|
Home > Archive > Programming with dBASE > March 2006 > Video memory and app speed
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Video memory and app speed
|
|
|
| Giving users the option of configuring their screens means I use lots of objects in some forms. When I was using DB2K, I found that the memory on the video card seemed to affect the speed of these screens.
With the newer equipment, I believe a workstation generally uses shared memory for video. A couple questions:
Is there a way to adjust how much video memory is shared so I can test to see if my app will speed up painting objects on the screen after increasing the video shared memory?
Anyone else find adding video memory speeds up a Plus 2.21 (or higher) app?
Thanks for any ideas,
Rick
| |
| David Kerber 2006-03-24, 9:24 am |
| In article <#lpMYUsTGHA.1488@news-server>, Sportman7@netzero.com says...
> Giving users the option of configuring their screens means I use lots of objects in some forms. When I was using DB2K, I found that the memory on the video card seemed to affect the speed of these screens.
>
> With the newer equipment, I believe a workstation generally uses shared memory for video. A couple questions:
>
> Is there a way to adjust how much video memory is shared so I can test to see if my app will speed up painting objects on the screen after increasing the video shared memory?
>
> Anyone else find adding video memory speeds up a Plus 2.21 (or higher) app?
>
> Thanks for any ideas,
> Rick
The effect you are seeing is probably not due so much to the amount of
memory on the newer card, but to its ability to offload some of the
video processing from the cpu to the graphics processor on the card,
which can do graphics manipulation stuff a whole lot faster than a
general purpose cpu can.
--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).
| |
| Les Shewchuk 2006-03-24, 8:24 pm |
| And to add to David,
The reason that video cards have memory is the same reason that your CPU has
a local cache. Generic RAM is slow by comparison. Not only is the memory
module slower, but you have to get to it via the motherboard.
The shared memory is never going to perform as well as the dedicated stuff.
The big advantage to it, is it's less expensive.
While standard applications get a speed boost using dedicated video ram,
having more video ram will not. The amount of Ram used by the screen is
dictated by your screen resolution and colour depth. As long as the memory
is large enough to handle your settings (x2 as even Windows uses double
buffering to smooth animation) the rest seems wasted.
The REAL purpose for more video ram is...you guessed it...3D acceleration
used mainly by games. By placing the texture bitmaps, the map object vector
points and the character polygons in the video ram, along with the built in
pre-calculated math tables, you get an incredible speed boost over sitting
down and calculating and rendering each frame. (We're talking on orders of
magnitude here)
Other applications, like video playback and editing can also take advantage
of the extra memory if two ways. If you have your TV signal hooked to your
computer (I do) the signal is translated, buffered and played back from the
video RAM without ever involving the motherboard (unless you're recording.
then the video is saved directly to the hard drive). For Editing, the
playback and results are loaded to video ram a second or so at a time to
allow the Video Card to do it's work while the CPU is freed to do the hard
stuff.
Les Shewchuk
Professional Dabbler
"David Kerber" < ns_dkerber@ns_Warren
RogersAssociates.com> wrote in message
news:MPG. 1e8dd6863c43920f9896
85@news.dbase.com...
> In article <#lpMYUsTGHA.1488@news-server>, Sportman7@netzero.com says...
>
> The effect you are seeing is probably not due so much to the amount of
> memory on the newer card, but to its ability to offload some of the
> video processing from the cpu to the graphics processor on the card,
> which can do graphics manipulation stuff a whole lot faster than a
> general purpose cpu can.
>
> --
> Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
> newsgroups if possible).
| |
|
| David,
I am finding for some of my clients that certain parts of my app run slowly. These parts do not intereact a great deal with the tables, but rather set the objects on the screen based on the data on a single record. So they are not moving thru records, b
ut rrather painting the screen.
Based on your response, sounds like maybe a dedicated graphics card could speed them up, and conversion to SQL (Firebird) which speeds up data manipulation, would not be as effective.
Will have to do some experiments, tho the app runs so fast on my network that it will be hard to see a difference.
Thanks,
Rick
David Kerber Wrote:
> In article <#lpMYUsTGHA.1488@news-server>, Sportman7@netzero.com says...
>
> The effect you are seeing is probably not due so much to the amount of
> memory on the newer card, but to its ability to offload some of the
> video processing from the cpu to the graphics processor on the card,
> which can do graphics manipulation stuff a whole lot faster than a
> general purpose cpu can.
>
> --
> Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
> newsgroups if possible).
| |
|
| Les,
Thanks for all the info. As I posted to David, I am guessing a separate graphics card could help with some parts of my app performance.
Rick
Les Shewchuk Wrote:
> And to add to David,
>
> The reason that video cards have memory is the same reason that your CPU has
> a local cache. Generic RAM is slow by comparison. Not only is the memory
> module slower, but you have to get to it via the motherboard.
>
> The shared memory is never going to perform as well as the dedicated stuff.
> The big advantage to it, is it's less expensive.
>
> While standard applications get a speed boost using dedicated video ram,
> having more video ram will not. The amount of Ram used by the screen is
> dictated by your screen resolution and colour depth. As long as the memory
> is large enough to handle your settings (x2 as even Windows uses double
> buffering to smooth animation) the rest seems wasted.
>
> The REAL purpose for more video ram is...you guessed it...3D acceleration
> used mainly by games. By placing the texture bitmaps, the map object vector
> points and the character polygons in the video ram, along with the built in
> pre-calculated math tables, you get an incredible speed boost over sitting
> down and calculating and rendering each frame. (We're talking on orders of
> magnitude here)
>
> Other applications, like video playback and editing can also take advantage
> of the extra memory if two ways. If you have your TV signal hooked to your
> computer (I do) the signal is translated, buffered and played back from the
> video RAM without ever involving the motherboard (unless you're recording.
> then the video is saved directly to the hard drive). For Editing, the
> playback and results are loaded to video ram a second or so at a time to
> allow the Video Card to do it's work while the CPU is freed to do the hard
> stuff.
>
> Les Shewchuk
> Professional Dabbler
>
>
> "David Kerber" < ns_dkerber@ns_Warren
RogersAssociates.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG. 1e8dd6863c43920f9896
85@news.dbase.com...
>
>
| |
|
| Les,
A Dabbler Question: I have some older computers (PIII 500mhz) still with their video cards, some of which were fairly powerful and purchased specifically for gaming. Do you think recycling and installing one of these cards onto a P4 - 3 GHZ would give s
eparate memory for graphics and speed things up for my plus 2.21 app?
