Here's a good one for a master sleuth. Running 98SE, laptop.
When opening any folder from the desktop or quick launch taskbar, it takes 8 seconds for the folder to open. On the other hand, any subfolder in that folder will open instantly when clicked. The delay is for main folders only. All other desktop items, docs, spreadsheets, or programs works fine.
There was a fix for this on google, but I lost it. It had to do with corrupted registry or windows entry. I could down load the file and replace the corrupted one and everything worked perfectly for months. I think the corruption comes from IE 6.0
Nothing to do with msconfig, defragment, or diskscan.
Any one have an idea or seen a post elsewhere?
Hi Carye,
That sure would be an annoyance.
As you can see, I run Win98. However, I haven't run into that difficulty.
I hope you will post the "fix" if/when you find it.
Best Regards
1. Windows Explorer Default: “View Files as WebPage”
And
2. “Remember Each Folder’s View Settings”
Dialogue and explanation follows:
From:
[removed]
"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" <[removed]> wrote in
message news:[removed]…
>The skullbut is THAT having around 100 folders in My Documents will
| >cause sluggishness IN & OUT of My Documents, when navigating folders.
| >I've seen many threads in which that is a cure
|
| Yes; that is a particular issue (and one I haven't seen).
|
| >"Pete" <[removed]> wrote in message
|
| >| No that's not it. Folders that are one level into C:\ with files
| >| under 10k run slow.
|
| You may find it's not so much the size of the files, but how many they
| are and whether there is any per-file content lookup overhead imposed.
|
| Subdirectories are cluster chains, and can be long, fragmented and
| slow to traverse if there are a large number of files etc. in that
| subdirectory itself (i.e. those nested within subdirs of this subdir
| do not add to this overhead). This is one argument in favor of
| organizing large numbers of files in a hierarchy tree rather than as a
| mass of entries in one big flat subdirectory.
|
| If the system merely has to enumerate and list the names of the files,
| using generic icons as per the file type, then nothing other than the
| directory's cluster chain length and fragmentation applies. There'd
| be some processing involved in sorting a large number of entries by
| name, or however else your folder sort order is set.
|
| Trouble is, many things can force the system to look at the contents
| of each file, and that really IS going to hurt…
| - icon images within .exe, .lnk, .pif files
| - as above for other file types (e.g. "graphic content as icon")
| - antivirus scanners that check files as listed
| - various thumbnailers and indexers that can impose this overhead
| - active malware that may check files to infect them
| …and some folder views add extra overhead such as looking up the
| (x,y) position of each icon (the Large and Small Icon dummy views) or
| processing as per the relevant .htt script ("View As Web Page").
|
| Some of the above may recurse down subtrees, giving you different
| mileage when you compare flat (e.g. 1000 items in one directory) vs.
| nested (e.g. 10 subdirs each containing 100 files each) subtrees.
|
| But Pete's original problem desc points to the shape of the answer…
|
| >| > "Pete" <[removed]> wrote in message
|
| >| > | …problems with opening and closing directories in Windows98
| >| > | Second Edition.
|
| Win98SE duhfaults to "View As Web Page", with all the risks (e.g.
| malware dropped as the "web view script") that that implies. As a
| start, I'd disable that and see if the problem goes away.
|
| >| > | For directories that haven't been open for a while
| >| > | This is the same for new directories just created.
|
| Now *that* is a key indicator! Windows Explorer remembers the last X
| folders that have been viewed in a part of the registry. Seems like
| when this "how-to-view" info exists, the display is fast, but where it
| has to be rebuilt anew (because the folder hadn't been viewed for a
| while and has been purged from the list, or is a new one that has
| never been viewed and thus has no prior info) this is slow.
|
|
| I'd try with "View As Web Page" turned OFF and with "don't remember
| (x,y) co-ordinates" List view in effect. One or both of those changes
| may fix the problem; if not, I'd chase up underfootware that may be
| adding overhead to the process of listing files.
|
| For example, if you have a "feature" to show the contents of graphic
| files (.jpg etc.) as the icon, and you find dirs full of such files to
| be particularly slow to view, then etc.
|
| Try with other file types, such as Office documents (Find Fast?) or
| infectable code such as .exe (resident malware or av?) and see if you
| can turn up a pattern related to that.
|
| Finally (and my regular readers may say, inevitably) I'd do a formal
| virus scan to exclude that hard-to-find, potentially dangerous factor.
Wow! Not sure I got all of that, however I don't run any folder as a webpage. I do have remember last position, etc. turned on. I've done all the spybot, adware, yahoo spy finder, AVG runs and all come up clean.
I do think there's some point on how windows runs the folders. It must be looking for some executable that opens all windows quickly, mine is missing or corrupted and keeps searching until some default is reached, hence the 8 second delay.
