4 ms·

This doesn't explain why the slowdown is recent, though.

by ghoward 4y ago

mutantfloppy 4y ago
Your description sounds like every Windows box I've ever fixed whose disk was going bad.
- ghoward 4y ago
  The disk is about one year old and uses less than 5% of the space available.
  - mutantfloppy 4y ago
    Neither fact establishes that the disk is working correctly now, and you have evidence to the contrary.
    - ghoward 4y ago
      I have scanned the device. No errors. So now I have evidence contrary to the evidence you assume I have. Windows is still bad. It should work on HDD's.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    Unlike SSDs, HDDs don't particularly benefit from leaving significant free space open. The fact you seemingly don't know this speaks volumes. The core issue is that Windows is thrashing your system drive, which is an HDD, with tons of random reads and writes stemming from built up updates and other tasks Windows wants to do. This thrashing pulls Windows and any other executing programs from that HDD to a screeching halt because the HDD simply can't keep up. One way to solve this is installing Windows onto an SSD, and in fact Windows nowadays is written with the assumption the system drive is an SSD. This will alleviate coming to a screeching halt when tons of random reads and writes are demanded. Even a simple SATA SSD is fine for this. Another is to disable Windows Update and other background maintenance tasks you don't find valuable. Your system drive won't get thrashed if there's nothing to thrash the system drive. If you really purport to be a programmer, please at least understand the environment you are working in and tune it to your needs and desires before going on a pointless rant that might make you look like a fool.
    - ghoward 4y ago
      I use HDD's on purpose. If Windows cannot use HDD's, that is bad programming. That's just how it is. Microsoft should not assume that HDD's don't exist. I use an HDD on Windows for two reasons: one, I am cheap, and two, I am writing a VCS. The Git experience on Windows is already terrible, so I'm setting myself up to have a worse experience on Windows than any of my users. Why? Because if it's painful enough, I'll fix it. This is the same reason I use HDD on Linux: to ensure that my code is as fast as possible for users. I have disabled Windows Update and other background maintenance tasks. Don't assume I haven't. If you really purport yourself as good enough to give advice to a programmer, please at least don't assume stuff about that programmer and his environment before going on a pointless tirade that did make you seem like a jerk. By the way, I scanned my Windows drive with various tools. No errors, and the lifetime number of hours, which I was hinting at with my glib reference to its age and how much space is taken, is only a fraction (1/5) of the average lifetime of drives like this.
      - Dalewyn 4y ago
        >I use HDD's on purpose. >I use an HDD on Windows for two reasons: one, I am cheap, and two, I am writing a VCS. The Git experience on Windows is already terrible, so I'm setting myself up to have a worse experience on Windows than any of my users. Why? Because if it's painful enough, I'll fix it. This is the same reason I use HDD on Linux: to ensure that my code is as fast as possible for users. So you're a "programmer" who willingly and knowingly uses hardware with terrible random access performance. Why are you complaining about bad performance stemming from terrible random access performance, then? You get what you pay for. You made your bed, you may now lay in it. >If Windows cannot use HDD's, that is bad programming. That's just how it is. Microsoft should not assume that HDD's don't exist. Unjustifiable as it may be for Microsoft to optimize Windows for SSD system drives, a 1TB SSD can be had for ~$100 and a 500GB SSD can be had for ~$50. The age of exorbitantly expensive SSDs is long over, they have become accessible to the commons at large; so it makes some amount of sense for Microsoft to optimize for hardware resources that are widely available. >I have disabled Windows Update and other background maintenance tasks. Don't assume I haven't. You clearly haven't, because updates and other background tasks that built up during downtime got in your way. Even Windows 10/11 will still let you disable Windows Update if you have Professional or above. If you are using Home (because you're "cheap", as you put it yourself), why are you complaining again? You get what you pay for. You made your bed, you may now lay in it. >If you really purport yourself as good enough to give advice to a programmer, please at least don't assume stuff about that programmer and his environment before going on a pointless tirade that did make you seem like a jerk. To put it bluntly, you don't come across as someone worth respecting beyond that of common courtesy. You don't know what you're talking about, and you complain about situations that you willingly put yourself in. If you want to earn respect, please act the part. >By the way, I scanned my Windows drive with various tools. No errors, and the lifetime number of hours, which I was hinting at with my glib reference to its age and how much space is taken, is only a fraction (1/5) of the average lifetime of drives like this. Anyone who knows about HDDs would quote the drive's SMART data in addition to any tests and other diagnostic data they might have. They would also know SMART and other diagnostic data are only broadly useful guesstimates about a drive's health and whether it might be on its way out. You don't appear to even know any of that, despite being a "programmer". And you have the gall to say Windows "will die" because you just don't know what you're doing? Give me a break.