I'm guessing the memory speed of these old cards would be too slow compared to the speed of the P4, so probably would not see any improvements. Be nice to recycle some parts of the old machines tho if you think it is worth a try.
What do you think?
Rick
Les Shewchuk Wrote:
> And to add to David,
>
> The reason that video cards have memory is the same reason that your CPU has
> a local cache. Generic RAM is slow by comparison. Not only is the memory
> module slower, but you have to get to it via the motherboard.
>
> The shared memory is never going to perform as well as the dedicated stuff.
> The big advantage to it, is it's less expensive.
>
> While standard applications get a speed boost using dedicated video ram,
> having more video ram will not. The amount of Ram used by the screen is
> dictated by your screen resolution and colour depth. As long as the memory
> is large enough to handle your settings (x2 as even Windows uses double
> buffering to smooth animation) the rest seems wasted.
>
> The REAL purpose for more video ram is...you guessed it...3D acceleration
> used mainly by games. By placing the texture bitmaps, the map object vector
> points and the character polygons in the video ram, along with the built in
> pre-calculated math tables, you get an incredible speed boost over sitting
> down and calculating and rendering each frame. (We're talking on orders of
> magnitude here)
>
> Other applications, like video playback and editing can also take advantage
> of the extra memory if two ways. If you have your TV signal hooked to your
> computer (I do) the signal is translated, buffered and played back from the
> video RAM without ever involving the motherboard (unless you're recording.
> then the video is saved directly to the hard drive). For Editing, the
> playback and results are loaded to video ram a second or so at a time to
> allow the Video Card to do it's work while the CPU is freed to do the hard
> stuff.
>
> Les Shewchuk
> Professional Dabbler
>
>
> "David Kerber" < ns_dkerber@ns_Warren
RogersAssociates.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG. 1e8dd6863c43920f9896
85@news.dbase.com...
>
>
| |
| Les Shewchuk 2006-03-27, 8:24 pm |
| They should work. The only limit would be the type of socket/slot. Don't
know unless you try. What kind of cards are they?
Most of the P3 motherboards were AGP4x at the most. The P4 first came with
AGP4x/8x slots. Some of the newer P4 boards do not have AGP slots at all,
video going in favour of the PCIexpress.
The video card from a P3 will be either a PCI or an AGP card. and it most
likely will work.
As for the speed boost, that too will depend on the card memory and the
interface.
Just remember to do these steps in this order.
1. Uninstall the video drivers for your current (onboard?) chips.
2. restart and let the system install generic windows drivers
3. Restart the computer and turn off the onboard video in your BIOS (don't
start windows)
4. Turn off the computer and install the new video card.
5. Turn on the computer. Check the BIOS to see if the video card is detected
(if applicable)
6. start windows and install the new drivers.
Les Shewchuk
"Rick" <Sportman7@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:eZ3MRODUGHA.1148@news-server...
> Les,
>
> A Dabbler Question: I have some older computers (PIII 500mhz) still with
> their video cards, some of which were fairly powerful and purchased
> specifically for gaming. Do you think recycling and installing one of
> these cards onto a P4 - 3 GHZ would give separate memory for graphics and
> speed things up for my plus 2.21 app?
>
> I'm guessing the memory speed of these old cards would be too slow
> compared to the speed of the P4, so probably would not see any
> improvements. Be nice to recycle some parts of the old machines tho if
> you think it is worth a try.
>
> What do you think?
> Rick
>
>
>
> Les Shewchuk Wrote:
>
>
| |
|
| Les,
They are PCI cards and so should have a pci slot on the P4 machine to try it out. Been too long for me to remember the amount of memory on the cards or manufacturer.
Another question - if the onboard memory is shared for graphics for the p4, do you know if it helps to bump that up. E.G., I have heard that memory > 512 mb is not used by most applications, so not the best way to spend money. but seems if the motherboa
rd memory must share some for video, bumping it up to 1 gig should give it more to share.
Course, I suppose the bus speed to use the memory could be the logjam, in that the video and the cpu are both making demands from the same hardware. I imagine using separate device like a video card opens up another dorrway, so to speak, and would be ano
ther reason more motherboard memory would not be as helpful.
Thanks again for all the help,
Rick
Les Shewchuk Wrote:
> They should work. The only limit would be the type of socket/slot. Don't
> know unless you try. What kind of cards are they?
>
> Most of the P3 motherboards were AGP4x at the most. The P4 first came with
> AGP4x/8x slots. Some of the newer P4 boards do not have AGP slots at all,
> video going in favour of the PCIexpress.
>
> The video card from a P3 will be either a PCI or an AGP card. and it most
> likely will work.
>
> As for the speed boost, that too will depend on the card memory and the
> interface.
>
> Just remember to do these steps in this order.
> 1. Uninstall the video drivers for your current (onboard?) chips.
> 2. restart and let the system install generic windows drivers
> 3. Restart the computer and turn off the onboard video in your BIOS (don't
> start windows)
> 4. Turn off the computer and install the new video card.
> 5. Turn on the computer. Check the BIOS to see if the video card is detected
> (if applicable)
> 6. start windows and install the new drivers.
>
> Les Shewchuk
>
> "Rick" <Sportman7@netzero.com> wrote in message
> news:eZ3MRODUGHA.1148@news-server...
>
>
| |
| David Kerber 2006-03-27, 8:24 pm |
| Won't hurt anything to try...
In article <eZ3MRODUGHA.1148@news-server>, Sportman7@netzero.com says...
> Les,
>
> A Dabbler Question: I have some older computers (PIII 500mhz) still with their video cards, some of which were fairly powerful and purchased specifically for gaming. Do you think recycling and installing one of these cards onto a P4 - 3 GHZ would give
separate memory for graphics and speed things up for my plus 2.21 app?
>
> I'm guessing the memory speed of these old cards would be too slow compared to the speed of the P4, so probably would not see any improvements. Be nice to recycle some parts of the old machines tho if you think it is worth a try.
>
> What do you think?
> Rick
>
....
--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).
| |
| Les Shewchuk 2006-03-27, 8:24 pm |
| "Rick" <Sportman7@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:RE%23d%23XdUGHA
.2016@news-server...
> Les,
>
> They are PCI cards and so should have a pci slot on the P4 machine to try
> it out. Been too long for me to remember the amount of memory on the
> cards or manufacturer.
Should say so right on the card someplace. You will need that to download
the correct drivers. (If you do not have them on disk)
> Another question - if the onboard memory is shared for graphics for the
> p4, do you know if it helps to bump that up. E.G., I have heard that
> memory > 512 mb is not used by most applications, so not the best way to
> spend money. but seems if the motherboard memory must share some for
> video, bumping it up to 1 gig should give it more to share.