I've also run pc doctor and errorkiller, no change.
Is there such an executable that controls how files open?
Thanks for the replies.
In Windows Explorer - Tools - Folder Options - View
…. uncheck "Remember each folder's view settings"
however I don't run any folder as a webpage.
Oh really. are you sure? Some "view as Webpage" settings don't "appear" any differently in your Windows Explorer unless embedded files include .exe, .pif, .html executables, so you may have some of the settings set to display if files are present (and this could be slowing your access time as Explorer scans through the few extra times it would take to sort/detect any such files, even if they aren't there.)
In Windows Explorer - Tools - Folder Options - General(tab) - "custom, based on settings you chose" - Settings…………………… Un-Select any settings related to "View as Webpage"
(be careful in doing this, as the options can take you all the way to "Display Settings" and DeskTop)
(If you set View DeskTop as a WebPage……. All your Icons disappear)
(That may not be a bad thing, if you have a pretty picture set as Background, but can be "unsettling" if you didn't expect the change)
(You can reverse any change you don't like simply by reverse order and unselecting an option you don't like)
(If you lose your Desktop Icons in this process, just right-click on the desktop. In Display Properties - Web - uncheck "View Active Desktop as a WebPage" … voila' your Icons are back)
OK, I'm done now. (was having too much fun exploring the various settings, sorry)
Well, interesting. Did as you directed. Removed all reference to Web based folders and applied. Timing went from 8 seconds to 6 for opening any desk folder. Can you get me down to 2-3 seconds as before? You're onto something. As I mentioned, there was a post on google for "windows slow or slow folders" that had one post about changing one tiny file or executable because of corruption in the C:Windows file. I did that by downloading an original dll or something like that and everything returned to normal, but I lost how to do it and for the life of me, I can't find that post anymore. Is there something in windows that times or directly governs the folder openings?
Many thanx for your help and interest. May the gods rain down riches on you and yours.
Cary
If it "is" a missing or corrupt "file".dll, then you can run SFC to check your Operating System and replace any missing or corrupt entries.
In the meantime, I suppose the search goes on.
How about Registry items? Win98 saves up to 5 copies of backup registries. Of course, not all of them will be clean, but you should be able to discriminate which are "functional" because of the notation "Started".
First: "Export" a copy of your current (entire) registry and save it.
That way you will be able to get back to your current configuration if none of the Windows-backed-up copies do the trick for you.
Hi,
Well, you were right the first time. I had to fiddle with the view folders setting. There were two old forgotten folders that I must've experimented with way back when and changed their setting to web folder view. After converting them all to one look and rebooted, everything returned to normal.
My deepest thanks. I was ready to scratch this opsys. I guess I'm marking time with 98se anyway. I hear Vista's around the corner. Maybe I should bite the bullet.
Happy trails,
Cary
Good Work Cary!
(Guess it was the ole' (like current folder) and (reset all folders) buttons that needed to be pressed.)
Easy to overlook. Sorry I wasn't more insistant about those items. Actually, I don't think I even mentioned them. Sorry.
As to "Vista", I think it will be at least a year of so before I'd even consider Vista, just to give them time to work out enough of the bugs to get at least one Service Pack.
Not only that……………. Have you seen the Prices?!!!!???
Windows Vista Buisness Edition
Suggested retail price for full package product, $299.00 USD. Suggested upgrade retail price, $199.00 USD.
Windows Vista Home Premium
Suggested retail price for full package product, $239.00 USD. Suggested upgrade retail price, $159.00 USD.
Windows Vista Home Basic
Suggested retail price for full package product, $199.00 USD. Suggested upgrade retail price, $99.95 USD.
Windows Vista Ultimate
Suggested retail price for full package product, $399.00 USD. Suggested upgrade retail price, $259.00 USD.
Click on the different versions for information and prices are at the bottom
As you may see in my Profile here at TomCoyote, I am a fellow user of Win98, and very unlikely to give it up since my machine is embarassingly old, slow, and not fit for even XP. I use a "fixer-upper" loaner that has XP on it for reference use when assisting Members who run XP.
I would be interested in a legitimate copy of Windows 2000, which is much less "resource demanding", but the prices are still beyond my reach for even that.
Yes, I have seen the prices. Luckily, I still have an active grad student at UCSD. He can purchase any software for 50% off the upgrade price from one of those "only sell to teacher's/college student websites". Sort of takes the sting out. Somehow, I feel there is still enough profit in there for Ol' Bill. I will wait several months after the release to see what shakes out. I'm sure the hackers are already busy to mix things up.
C'est le guerre.
And so it goes…….
Cary, I'm glad you decided to become a Member here at TomCoyote.
I hope you will stick around to learn as you can, and help as you are able.
Best Regards
