, they probably have PC on for weeks

Edited by vinifera
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it makes perfect sense on HDD drives. It speeds up boot, app launching and switching between Applications. Read the other topic where you replied The speed benefit from Vista over 7 comes from better Superfetch usage.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it does speed up later, but my main point is: at what cost and time ? :)

Edited by vinifera
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

which cost? Low costs, because it runs with a low IO priority.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a chance to see in certain shop of owners PC back then
his machine had 16 GB RAM, and 12 GB of those 16 were FULL because of that prefetch

are you telling me that reading those scattered 12 GB all over disk were low I/O ?

how can it be low when it has to load it all on startup immediately ?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.