Not really (even if you can) most of the memory allocation request is made
by the drivers and determined by your current settings.
As for most applications not using more than 512mb, I think that depends on
the application. Look at the minimum requirments of the applications. Most
are designed to fit in the smallest possible memory that a computer might
have. Some applications require more ram because of what they do. CAD and
Video are hogs. The applications may be small, but they need a lot of
memory for the file being edited. Also, you have more than one application
runing at any given moment. You O/S is an application that controls
applications. Anti-Virus...Application. Your dBase program..Application.
Don't forget about Virtual memory. Windows controls how big a memory block
is and swaps dormant ones to the hard drive to make room for active
applications. Bring up your task manager and take a look at all of the
processes running on your system at any given moment. Not all of these are
in memory right now, some of them are sitting in Virtual Memory waiting to
be called upon. Messing with video memory size will affect the overall
performance of the system.
> Course, I suppose the bus speed to use the memory could be the logjam, in
> that the video and the cpu are both making demands from the same hardware.
> I imagine using separate device like a video card opens up another
> dorrway, so to speak, and would be another reason more motherboard memory
> would not be as helpful.
True. Dedicated resources are always better than shared. Also, with
dedicated, the manufacturer (and in some cases the user) can tweek the
performance more than using generic shared items.
The thing that makes shared resources so attractive, is they are cheaper to
make, and the motherboard manufacturer can make more money off of you by
providing them as a feature, rather than you purchasing the component from a
dedicated manufacturer.
Les
| |
|
| Les,
Right now I am trying to find the reasons why my app is running so slow on some networks. Will be checking other system and network issues, but I still remember how much faster an old DB2K app ran after installing a new graphics card with more memory. S
o will also be exploring video cards as another way to speed things up.
You seem like more than a dabbler to me, and really appreciate the insight.
Thanks again,
Rick
Les Shewchuk Wrote:
> "Rick" <Sportman7@netzero.com> wrote in message
> news:RE%23d%23XdUGHA
.2016@news-server...
>
> Should say so right on the card someplace. You will need that to download
> the correct drivers. (If you do not have them on disk)
>
>
> Not really (even if you can) most of the memory allocation request is made
> by the drivers and determined by your current settings.
>
> As for most applications not using more than 512mb, I think that depends on
> the application. Look at the minimum requirments of the applications. Most
> are designed to fit in the smallest possible memory that a computer might
> have. Some applications require more ram because of what they do. CAD and
> Video are hogs. The applications may be small, but they need a lot of
> memory for the file being edited. Also, you have more than one application
> runing at any given moment. You O/S is an application that controls
> applications. Anti-Virus...Application. Your dBase program..Application.
>
> Don't forget about Virtual memory. Windows controls how big a memory block
> is and swaps dormant ones to the hard drive to make room for active
> applications. Bring up your task manager and take a look at all of the
> processes running on your system at any given moment. Not all of these are
> in memory right now, some of them are sitting in Virtual Memory waiting to
> be called upon. Messing with video memory size will affect the overall
> performance of the system.
>
>
> True. Dedicated resources are always better than shared. Also, with
> dedicated, the manufacturer (and in some cases the user) can tweek the
> performance more than using generic shared items.
>
> The thing that makes shared resources so attractive, is they are cheaper to
> make, and the motherboard manufacturer can make more money off of you by
> providing them as a feature, rather than you purchasing the component from a
> dedicated manufacturer.
>
> Les
>
>
| |
| Les Shewchuk 2006-03-28, 1:24 pm |
|
"Rick" <Sportman7@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:GI3YCCjUGHA.512@news-server...
> Les,
>
> Right now I am trying to find the reasons why my app is running so slow on
> some networks. Will be checking other system and network issues, but I
> still remember how much faster an old DB2K app ran after installing a new
> graphics card with more memory. So will also be exploring video cards as
> another way to speed things up.
The video card will provide a speed boost. Once 3D accelleration became
standard, I think Windows took advantage of it, by allowing the basic shapes
of controls to be pre-loaded into the video card.
One place to check for slow downs is in the network security. Are your
applications being hosted on a true server or on another peer on the
network? The newer Windows Server software tends to be a little more picky
(and slower) when it comes to user authorization. XP is no help either. On
my desktop, it sometimes take 30 seconds for a right-click popup menu to
appear as my O/S tries to figure out what I am allowed to do with My
Documents.
If your application is DEO, try this (and this is just off the top of my
head) Put an old windows 9x computer on the network. Put on it No security
and No Anti-Virus. Create 1 shared folder that everyone has access to. Put
your DEO files there. Keep the application's EXE on the host server along
with the tables and a copy of the DEO files. In the applications INI file,
[ObjectPath], set
objPath0=\\win9xbox\
sharedfolder
objPath1=\\Server\DE
Ofolder
Of course, replace the paths with appropriate locations. This will force
dBase to look at the 9x box for DEO objects first. (and if the 9x box
fails, dBase will automatically look at the original location on the server)
Yes, you now have to update 2 locations instead of one, but that's no big
deal. If this gives you a speed boost, then it is something in the network
security that is slowing down the process.
Also, try using mapped drives instead of network paths. I've found this to
be slightly faster as once the "drive" is connected, the network doesn't
check for Authorization as often. If you are using Server 2003, there is a
wonderful feature in the user profiles (Under Active Directory) that will
allow you to connect to a server share without having to muck about with
login scripts. Every time the user logs-in, the server will force them to
have at least one mapped drive. Look for "Home Folder" in the user
properties.
The NICE thing in Server 2003, is you do not have to do this with each user.
You can select all users and set this property for all of them at once.
> You seem like more than a dabbler to me, and really appreciate the
> insight.
I make it up as I go. ;-)
Most of it is from experience. When I started with my employer, they had 5
computers and no network. (this was when a network card was C$300) It grew
with more computers, then workgroup networks, then joining them into
department networks, then joining the departments into a company network.
Then learning to re-build everything from scratch as better technology
became affordable. (the boss nearly choked the day I told him I wanted to
replace a $900 hub with a $200 switch, he saw the asset value not the
performance) Most of the problems people encounter, I've already run into.
Actually, I did a lot of research before I bought my own stuff. I wanted a
Video card to do two things. I wanted Video input as I was going to move a
lot of old VHS to DVD and I wanted to be able to edit the video. Second, I
wanted to be able to play not just the current games, but to have room for
the games of three years from now. (I've been a gamer for 25 years and I'm
not going to give it up. Originally I wanted to be a games programmer, but
my dad felt I should have office skills to fall back on. Boy did we get
THAT backwards) I know several people in the game programming industry, so
I've learned a lot about how those things really work.
