Sorry, I'm lost again...

[Techman]

How do you do this? I have Win 10 Pro, and I see no obvious way to completely shut off the updates. Do you have to do it from the registry? I can't stand it when updates are installed or my computer is rebooted without my consent.

 

In Win 10 pro with the latest Windows Creators update you'll now have the option to schedule updates and reboots. The options are under "RESTART OPTIONS", and "ADVANCED OPTONS"  in windows update

[Techman]

Paul, I don't know if this was for me but...

No changes to the PC except for the Windows update.

I use Norton Internet Security.

I tried your suggestion but it still does not work. It's not a super big deal. I have a fairly large installation but it is fine tuned and I don't go to the admin console often.

One thing... my default browser is Firefox. But that has not changed.

 

I'm running windows 10 pro with the latest updates and using Norton Security and have no problems accessing the admin console.

 

Try deleting the java cache including all installed applications, then download the admin console java app again. Also make sure you have the current ISY firmware and UI (4.5.4).

[larryllix]

I ran Win 10 on three computers. Two of them upgraded automatically to the point of "legacy hardware not supported". One locked out the video driver   and had to be new OS re-installed so I went back to Win 7 on two, so far, and considering the third to do the same. I hate Won 10. It's like a step into the 80s with looks, a terrible layout, and the slowest OS I have over owned taking 10-30 minutes every time It is rebooted installing some invisible update. I hate being treated like a stupid user that should just use the computer and never mind what THEY are doing with it.

 

I noticed MS sells completely computer hardware now. Coincidence that a multi-core motherboard would suddenly not be supported in Win 10?

[Techman]

I ran Win 10 on three computers. Two of them upgraded automatically to the point of "legacy hardware not supported". One locked out the video driver   and had to be new OS re-installed so I went back to Win 7 on two, so far, and considering the third to do the same. I hate Won 10. It's like a step into the 80s with looks, a terrible layout, and the slowest OS I have over owned taking 10-30 minutes every time It is rebooted installing some invisible update. I hate being treated like a stupid user that should just use the computer and never mind what THEY are doing with it.

 

I noticed MS sells completely computer hardware now. Coincidence that a multi-core motherboard would suddenly not be supported in Win 10?

 

My experience has been just the opposite of yours. However, I started with a new build with solid state hard drives, and an intel processor with built in video.  I much prefer win 10 over win 7. It seems to have better integration and is more stable.

I had tried updating one of my Win 7 machines to Win 10 and found it to be problematic and gave up.

[larryllix]

My experience has been just the opposite of yours. However, I started with a new build with solid state hard drives, and an intel processor with built in video.  I much prefer win 10 over win 7. It seems to have better integration and is more stable.

I had tried updating one of my Win 7 machines to Win 10 and found it to be problematic and gave up.

I keep hearing this about SSDs. However I bought the fastest unit I could find for my laptop and it netting nothing faster than the HDD despite heavy caching due only 2 GB of memory. Waste of money and effort.

 

Yeah, this is the one that takes 10 minutes to completely load admin console and programs with the SSD 

 

I do like the fact that the laptop is not so sensitive to rough handling. Battery life did not improve either.

[paulbates]

I keep hearing this about SSDs. However I bought the fastest unit I could find for my laptop and it netting nothing faster than the HDD despite heavy caching due only 2 GB of memory. Waste of money and effort.

 

Yeah, this is the one that takes 10 minutes to completely load admin console and programs with the SSD 

Larry-

SDD  only helps disk i/o related performance. I'm sure the AC & Java load faster from the drive on an SSD, but that's not a long time to begine with. I imagine the bulk of the time you're experiencing is network traffic between the ISY and computer, loading devices, nodes, etc. 

 

SSD will make boot up faster and thick client apps like MS Office- anything disk intensive, load and/or run faster

 

Paul

[apostolakisl]

SSD primarily helps in loading fragmented data faster.  Platter HDD have a read/write arm that needs to physically move across the platter.  If the data is nicely ordered such that it can be read with a continuous position of the arm (like an old style record slowly and continuously spiraling in), then there won't be much difference in load times.  IF the data is fragmented and the arm has to keep popping around, that can delay things alot.  Depending on the HDD and SSD specs, the difference will vary.  In other words, both the SSD and HDD will have max data read rates.  A perfectly ordered HDD read rate should match that stat, but a fragmented drive will be much slower.  A SSD will read at the same rate no matter how fragmented the data.  Which brings up the question, should you ever defrag a SSD.  But that is a whole different topic.

