Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account



Photo

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

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1
ROTS

ROTS

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Joined 22-September 12
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
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, 13 September 2013 - 06:03 PM.



How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#2
Kelsenellenelvian

Kelsenellenelvian

    WPI Guru

  • Developer
  • 8,845 posts
  • Joined 18-September 03
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

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.

 

Attached File  Take_Ownership.reg   662bytes   6 downloads


Edited by Kelsenellenelvian, 11 September 2013 - 02:06 PM.


#3
MagicAndre1981

MagicAndre1981

    after Windows 7 GA still Vista lover :)

  • Patrons
  • 6,124 posts
  • Joined 28-August 05
  • OS:Vista Ultimate x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

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?


Posted Image

#4
MrJinje

MrJinje

    Tool™ Developer

  • Developer
  • 1,067 posts
  • Joined 14-October 09
  • OS:Server 2012R2
  • Country: Country Flag

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.sevenforu...add-remove.html

 

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

 

http://www.sevenforu...ble-access.html


Edited by MrJinje, 11 September 2013 - 10:22 PM.


#5
ROTS

ROTS

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 241 posts
  • Joined 22-September 12
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
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.

#6
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,659 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

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, 14 September 2013 - 04:43 AM.


#7
vinifera

vinifera

    <°)))><

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 971 posts
  • Joined 27-August 09
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

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, 14 September 2013 - 05:12 PM.

If you want true Windows user experience
try Longhorn builds: 3718, 4029, 4066

#8
MagicAndre1981

MagicAndre1981

    after Windows 7 GA still Vista lover :)

  • Patrons
  • 6,124 posts
  • Joined 28-August 05
  • OS:Vista Ultimate x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

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


Posted Image

#9
vinifera

vinifera

    <°)))><

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 971 posts
  • Joined 27-August 09
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

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


If you want true Windows user experience
try Longhorn builds: 3718, 4029, 4066

#10
MagicAndre1981

MagicAndre1981

    after Windows 7 GA still Vista lover :)

  • Patrons
  • 6,124 posts
  • Joined 28-August 05
  • OS:Vista Ultimate x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

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


Posted Image

#11
vinifera

vinifera

    <°)))><

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 971 posts
  • Joined 27-August 09
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

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, 16 September 2013 - 05:39 AM.

If you want true Windows user experience
try Longhorn builds: 3718, 4029, 4066

#12
MagicAndre1981

MagicAndre1981

    after Windows 7 GA still Vista lover :)

  • Patrons
  • 6,124 posts
  • Joined 28-August 05
  • OS:Vista Ultimate x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

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.


Posted Image

#13
vinifera

vinifera

    <°)))><

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 971 posts
  • Joined 27-August 09
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

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


Edited by vinifera, 17 September 2013 - 09:26 AM.

If you want true Windows user experience
try Longhorn builds: 3718, 4029, 4066

#14
MagicAndre1981

MagicAndre1981

    after Windows 7 GA still Vista lover :)

  • Patrons
  • 6,124 posts
  • Joined 28-August 05
  • OS:Vista Ultimate x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

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


Posted Image

#15
vinifera

vinifera

    <°)))><

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 971 posts
  • Joined 27-August 09
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

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 ?


If you want true Windows user experience
try Longhorn builds: 3718, 4029, 4066

#16
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,659 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Are we going on a spin-off of the usual "RAM is there to be used and Windows knows how to use it alright" vs. "RAM is there to be kept free and just absorb some (little) power"  flamewar? :unsure:

 

jaclaz



#17
vinifera

vinifera

    <°)))><

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 971 posts
  • Joined 27-August 09
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

no, I don't want to fight, I wanted merely point out that prefetcher being such agressive service (atleast in vista)
can't be "light" (as given example above)


If you want true Windows user experience
try Longhorn builds: 3718, 4029, 4066

#18
MagicAndre1981

MagicAndre1981

    after Windows 7 GA still Vista lover :)

  • Patrons
  • 6,124 posts
  • Joined 28-August 05
  • OS:Vista Ultimate x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

sure it is light. It doesn't effect other tools it is better to reload data in background than loading on demand several files.