Then there was the balancing act between my new hardware and existing
equipment. nVidia didn't make cards with inputs, and the HIGH end Xseries
ATI cards were digital only and didn't have outputs for my older monitor. In
the end I bought an ATI Radeon All-In-Wonder 9600 Pro. I paid more for that
card than most people spend on their whole system.
Les Shewchuk
| |
|
| Les,
Good stuff. Thanks.
My recent discovery that one of the slow clients is using P4 workstations but kept an old 486 as their server could explain a lot I think. Am waiting to hear what happens when they switch in a P4 as the server.
Creative idea on the Win9x configuration you mentioned. Will have to keep that in mind.
After all the help, I almost hate to ask for more on a different topic. If I could, would like to know what you recommend to convert VHS to DVD. I've seen lots of brands of devices for this, where you plug in a board and it connects to a VHS recorder, t
hen you copy the tape to a dvd disk. Not sure what I should be looking for in the device, or are they all pretty much the same? Am afraid to go too cheap on this in case I do not get a good copy. Any recommendations on a particular brand? Likewise, re
DVD recorder, do I just look for dual r/rw double layer, or is there some other feature I should be looking for?
Thanks again,
Rick
Les Shewchuk Wrote:
>
> "Rick" <Sportman7@netzero.com> wrote in message
> news:GI3YCCjUGHA.512@news-server...
>
> The video card will provide a speed boost. Once 3D accelleration became
> standard, I think Windows took advantage of it, by allowing the basic shapes
> of controls to be pre-loaded into the video card.
>
> One place to check for slow downs is in the network security. Are your
> applications being hosted on a true server or on another peer on the
> network? The newer Windows Server software tends to be a little more picky
> (and slower) when it comes to user authorization. XP is no help either. On
> my desktop, it sometimes take 30 seconds for a right-click popup menu to
> appear as my O/S tries to figure out what I am allowed to do with My
> Documents.
>
> If your application is DEO, try this (and this is just off the top of my
> head) Put an old windows 9x computer on the network. Put on it No security
> and No Anti-Virus. Create 1 shared folder that everyone has access to. Put
> your DEO files there. Keep the application's EXE on the host server along
> with the tables and a copy of the DEO files. In the applications INI file,
> [ObjectPath], set
>
> objPath0=\\win9xbox\
sharedfolder
> objPath1=\\Server\DE
Ofolder
>
> Of course, replace the paths with appropriate locations. This will force
> dBase to look at the 9x box for DEO objects first. (and if the 9x box
> fails, dBase will automatically look at the original location on the server)
> Yes, you now have to update 2 locations instead of one, but that's no big
> deal. If this gives you a speed boost, then it is something in the network
> security that is slowing down the process.
>
> Also, try using mapped drives instead of network paths. I've found this to
> be slightly faster as once the "drive" is connected, the network doesn't
> check for Authorization as often. If you are using Server 2003, there is a
> wonderful feature in the user profiles (Under Active Directory) that will
> allow you to connect to a server share without having to muck about with
> login scripts. Every time the user logs-in, the server will force them to
> have at least one mapped drive. Look for "Home Folder" in the user
> properties.
>
> The NICE thing in Server 2003, is you do not have to do this with each user.
> You can select all users and set this property for all of them at once.
>
>
> I make it up as I go. ;-)
>
> Most of it is from experience. When I started with my employer, they had 5
> computers and no network. (this was when a network card was C$300) It grew
> with more computers, then workgroup networks, then joining them into
> department networks, then joining the departments into a company network.
> Then learning to re-build everything from scratch as better technology
> became affordable. (the boss nearly choked the day I told him I wanted to
> replace a $900 hub with a $200 switch, he saw the asset value not the
> performance) Most of the problems people encounter, I've already run into.
>
> Actually, I did a lot of research before I bought my own stuff. I wanted a
> Video card to do two things. I wanted Video input as I was going to move a
> lot of old VHS to DVD and I wanted to be able to edit the video. Second, I
> wanted to be able to play not just the current games, but to have room for
> the games of three years from now. (I've been a gamer for 25 years and I'm
> not going to give it up. Originally I wanted to be a games programmer, but
> my dad felt I should have office skills to fall back on. Boy did we get
> THAT backwards) I know several people in the game programming industry, so
> I've learned a lot about how those things really work.
>
> Then there was the balancing act between my new hardware and existing
> equipment. nVidia didn't make cards with inputs, and the HIGH end Xseries
> ATI cards were digital only and didn't have outputs for my older monitor. In
> the end I bought an ATI Radeon All-In-Wonder 9600 Pro. I paid more for that
> card than most people spend on their whole system.
>
> Les Shewchuk
>
>
| |
| Les Shewchuk 2006-03-29, 1:24 pm |
| "Rick" <Sportman7@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:8pWPCtrUGHA.1008@news-server...
> My recent discovery that one of the slow clients is using P4 workstations
> but kept an old 486 as their server could explain a lot I think. Am
> waiting to hear what happens when they switch in a P4 as the server.
Yes, that would explain a few things.
> Creative idea on the Win9x configuration you mentioned. Will have to keep
> that in mind.
Came up with that one a couple of months ago. Remember when XP SP2 came
out? We ran into a problem in that our 2 XP boxes could no longer use a
WinFax server. Within a month, there were instructions on how to circumvent
the XP firewall. When we upgraded all our workstations, I was ready to
perform the surgery and everything worked fine.
Then a couple of months ago, there was a quite upgrade to Server2003
security. This caused the same problem at the server end that XP SP2 caused
at the client end. No fix available.
I remembered that one of our retired workstations still had Windows 2000 Pro
on it. While Win2K has still received some updates, it hasn't received the
all of them. Set that one up as a Winfax Server and not only does it work,
it actually works faster.
> After all the help, I almost hate to ask for more on a different topic.
> If I could, would like to know what you recommend to convert VHS to DVD.
> I've seen lots of brands of devices for this, where you plug in a board
> and it connects to a VHS recorder, then you copy the tape to a dvd disk.
> Not sure what I should be looking for in the device, or are they all
> pretty much the same? Am afraid to go too cheap on this in case I do not
> get a good copy. Any recommendations on a particular brand? Likewise, re
> DVD recorder, do I just look for dual r/rw double layer, or is there some
> other feature I should be looking for?
