re: Pis in W2k
Thursday, January 8, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Posted by geek9pm
(1030 messages posted)
From what you describe, all the files on in one folder. This is sometimes called
a "flat" structure and it is horrible to manage by the OS or any application If
the files are in a forlder tree so that there are less files in any one folder, there
is less overhead to refresh to thumbnail database. Each folder has its own Thumbnail
index file.
Both Windows XP and Windows 2000 have thumbnails, but only XP has the viewer. Nero
also may have a hard time with the "flat" file structure.
Geek9pm
Squawk!
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Pics in W2k
Friday, January 9, 2009 at 7:55 am
Posted by geek9pm
(1030 messages posted)
Whenever the Windows Explorer looks at the contents of a folder is has to read the
data into RAM and sort it and, if needed, update the Thumbnails file. This is a small
database management task. (I don't know what they named it, but it is a thing the
Explorer program has to do every time you look in a directory that you have not visited
for awhile.) In Windows 2000 there may be a struggle for two or more reasons. The
amount of initial space used by 2000 may be smaller. The Windows 2000 small database
manager may be an older design that can not 'remember' as much about your file structures.
The Windows 2000 has a big overhead of allowing HTML content to be stored into the
thumbnails, which was removed in Windows XP.
The thing I am talking about is the Windows Explorer, not the Internet Explorer.
Some Windows 2000 users like to use third-party programs to view image files. These
are sometimes called 'Photo Gallery' programs. The do a great job of organization
of pictures indifferent formats and sizes.
A link for list of Photo Managers.
http://majorgeeks.com/downloads37.html
Nero is one of them, I do not understand why it is heaving a problem. Have you done
a disk check lately? a weak drive can really slow anything down. And the defragment
tool may help, but not always. More important is a check of the disk integrity. Either
hardware or file structure damage can really slow down the NTFS used by Windows 2000
and XP. Otherwise, NTFS is far better that the old FAT32. But he fact that you could
read it over the network sounds more like the Windows 200 system has some kind of
hardship other that just the file system. The network has to read the same file system
and Windows 2000 has to serve it up on the network! My best guess, even after all
my speculation, is that you have some process in Windows 2000 that is putting the
brakes on. Where to start? After a disk check, consider your video system. Do you
have something off about the graphics on the 2000 machine? Just a wild guess.
Pardon my rambling, I am doing this off the top of my head and it is early morning
here and I only had the first cup of java.
And I am Geek After Dark
Geek9pm
Squawk!
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