 

 

vinifera is simply against everything from Vista WITHOUT understanding how it works:

 

http://technet.micro...istakernel.aspx


Posted Image

#19
vinifera

vinifera

    <°)))><

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 971 posts
  • Joined 27-August 09
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

no i'm not, thats even rude to say

Longhorn introduced few good things which IMO XP should have had


Edited by vinifera, 18 September 2013 - 11:54 AM.

If you want true Windows user experience
try Longhorn builds: 3718, 4029, 4066

#20
Kelsenellenelvian

Kelsenellenelvian

    WPI Guru

  • Developer
  • 8,845 posts
  • Joined 18-September 03
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

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?

 

 

sure it is light. It doesn't effect other tools it is better to reload data in background than loading on demand several files.

 

 

vinifera is simply against everything from Vista WITHOUT understanding how it works:

 

http://technet.micro...istakernel.aspx

 

 

Wow it's posts like this that made me wonder where the quality control on this board went.

 

I stated a opinion and now i'm being a troll? (I said arguably and wasn't being rude)

 

Some of the things supporters get away with saying and I've been warned for some pretty lame reasons...

 

@ jaclaz = @ Vista post sp1 era. I never tried Vista after the first couple of months. When Vista was released it was the worst OS I had ever tried to work with. (This is coming from a WinME lover)


Edited by Kelsenellenelvian, 18 September 2013 - 11:11 PM.


#21
AnX

AnX

    ...

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Joined 20-June 12
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

 

 

@ jaclaz = @ Vista post sp1 era. I never tried Vista after the first couple of months. When Vista was released it was the worst OS I had ever tried to work with. (This is coming from a WinME lover)

 

 

You shouldn't adopt an OS at it's RTM stage if it's Windows - most people learned that with XP. You should've tried Vista when it got to SP1, or SP2, like XP.



#22
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,659 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

You shouldn't adopt an OS at it's RTM stage if it's Windows - most people learned that with XP. You should've tried Vista when it got to SP1, or SP2, like XP.

 

JFYI, RTM means "Release To Manufacturers", it only applies to the edition given to (large) OEM's before the official launch of the product.

 

The fact that the good MS guys (as hinted before) released it before it was "ready" (and senselessly induced everyone to install it on underpowered hardware) only means that in this case (not the only one) they behaved as "perfect morons", making the Vista OS getting the "bad name" it bears till today, making it a huge Commercial fiasco and somehow "forcing" for an earlier release of 7.

 

Namely, in the case of Vista, RTM is November 8, 2006 and the end-customer version was released January 30, 2007, which would have allowed almost three months to fix (if they wanted) the most obvious issues.

Not that after one year, when the SP1 was released February 4, 2008, it didn't have it's big share of issues:

http://4sysops.com/a...service-pack-1/

Remember that it took more than 2 months to have the mess up with Windows Updates fixed for those that had the issue...

 

So, you couldn't even rely on SP1, one year later, but had to wait for the "fixed" SP1.

 

Of course the OS itself has no faults for the mis-management the good Microsoft guys did, but it is obvious that the "bad name" will always remain attached to the poor innocent OS.

 

And the SP2, while containing good things, was of little use, as it came out on April 28, 2009, when all the media was already trumpeting about Windows 7 and how good it would be (soon available).

 

Of course this has affected the most the less-technical savvy people, the "common" end customers which would just buy a HP, a Dell or any "big brand" OEM laptop or desktop with the pre-installed system, and later found out that the thing they bought was outperformed by the older XP machine their neighbour or friend had.

Initially no info (or proper, or enough info) was given about the all new (also mostly senseless IMHO) BOOTMGR+\boot\BCD "shift" from good ol' NTLDR+BOOT.INI+NTDETECT.COM, and in such cases when the average Joe would have a booting issue the "procedure" adopted at the time by "highly specialized technicians" was to wipe and reinstall or use the recovery partition to reset to factory status. :ph34r:

The initial common issues with drivers, UAC, Aero not running, and what not completed the scenario. :w00t:

 

No, it has not been a "lucky" OS. :(

 

jaclaz


Edited by jaclaz, 19 September 2013 - 06:28 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users