(Brace yourself, I'm going to go on for a bit)
There are three routes to go with that. There's the Plug In device (usually
USB 2), The Firewire/Capture cards (sometimes built into the motherboards)
and the capture built into a video card.
The way the Pro's go is with the Firewire. It's the fastest (USB 2 is a
close second) and the most stable. But that is because it is designed to
work with Firewire based equipment (video cameras and player decks) Most
VHS is not.
I've heard mixed reviews about the plug in devices. Some times it depends
on the device, other times it depends on the reviewer. The Pro's say not
good enough, the average Joe says they do a pretty good job. One thing to
check is your output and inputs. What sort of connectors are on your VCR
and match them to the device. At the very least, you should have RCA style
Video, Left and Right audio. I have never seen a device that has a
Cablevision type input, but they all have at least the three RCA's. Some
devices also have S-video inputs. Most VCR's do not have S-Video out, this
is more DVD technology. But if you have a VCR/DVD combo player, then you can
use it's S-Video for output. (S-video provides a better signal than the RCA)
The big advantage is they are fairly inexpensive and easy to set up. I've
seen them for as low as $60 Canadian at Costco and they just plug in to a
USB socket. They also can be removed from your system when not in use. For
a beginner, this may be the way to go.
The dedicated capture cards or video cards with built in capture are
generally better than the plug in device. While the plug in device and the
dedicated card both have dedicated capture chips, the plug in has to pass it
to the system via USB and there are some shortcuts involved that can lead to
dropped frames. The dedicated cards use the card memory to cache and
stabilize the images, giving a slightly better capture. While nVidia doesn't
make a All-In-One card, if you check the advertising, any MediaCenter PC
that uses nVidia video cards will almost always come paired with the same
brand of capture card.
Since I was buying a new system, I looked at what I wanted to do and what I
needed in the way of equipment. While the All-In-Wonder was expensive, even
more expensive than a separate video and capture device, I definitely got
what a paid for. Dual Monitor support, TV w/remote control. 3 Analog input
paths (cable, RCA, S-Video) Recorder/player and (Oh wow) a fully functional
TiVo type device. The TV view program is really cool. Because the TV image
is implanted by the video card (not through the CPU) you can have the TV as
full screen, as your wallpaper with your icons and applications over top, in
a window, or as transparent box that you can see your applications through.
The only thing it can't do is picture in picture or watch two stations at
once because there is only one tuner.
As for the capture quality. Some of that will depend on your original video
source. Some of it, the video capture software. You want a good quality
VCR for playback. If you can find one with 4 heads, that is the best.
However, as VHS is fading and players are getting cheap, most come with 2
heads these days.
Since I have a cheaper VCR, and was capturing stuff originally recorded on
it, I found the results to be poor. While it looked fine on the TV, on the
computer the signal suffered from overpowering blow-out suddenly dropping to
low signal fade and frame jumping. The TV is a lot more forgiving of poor
signal than the capture device. In the end I had to borrow another device
from a Pro friend of mine. Its a Small Sony Portable 8mm digital tape
recorder and player with a 4" screen. It converted Analog to digital and
then output the digital to the ATI card. So whatever it displayed on the
screen was captured. It acted like a signal scrubber, cleaning everything
up and then passing it to the analog inputs on the computer. This device
cost over $3000. so I don't get us use it often.
It is possible, that the Plug In device might work better under these
conditions than the dedicated card, as the device may be more forgiving than
the ATI card. I cannot say for sure as I have not tried it myself. Might
be worth the $60 to try.
An other thing that was odd. The ATI card is not recognized as a capture
device by other software. So you cannot capture signal directly into Adobe
Premier (It does recognize most Firewire devices). You have to record it
using the ATI recorder first and then import the clip. The ATI can save
files as AVI (huge files), type types of MPG (decent size and quality) and
its own VCR format (small proprietary file). Editing software only
recognizes the first two formats. The Odd part is Premier felt that the
Audio track was flawed and when you imported the clip, re-built and
corrected the audio track. This caused me a problem at first as I tried to
do a full 2 hour tape. The re-build time grew exponentially with the clip
size. I had thought the program had crashed. When I imported the clip as
segments (10-20 minutes each) the audio re-build only took a couple of
minutes. For 2 hours, I gave up after 1/2 hours processing. So now I
actually have to watch the segments as I'm importing.
As for the DVD drive. Go for a brand you know or recognize. LG, SONY,
PANASONIC Check out the consumer reviews on specific models. Even the good
brands produce a clunker once in a while. The Price has dropped on the D/L
drives a lot in the past year. When I bought my system, I decided that the
price of the D/L was too much, but I did want a DVD-RW. So I asked for that.
As they were assembling the system, they RAN OUT of the drive I asked
for...but the new model with D/L had just come in from LG at the same price.
I had a D/L drive for a year and didn't even know it. I only found out
after my computer crashed and I needed to do a firmware upgrade to use the
new DVD disks. (Those tiny logos on the front of the drive are HARD to
read)
DVD - DVD playback only. Most laptops come with a CDWR-DVD drive these
days. Even the CDRW-DVD is fading in the desktop.
DVD+R, DVD-R and DVD+/-R Write Once Drives and disks. There are technical
reasons for the two formats. I can't remember what they are, but there is a
reason. Most drives these days don't care and will go both ways. Some
older DVD players only work with one type or the other, but the new players
don't care. Rare to find these as it costs the same to manufacture.....
DVD+RW, DVD-RW and DVD+/-RW, Reusable versions of the different formats.
These are the most common kind drives. 4GB storage.
DVD DL+R, Dual Layer disks only come in the +R format. Again, the technical
difference in the format and the Dual Layer make this the only one possible.
Also, at present D/L is Write once only. 8GB of storage space. GREAT for
backups. This is the size of the pre-pressed DVD's. Best for making
backups of the kids movies as you don't have to "edit" out features to make
a copy for the kids to use. With the price drop, the D/L is slowly
replacing the single layer drive. The lower cost of the RW drives keep them
very popular and the technical differences between the single layer Reusable
and the D/L write once still keep the D/L drive as a bit of a special
request item.
Since the price drop has brought CDRW / DVD+/-R D/L+R under the $150
Canadian mark...Go for it. Just check the Brand and the speed. When I
bought mine the DVD+/-R was 4x speed. When I bought a new stack of DVD's
they were all labelled 16x. My Drive would not recognize them and though
they were all bad media. The Firmware upgrade did not increase the speed of
the drive, it's still 4x, but it did allow it to recognize the new 16x
media.