This doesn't explain why the slowdown is recent, though.

mutantfloppy 4y ago

Your description sounds like every Windows box I've ever fixed whose disk was going bad.

ghoward 4y ago
The disk is about one year old and uses less than 5% of the space available.
- mutantfloppy 4y ago
  Neither fact establishes that the disk is working correctly now, and you have evidence to the contrary.
  - ghoward 4y ago
    I have scanned the device. No errors. So now I have evidence contrary to the evidence you assume I have. Windows is still bad. It should work on HDD's.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  Unlike SSDs, HDDs don't particularly benefit from leaving significant free space open. The fact you seemingly don't know this speaks volumes. The core issue is that Windows is thrashing your system drive, which is an HDD, with tons of random reads and writes stemming from built up updates and other tasks Windows wants to do. This thrashing pulls Windows and any other executing programs from that HDD to a screeching halt because the HDD simply can't keep up. One way to solve this is installing Windows onto an SSD, and in fact Windows nowadays is written with the assumption the system drive is an SSD. This will alleviate coming to a screeching halt when tons of random reads and writes are demanded. Even a simple SATA SSD is fine for this. Another is to disable Windows Update and other background maintenance tasks you don't find valuable. Your system drive won't get thrashed if there's nothing to thrash the system drive. If you really purport to be a programmer, please at least understand the environment you are working in and tune it to your needs and desires before going on a pointless rant that might make you look like a fool.
  - ghoward 4y ago
    I use HDD's on purpose. If Windows cannot use HDD's, that is bad programming. That's just how it is. Microsoft should not assume that HDD's don't exist. I use an HDD on Windows for two reasons: one, I am cheap, and two, I am writing a VCS. The Git experience on Windows is already terrible, so I'm setting myself up to have a worse experience on Windows than any of my users. Why? Because if it's painful enough, I'll fix it. This is the same reason I use HDD on Linux: to ensure that my code is as fast as possible for users. I have disabled Windows Update and other background maintenance tasks. Don't assume I haven't. If you really purport yourself as good enough to give advice to a programmer, please at least don't assume stuff about that programmer and his environment before going on a pointless tirade that did make you seem like a jerk. By the way, I scanned my Windows drive with various tools. No errors, and the lifetime number of hours, which I was hinting at with my glib reference to its age and how much space is taken, is only a fraction (1/5) of the average lifetime of drives like this.
    - Dalewyn 4y ago
      >I use HDD's on purpose. >I use an HDD on Windows for two reasons: one, I am cheap, and two, I am writing a VCS. The Git experience on Windows is already terrible, so I'm setting myself up to have a worse experience on Windows than any of my users. Why? Because if it's painful enough, I'll fix it. This is the same reason I use HDD on Linux: to ensure that my code is as fast as possible for users. So you're a "programmer" who willingly and knowingly uses hardware with terrible random access performance. Why are you complaining about bad performance stemming from terrible random access performance, then? You get what you pay for. You made your bed, you may now lay in it. >If Windows cannot use HDD's, that is bad programming. That's just how it is. Microsoft should not assume that HDD's don't exist. Unjustifiable as it may be for Microsoft to optimize Windows for SSD system drives, a 1TB SSD can be had for ~$100 and a 500GB SSD can be had for ~$50. The age of exorbitantly expensive SSDs is long over, they have become accessible to the commons at large; so it makes some amount of sense for Microsoft to optimize for hardware resources that are widely available. >I have disabled Windows Update and other background maintenance tasks. Don't assume I haven't. You clearly haven't, because updates and other background tasks that built up during downtime got in your way. Even Windows 10/11 will still let you disable Windows Update if you have Professional or above. If you are using Home (because you're "cheap", as you put it yourself), why are you complaining again? You get what you pay for. You made your bed, you may now lay in it. >If you really purport yourself as good enough to give advice to a programmer, please at least don't assume stuff about that programmer and his environment before going on a pointless tirade that did make you seem like a jerk. To put it bluntly, you don't come across as someone worth respecting beyond that of common courtesy. You don't know what you're talking about, and you complain about situations that you willingly put yourself in. If you want to earn respect, please act the part. >By the way, I scanned my Windows drive with various tools. No errors, and the lifetime number of hours, which I was hinting at with my glib reference to its age and how much space is taken, is only a fraction (1/5) of the average lifetime of drives like this. Anyone who knows about HDDs would quote the drive's SMART data in addition to any tests and other diagnostic data they might have. They would also know SMART and other diagnostic data are only broadly useful guesstimates about a drive's health and whether it might be on its way out. You don't appear to even know any of that, despite being a "programmer". And you have the gall to say Windows "will die" because you just don't know what you're doing? Give me a break.