 

But to your issue, the delay in running the admin console is almost certainly what Paul said.  It will go much faster if you do not use https, and if you have a faster connection between your computer and the ISY.  Both of those are mostly depending on them existing on the same LAN.

[Techman]

Everything I've read about SSD's suggests that you don't defrag them as it shortens their life and offers no benefits as SSD's don't write data the same way as conventional hard disks do.  It's also suggested that you turn off indexing when using SSD's.

 

Larryllix- you might want to increase your memory up from 2gb. Your video is probably sharing part of the 2gb. Take a look at the resource monitor in Win 10 to see how your memory is being allocated.

[paulbates]

Everything I've read about SSD's suggests that you don't defrag them as it shortens their life and offers no benefits as SSD's don't write data the same way as conventional hard disks do.  It's also suggested that you turn off indexing when using SSD's.

 

That's right. The access time to every memory location in an SSD (or any memory) is the same, so moving things around by defragging provides no performance enhancement, and only serves to shorten the life by using a limited number of accesses available as you pointed out. Index provides no performance value and uses up cpu.

 

The maintenance function to consider using is Trim, which will wipe blocks that are no longer in use so that "deleted" data can not be recovered. Depending on the drive and the OS, the procedure can vary. 

 

Paul

[larryllix]

Everything I've read about SSD's suggests that you don't defrag them as it shortens their life and offers no benefits as SSD's don't write data the same way as conventional hard disks do.  It's also suggested that you turn off indexing when using SSD's.

 

Larryllix- you might want to increase your memory up from 2gb. Your video is probably sharing part of the 2gb. Take a look at the resource monitor in Win 10 to see how your memory is being allocated.

Yes. That's the point. I cannot increase the RAM over 2GB. When Netbooks were created MS didn't agree with the concept, but agreed to create/allow Windows to exist on them, provided the RAM could never be increased past 1GB. Thus they were produced en masse.

 

Me, being the guy I am, stuck a 2GB memory into the socket, largest the hardware would address. Since then, MS has released their constraint, but the supporting hardware, will not address larger RAM chips, anyway.

 

Thus lies the problem. Using SSD as a RAM cache is not any faster on an SSD than a decent HDDD due to lack of random access. Windows does not operate well with 2GB and mostly cache. Java grinds to a halt almost.

 

IIRC SSDs are sequential read/write only and not random sector base as a HDD is...well track based read/write for a HDD. With softsectoring a HDD has to read/write the whole track, or not. With SSD some portion of the guts has to be read/written. There is no small sector random access and that was alleviated somewhat by huge caches inside them. For sequential reads, the SSD speed is fast but loading random system files slows it back down again.

 

In the end my OS running is about the same speed SSD/HDD and the loading speed SSD/HHD is about the same in time. My Win 7 OS does not load any faster. Hibrenation recovery is faster than cold boot on both drives for sure.

 

I have an older SSD on my mediaPC also and it doesn't boot any faster either. I always figured it was an early technology and things have improved. The latest unit swapped from HDD was a disappointment for the money spent.

[apostolakisl]

Yes. That's the point. I cannot increase the RAM over 2GB. When Netbooks were created MS didn't agree with the concept, but agreed to create/allow Windows to exist on them, provided the RAM could never be increased past 1GB. Thus they were produced en masse.

 

Me, being the guy I am, stuck a 2GB memory into the socket, largest the hardware would address. Since then, MS has released their constraint, but the supporting hardware, will not address larger RAM chips, anyway.

 

Thus lies the problem. Using SSD as a RAM cache is not any faster on an SSD than a decent HDDD due to lack of random access. Windows does not operate well with 2GB and mostly cache. Java grinds to a halt almost.