While most new drives will match the current formats, if you pick up and
older one on clearance, make sure you can get a firmware upgrade before you
buy it (the LG site didn't have a link to the upgrade. I found it through a
techie site that had a link to the correct page at LG. Funny that LG didn't
have one from their homepage)
Les
| |
|
| Les,
Wow, this is great stuff. Thanks for all the info. Have been wanting to get some tapes over to DVD and looks like you gave me a real education. Really cool stuff, too. Can't wait to get started converting my tapes.
You mentioned "there were instructions on how to circumvent
the XP firewall". Was that just with respect to the fax server, or is there some other work around that might be safer than just turning it off? Would like to be sure my client is not also running into that as a slow down.
Many thanks again.
Rick
Les Shewchuk Wrote:
> "Rick" <Sportman7@netzero.com> wrote in message
> news:8pWPCtrUGHA.1008@news-server...
>
> Yes, that would explain a few things.
>
>
> Came up with that one a couple of months ago. Remember when XP SP2 came
> out? We ran into a problem in that our 2 XP boxes could no longer use a
> WinFax server. Within a month, there were instructions on how to circumvent
> the XP firewall. When we upgraded all our workstations, I was ready to
> perform the surgery and everything worked fine.
>
> Then a couple of months ago, there was a quite upgrade to Server2003
> security. This caused the same problem at the server end that XP SP2 caused
> at the client end. No fix available.
>
> I remembered that one of our retired workstations still had Windows 2000 Pro
> on it. While Win2K has still received some updates, it hasn't received the
> all of them. Set that one up as a Winfax Server and not only does it work,
> it actually works faster.
>
>
> (Brace yourself, I'm going to go on for a bit)
>
> There are three routes to go with that. There's the Plug In device (usually
> USB 2), The Firewire/Capture cards (sometimes built into the motherboards)
> and the capture built into a video card.
>
> The way the Pro's go is with the Firewire. It's the fastest (USB 2 is a
> close second) and the most stable. But that is because it is designed to
> work with Firewire based equipment (video cameras and player decks) Most
> VHS is not.
>
> I've heard mixed reviews about the plug in devices. Some times it depends
> on the device, other times it depends on the reviewer. The Pro's say not
> good enough, the average Joe says they do a pretty good job. One thing to
> check is your output and inputs. What sort of connectors are on your VCR
> and match them to the device. At the very least, you should have RCA style
> Video, Left and Right audio. I have never seen a device that has a
> Cablevision type input, but they all have at least the three RCA's. Some
> devices also have S-video inputs. Most VCR's do not have S-Video out, this
> is more DVD technology. But if you have a VCR/DVD combo player, then you can
> use it's S-Video for output. (S-video provides a better signal than the RCA)
>
> The big advantage is they are fairly inexpensive and easy to set up. I've
> seen them for as low as $60 Canadian at Costco and they just plug in to a
> USB socket. They also can be removed from your system when not in use. For
> a beginner, this may be the way to go.
>
> The dedicated capture cards or video cards with built in capture are
> generally better than the plug in device. While the plug in device and the
> dedicated card both have dedicated capture chips, the plug in has to pass it
> to the system via USB and there are some shortcuts involved that can lead to
> dropped frames. The dedicated cards use the card memory to cache and
> stabilize the images, giving a slightly better capture. While nVidia doesn't
> make a All-In-One card, if you check the advertising, any MediaCenter PC
> that uses nVidia video cards will almost always come paired with the same
> brand of capture card.
>
> Since I was buying a new system, I looked at what I wanted to do and what I
> needed in the way of equipment. While the All-In-Wonder was expensive, even
> more expensive than a separate video and capture device, I definitely got
> what a paid for. Dual Monitor support, TV w/remote control. 3 Analog input
> paths (cable, RCA, S-Video) Recorder/player and (Oh wow) a fully functional
> TiVo type device. The TV view program is really cool. Because the TV image
> is implanted by the video card (not through the CPU) you can have the TV as
> full screen, as your wallpaper with your icons and applications over top, in
> a window, or as transparent box that you can see your applications through.
> The only thing it can't do is picture in picture or watch two stations at
> once because there is only one tuner.
>
> As for the capture quality. Some of that will depend on your original video
> source. Some of it, the video capture software. You want a good quality
> VCR for playback. If you can find one with 4 heads, that is the best.
> However, as VHS is fading and players are getting cheap, most come with 2
> heads these days.
>
> Since I have a cheaper VCR, and was capturing stuff originally recorded on
> it, I found the results to be poor. While it looked fine on the TV, on the
> computer the signal suffered from overpowering blow-out suddenly dropping to
> low signal fade and frame jumping. The TV is a lot more forgiving of poor
> signal than the capture device. In the end I had to borrow another device
> from a Pro friend of mine. Its a Small Sony Portable 8mm digital tape
> recorder and player with a 4" screen. It converted Analog to digital and
> then output the digital to the ATI card. So whatever it displayed on the
> screen was captured. It acted like a signal scrubber, cleaning everything
> up and then passing it to the analog inputs on the computer. This device
> cost over $3000. so I don't get us use it often.
>
> It is possible, that the Plug In device might work better under these
> conditions than the dedicated card, as the device may be more forgiving than
> the ATI card. I cannot say for sure as I have not tried it myself. Might
> be worth the $60 to try.
>
> An other thing that was odd. The ATI card is not recognized as a capture
> device by other software. So you cannot capture signal directly into Adobe
> Premier (It does recognize most Firewire devices). You have to record it
> using the ATI recorder first and then import the clip. The ATI can save
> files as AVI (huge files), type types of MPG (decent size and quality) and
> its own VCR format (small proprietary file). Editing software only
> recognizes the first two formats. The Odd part is Premier felt that the
> Audio track was flawed and when you imported the clip, re-built and
> corrected the audio track. This caused me a problem at first as I tried to
> do a full 2 hour tape. The re-build time grew exponentially with the clip
> size. I had thought the program had crashed. When I imported the clip as
> segments (10-20 minutes each) the audio re-build only took a couple of
> minutes. For 2 hours, I gave up after 1/2 hours processing. So now I
> actually have to watch the segments as I'm importing.
>
> As for the DVD drive. Go for a brand you know or recognize. LG, SONY,
> PANASONIC Check out the consumer reviews on specific models. Even the good
> brands produce a clunker once in a while. The Price has dropped on the D/L
> drives a lot in the past year. When I bought my system, I decided that the
> price of the D/L was too much, but I did want a DVD-RW. So I asked for that.
> As they were assembling the system, they RAN OUT of the drive I asked
> for...but the new model with D/L had just come in from LG at the same price.
