Board index » delphi » Re: D2005 Professional - Initial Observations...

Re: D2005 Professional - Initial Observations...


2004-11-19 03:07:21 AM
delphi13
Lauchlan M writes:
Quote

D8 had it for pro as well, IIRC?

Yup. My copy of Delphi 8 came with SQL Server 2000, IBM DB2, and Interbase 7 (I
believe the Interbase install was on the 2nd CD for Delphi 8...can't remember).
-Michael Bennett
 
 

Re: D2005 Professional - Initial Observations...

Quote

The IDE load time of 2 minutes 20 seconds is in the same ballpark as
Lino's
reported load time of 2 minutes 45 seconds. However, I have just installed
D2005 Architect, and I get a load time of around 30 seconds. Not exactly
speedy, but much more acceptable. Here in the UK, another guy tells me
that
his D2005 Enterprise loads in 18 seconds. Would be interesting to know
what
it causing the excessive load times on some configurations. I am not
running
SP2, btw.

Windows is like that. There can be huge differences in speed with similar
spec machines for no good reason. I tend to have a bad habit of downloading
and installing all kinds of shareware type stuff which ends up resulting in
a lot of cruft on the machine and a big performance hit.
 

Re: D2005 Professional - Initial Observations...

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:34:06 -0000, "Dave Jewell"
<XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes:
Quote
Would be interesting to know what
it causing the excessive load times on some configurations.
I think it has something to do with the harddisks. At least VS.Net
2003 and Delphi 7 reads like nothing else when loading, and I suspect
cpu is of little importance compared to a speedy HD (which effect is
amplified by having less ram).
- Asbjørn
 

Re: D2005 Professional - Initial Observations...

Lord Crc writes:
Quote
I suspect cpu is of little importance compared to a speedy HD
Me too. And add anti virus software and fragmented disks to the molasses
ingredients.
--
Ingvar Nilsen
 

Re: D2005 Professional - Initial Observations...

www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,86934,pg,8,00.asp
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:00:40 +0100, Ingvar Nilsen
<XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes:
Quote
Me too. And add anti virus software and fragmented disks to the molasses
ingredients.
 

Re: D2005 Professional - Initial Observations...

Paul,
Quote
www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,86934,pg,8,00.asp
sorry, but that is complete bull. The performance difference i see between a
fragged disk and a defragged one (in my case by the evil Diskeeper 9.0) is
day and night, especially (but not only) if your harddisks are more then 50%
filled (although even the 10% full disk in my laptop fragments faster then i
can watch it; and defragging it makes all the difference).
 

Re: D2005 Professional - Initial Observations...

I actually posted that as a bit of "devil's advocate". I actually run
PerfectDisk myself. But, I don't really know what performance
difference it really makes--maybe it does, maybe not. I just don't
know.
But, PerfectDisk has a comparison to Diskeeper 9, what you are
running. And their test (which just might be biased...) after 3
passes with Diskeeper, the benchmark actually showed a tiny decrease
in performance! But with PerfectDisk, it showed about a 50% increase
in performance after just one pass. Though I don't doubt PerfectDisk
could be better, I find this amount of difference between Diskeeper
and PerfectDisk. But, here is the article if you like, as a PDF:
www.perfectdisk.com/products/perfectdisk2k/performancetesting/PD7_DK9_Defragmentation_Performance_Test.pdf
or
tinyurl.com/3mvmo
Quote
sorry, but that is complete bull. The performance difference i see between a
fragged disk and a defragged one (in my case by the evil Diskeeper 9.0) is
day and night, especially (but not only) if your harddisks are more then 50%
filled (although even the 10% full disk in my laptop fragments faster then i
can watch it; and defragging it makes all the difference).

 

Re: D2005 Professional - Initial Observations...

"marc hoffman" wrote
Quote
... The performance difference i see between a fragged
disk and a defragged one ... is day and night, especially
(but not only) if your harddisks are more then 50% filled ...
I don't do routine defragging. With my style of using PCs,
when I have had a problem with slow performance, it is
usually with Windows' File Explorer taking 8 seconds to
do the first file delete of the day or taking longer to pop up
a right-click menu item. These are on Win2K desktop and
WinXP laptops with disks about 60% full. When I have
tried defragging, the improvement is not very noticeable --
going from 256 to 640 MB RAM on the laptop made a
bigger difference. --JohnH
 

Re: D2005 Professional - Initial Observations...

Quote
When I have
tried defragging, the improvement is not very noticeable --
going from 256 to 640 MB RAM on the laptop made a
bigger difference. --JohnH
(As I see it) defragmentation is relict of one plate hard drives of the past.
Actually those speed disks, defrags, etc. have no knowledge about physical
constitution of your (mine) hard drive, what logic particular drive uses, so they
cannot perform optimizations appropriate to your (mine) drive.
Of course, in case when physical/driver logic of some HDD corresponds to logic
of "defragmentator" it is "optimization" really improve performance, though mostly it's
a lottery.
Especially it would be interesting to see "optimization" reports of RAID users.
 

Re: D2005 Professional - Initial Observations...

Paul Dolen writes:
Quote
But, PerfectDisk has a comparison to Diskeeper 9, what you are
running. And their test (which just might be biased...) after 3
passes with Diskeeper, the benchmark actually showed a tiny decrease
in performance! But with PerfectDisk, it showed about a 50% increase
in performance after just one pass.
I have been using Diskeeper for years. I tried the previous version of
PerfectDisk but due to some annoyance or issue, did not switch.
However, I tried the eval version of the latest PerfectDisk and my file
loading and app loading performance very noticeably improved. This was
on a system already regularly defragged by Diskeeper.
This time, I am going to pay Raxcom, buy Perfectdisk, and delete
Executive Software's Diskeeper.
 

Re: D2005 Professional - Initial Observations...

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:56:05 +0300, "Andrew Rybenkov"
<XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes:
Quote
>When I have
>tried defragging, the improvement is not very noticeable --
>going from 256 to 640 MB RAM on the laptop made a
>bigger difference. --JohnH

(As I see it) defragmentation is relict of one plate hard drives of the past.
Actually those speed disks, defrags, etc. have no knowledge about physical
constitution of your (mine) hard drive, what logic particular drive uses, so they
cannot perform optimizations appropriate to your (mine) drive.
Of course, in case when physical/driver logic of some HDD corresponds to logic
of "defragmentator" it is "optimization" really improve performance, though mostly it's
a lottery.
Especially it would be interesting to see "optimization" reports of RAID users.


What I don't rok is why Norton's Speed Disk and XP's degragmenter
never agree when my hard drive is properly defragmented.
Oz
--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?