 

IIRC SSDs are sequential read/write only and not random sector base as a HDD is...well track based read/write for a HDD. With softsectoring a HDD has to read/write the whole track, or not. With SSD some portion of the guts has to be read/written. There is no small sector random access and that was alleviated somewhat by huge caches inside them. For sequential reads, the SSD speed is fast but loading random system files slows it back down again.

 

In the end my OS running is about the same speed SSD/HDD and the loading speed SSD/HHD is about the same in time. My Win 7 OS does not load any faster. Hibrenation recovery is faster than cold boot on both drives for sure.

 

I have an older SSD on my mediaPC also and it doesn't boot any faster either. I always figured it was an early technology and things have improved. The latest unit swapped from HDD was a disappointment for the money spent.

Getting back to ISY, I wouldn't expect caching to be an issue while running the admin console.  I just checked mine and it is using 113mb.  I would expect all of that to be live in ram.

[larryllix]

Getting back to ISY, I wouldn't expect caching to be an issue while running the admin console.  I just checked mine and it is using 113mb.  I would expect all of that to be live in ram.

On my win 7 x 32 system...

 

jp2launcher.exe has reserved 311 MB on the SSD and 236MB in RAM, here. Some of this is swapped onto the SSD reserved space as the system requires it to run other apps. I am told that Windows divides RAM in half for system and app usage. That makes the admin console about 1/3 of the available RAM on my system with only admin console running.

 

With virtual memory systems, the swap file is constantly being read and written to keep what is needed in RAM when it is needed for each task, when it is that tasks turn. If I could expand the RAM to 4-8GB the system would speed up, significantly due to less intensive file swapping, not being required as frequently.

 

On this same system I occasionally indicate more than 500 Hard Faults/sec, indicated by the Windows Resource Monitor. I have over 500 page faults / second of memory being swapped between RAM and the SSD.

Windows memory page size is 4kB making the swaps over 2MB SSD / RAM read and write data swaps per second.

This makes my virtual memory system very slow with any drive style, being so busy.

[Techman]

That's right. The access time to every memory location in an SSD (or any memory) is the same, so moving things around by defragging provides no performance enhancement, and only serves to shorten the life by using a limited number of accesses available as you pointed out. Index provides no performance value and uses up cpu.

 

The maintenance function to consider using is Trim, which will wipe blocks that are no longer in use so that "deleted" data can not be recovered. Depending on the drive and the OS, the procedure can vary. 

 

Paul

 

Win 10 has the TRIM function built into the OS

[apostolakisl]

On my win 7 x 32 system...

 

jp2launcher.exe has reserved 311 MB on the SSD and 236MB in RAM, here. Some of this is swapped onto the SSD reserved space as the system requires it to run other apps. I am told that Windows divides RAM in half for system and app usage. That makes the admin console about 1/3 of the available RAM on my system with only admin console running.

 

With virtual memory systems, the swap file is constantly being read and written to keep what is needed in RAM when it is needed for each task, when it is that tasks turn. If I could expand the RAM to 4-8GB the system would speed up, significantly due to less intensive file swapping, not being required as frequently.

 

On this same system I occasionally indicate more than 500 Hard Faults/sec, indicated by the Windows Resource Monitor. I have over 500 page faults / second of memory being swapped between RAM and the SSD.

Windows memory page size is 4kB making the swaps over 2MB SSD / RAM read and write data swaps per second.

This makes my virtual memory system very slow with any drive style, being so busy.

 

I tested the admin console on my old laptop.  This is pretty ancient, roughly 15 years old hp nx6325.  It shipped with windows xp.  I have it running windows 10 32 bit.  It has 2.86GB of usable RAM and a 256 GB SSD in it.  After updating to the latest Java and loading up the 5.0.10 console, I test ran it.  It took 31 seconds to load to completion including me typing in the username and password.  I have about 60 devices and the Elk module.  I didn't include the time to load programs.  Once loaded, it runs click to click about as fast as you would expect.

 

What sort of issues are you having?  To me, that type of performance is pretty reasonable on some pretty ancient hardware running an OS that wasn't intended to be run on such old stuff.  If you aren't getting that performance, perhaps you just have some issues with your OS that require some cleaning up or a wipe and re-install.