> I had a D/L drive for a year and didn't even know it. I only found out
> after my computer crashed and I needed to do a firmware upgrade to use the
> new DVD disks. (Those tiny logos on the front of the drive are HARD to
> read)
>
> DVD - DVD playback only. Most laptops come with a CDWR-DVD drive these
> days. Even the CDRW-DVD is fading in the desktop.
> DVD+R, DVD-R and DVD+/-R Write Once Drives and disks. There are technical
> reasons for the two formats. I can't remember what they are, but there is a
> reason. Most drives these days don't care and will go both ways. Some
> older DVD players only work with one type or the other, but the new players
> don't care. Rare to find these as it costs the same to manufacture.....
> DVD+RW, DVD-RW and DVD+/-RW, Reusable versions of the different formats.
> These are the most common kind drives. 4GB storage.
> DVD DL+R, Dual Layer disks only come in the +R format. Again, the technical
> difference in the format and the Dual Layer make this the only one possible.
> Also, at present D/L is Write once only. 8GB of storage space. GREAT for
> backups. This is the size of the pre-pressed DVD's. Best for making
> backups of the kids movies as you don't have to "edit" out features to make
> a copy for the kids to use. With the price drop, the D/L is slowly
> replacing the single layer drive. The lower cost of the RW drives keep them
> very popular and the technical differences between the single layer Reusable
> and the D/L write once still keep the D/L drive as a bit of a special
> request item.
>
> Since the price drop has brought CDRW / DVD+/-R D/L+R under the $150
> Canadian mark...Go for it. Just check the Brand and the speed. When I
> bought mine the DVD+/-R was 4x speed. When I bought a new stack of DVD's
> they were all labelled 16x. My Drive would not recognize them and though
> they were all bad media. The Firmware upgrade did not increase the speed of
> the drive, it's still 4x, but it did allow it to recognize the new 16x
> media.
>
> While most new drives will match the current formats, if you pick up and
> older one on clearance, make sure you can get a firmware upgrade before you
> buy it (the LG site didn't have a link to the upgrade. I found it through a
> techie site that had a link to the correct page at LG. Funny that LG didn't
> have one from their homepage)
>
> Les
>
>
| |
| Les Shewchuk 2006-03-30, 1:24 pm |
|
"Rick" <Sportman7@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:dVR0fjAVGHA.1180@news-server...
> Les,
>
> Wow, this is great stuff. Thanks for all the info. Have been wanting to
> get some tapes over to DVD and looks like you gave me a real education.
> Really cool stuff, too. Can't wait to get started converting my tapes.
I like my toys. But when I'm ready to spend a good chunk of money, I always
do a LOT of research first.
> You mentioned "there were instructions on how to circumvent
> the XP firewall". Was that just with respect to the fax server, or is
> there some other work around that might be safer than just turning it off?
> Would like to be sure my client is not also running into that as a slow
> down.
In the case of WinFax and XP SP2, it was the new firewall that got in the
way. Here's the Symantec link for their instructions. (It's long. Watch the
word-wrap)
http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPOR...&src=sg&pcode=w
infax&svy=&csm=no
The XP firewall is basically one way. It block inbound but not outbound
traffic. The client computer was able to contact the server, but the server
was blocked when it tried to respond. Windows firewall doesn't have a
simple "Don't block these ports" setting. It is more application based. (I
know MSN messenger has fixed ports for making contact, but uses different
and constantly changing ports once you start a chat. That my explain why MS
did it this way.)
I don't know what the change in Server2003 was, just happened during one of
the regular updates. There doesn't seem to be a Firewall per se in
Server2003. What we would call a firewall seems to be included as part of
the standard security. Whatever the fix, I could use a network monitor and
could see the traffic going out to the server, but the WinFax host never
received it.
I know there is a lot of stuff in user authentication that is going on. I
don't know how it works or how to bypass a lot of it, but I can see it
happening. At home, I have 2 user profiles on my system and Mine is also
the administrator. I can go anyplace on my system at full speed with full
control, except in the "Documents and Settings" Other user folder. There is
a slight (very slight, you almost have to know it's there to catch it) pause
at the O/S verifies that I have permission to go there. The pause is a
little more noticeable when logged on as the second user. The slight pause
is there on most of the system, but it is noticeable longer before it denies
permission for them to go into my Documents and Setting folder.
At work, I am the sole user of my system. I am also the network
administrator. My user account is a clone of the Administrator account just
with my name on it. While I can navigate around my system freely, there is
a LONG pause to bring up a right-click menu as the system tries to determine
what permission I have to Cut/Copy/Paste/Edit etc. etc. various files. The
same pause exists trying to drag and drop files. This pause is much less
when I pull my network connection. It is also significantly smaller when I
am logged in as Administrator than myself.
The pause doesn't seem to exist on our Dell workstations with are twice as
powerful and 1/3 the age of mine. It may be there, but since they are all
the same, I can't tell the difference.
The only time there is NO pause, is when I run applications. The systems
seems to know that programs are freely usable.
When Accessing the C$ (default Server share) on other workstations, I can
get to the root of any workstation from my station with either the
Administrator or my account. It still takes the network almost a minute
from asking for the connection before it requests a name a passwords, and
the Administrator is still given permission faster than myself.
So you can see that something is going on. I'm not sure what, but the
behaviour is there. The reverse seems to happen with my dBase applications.
Applications that I have written and placed on the server, I can run freely.
There is a slight pause when opening forms and such over the network (at
tables are loaded and such) but the pause is longer for the users that use
the application daily. However, I have never seen the extremely long load
times that have been described here by yourself and others.
Les Shewchuk
| |
|
| Les,
Thanks again for the detailed info.
For at least one of my clients, the really slow load times (3 minutes on the client's network, 15 seconds on my network!) were traced to Anti virus software. On the client's netwrok, we had removed the checking of the server folders holding the object fi
les and data for the db app. This was not enough apparently. When we uninstalled norton on a workstation, the load time dropped to 15 seconds.
Still need to look into this further. They are running norton from the server called a corporate version of norton. The network person I am working with there thinks maybe he missed turning something off, or maybe running from the server for all users i
s a real drag on the system.
I'm inclined to just have them move to AV software that does not have this problem.
Many thanks for all your help and advice.
Rick
Les Shewchuk Wrote:
>
> "Rick" <Sportman7@netzero.com> wrote in message
> news:dVR0fjAVGHA.1180@news-server...
>
> I like my toys. But when I'm ready to spend a good chunk of money, I always
> do a LOT of research first.
>
>
> In the case of WinFax and XP SP2, it was the new firewall that got in the
> way. Here's the Symantec link for their instructions. (It's long. Watch the
> word-wrap)
>
> http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPOR...00&src=sg&pcode
=winfax&svy=& csm=no
>
> The XP firewall is basically one way. It block inbound but not outbound
> traffic. The client computer was able to contact the server, but the server
> was blocked when it tried to respond. Windows firewall doesn't have a
> simple "Don't block these ports" setting. It is more application based. (I
> know MSN messenger has fixed ports for making contact, but uses different
> and constantly changing ports once you start a chat. That my explain why MS
> did it this way.)
>
> I don't know what the change in Server2003 was, just happened during one of
> the regular updates. There doesn't seem to be a Firewall per se in
> Server2003. What we would call a firewall seems to be included as part of
> the standard security. Whatever the fix, I could use a network monitor and
> could see the traffic going out to the server, but the WinFax host never
> received it.
>
> I know there is a lot of stuff in user authentication that is going on. I
> don't know how it works or how to bypass a lot of it, but I can see it
> happening. At home, I have 2 user profiles on my system and Mine is also
> the administrator. I can go anyplace on my system at full speed with full
> control, except in the "Documents and Settings" Other user folder. There is
> a slight (very slight, you almost have to know it's there to catch it) pause
> at the O/S verifies that I have permission to go there. The pause is a
> little more noticeable when logged on as the second user. The slight pause
> is there on most of the system, but it is noticeable longer before it denies
> permission for them to go into my Documents and Setting folder.
>
> At work, I am the sole user of my system. I am also the network
> administrator. My user account is a clone of the Administrator account just
> with my name on it. While I can navigate around my system freely, there is
> a LONG pause to bring up a right-click menu as the system tries to determine
> what permission I have to Cut/Copy/Paste/Edit etc. etc. various files. The
> same pause exists trying to drag and drop files. This pause is much less
> when I pull my network connection. It is also significantly smaller when I
> am logged in as Administrator than myself.
>
> The pause doesn't seem to exist on our Dell workstations with are twice as
> powerful and 1/3 the age of mine. It may be there, but since they are all
> the same, I can't tell the difference.
>
> The only time there is NO pause, is when I run applications. The systems
> seems to know that programs are freely usable.
>
> When Accessing the C$ (default Server share) on other workstations, I can
> get to the root of any workstation from my station with either the
> Administrator or my account. It still takes the network almost a minute
> from asking for the connection before it requests a name a passwords, and
> the Administrator is still given permission faster than myself.
>
> So you can see that something is going on. I'm not sure what, but the
> behaviour is there. The reverse seems to happen with my dBase applications.
> Applications that I have written and placed on the server, I can run freely.
> There is a slight pause when opening forms and such over the network (at
> tables are loaded and such) but the pause is longer for the users that use
> the application daily. However, I have never seen the extremely long load
> times that have been described here by yourself and others.
>
> Les Shewchuk
>
>
| |
| Les Shewchuk 2006-03-31, 11:24 am |
| "Rick" <Sportman7@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:pTs7hsFVGHA.416@news-server...
> Les,
>
> Thanks again for the detailed info.
>
> Still need to look into this further. They are running norton from the
> server called a corporate version of norton. The network person I am
> working with there thinks maybe he missed turning something off, or maybe
> running from the server for all users is a real drag on the system.
> I'm inclined to just have them move to AV software that does not have this
> problem.
AH-HA!!!! Multi-scanning!
Most likely it's set on the server and you have managed clients. This is
what it is designed for. The users NEVER touch the program. All the
updates and configurations come from the server (otherwise, it is like
installing the home version on each computer)
When he sets the exclusions, he has to do it in two places (file types and
whole folders) for three (possible four) exclusions.
1. In excluding File Types, Exclude all of the dbase extensions (.dbf .mdx.
dbt and if you use paradox, .db .xg? .yg?) and don't forget the compiled
objects (.wfo .reo .co and the like)
2. Since you do not want to exclude the .exe extension (BAD idea) exclude
your program and table folders as well on the server. Then....
3. Exclude the program and table folders again (this is the strange part on
the server) this time use the path names from the Workstations point of
view.
It looks strange on the server to exclude "C:\Program Files\My Company\My
Application\" as well as "\\Server\My Application\" or "X:\dBaseProgram\"
But, even thought the Anti-Virus configuration comes from the server, the
program is still run locally and all exclusions are from the workstation's
POV.
4. If you launch your program from the workstation (the exe is on the
station, the DEO is on the server as opposed to just an Icon on the
workstation and the EXE on the server) exclude the path on the workstations
as well, if it is different from the location on the server.
It's still not perfect, but it does cut down the load times.
Les Shewchuk
| |
|
| Les,
Nicely done. I think I can see why Norton has been reported to be such a problem on the ng. This does sound like some unusual steps to take.
I will try this with one of my clients next week and see what we find.
This is a very nice catch, Les. Who would think exclusions must be done this way.
Many thanks again,
Rick
Les Shewchuk Wrote:
> "Rick" <Sportman7@netzero.com> wrote in message
> news:pTs7hsFVGHA.416@news-server...
>
> AH-HA!!!! Multi-scanning!
>
> Most likely it's set on the server and you have managed clients. This is
> what it is designed for. The users NEVER touch the program. All the
> updates and configurations come from the server (otherwise, it is like
> installing the home version on each computer)
>
> When he sets the exclusions, he has to do it in two places (file types and
> whole folders) for three (possible four) exclusions.
>
> 1. In excluding File Types, Exclude all of the dbase extensions (.dbf .mdx.
> dbt and if you use paradox, .db .xg? .yg?) and don't forget the compiled
> objects (.wfo .reo .co and the like)
>
> 2. Since you do not want to exclude the .exe extension (BAD idea) exclude
> your program and table folders as well on the server. Then....
>
> 3. Exclude the program and table folders again (this is the strange part on
> the server) this time use the path names from the Workstations point of
> view.
>
> It looks strange on the server to exclude "C:\Program Files\My Company\My
> Application\" as well as "\\Server\My Application\" or "X:\dBaseProgram\"
> But, even thought the Anti-Virus configuration comes from the server, the
> program is still run locally and all exclusions are from the workstation's
> POV.
>
> 4. If you launch your program from the workstation (the exe is on the
> station, the DEO is on the server as opposed to just an Icon on the
> workstation and the EXE on the server) exclude the path on the workstations
> as well, if it is different from the location on the server.
>
> It's still not perfect, but it does cut down the load times.
>
> Les Shewchuk
>
>
|
|
|
|
|