Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Hello,
I have a network with 20 Windows 2000 clients, a couple of Windows98 clients, and a couple of Windows NT 4 computers. Recently I had to add a couple of computers and these ended up being Windows XP Professional SP2 machines.
The problem I am having is with some applications that open scanned documents (TIF files) across the network. A 20 page image will open up with the first page displayed and about 7 subsequent pages shown as thumbnails. On the Windows 2000, 98, and NT machines this happens in about one second. On the Windows XP machine it takes one second per thumbnail. These XP machines all have AMD 3400+ and higher CPUs with 512MB to 1GB RAM. The Windows 2000 machines range from 500Mhz to 750Mhz and have 128MB or less.
I have tried the browsing/scheduler related fix, but that has made no change at all. I have turned off the firewall, installed NetBeui, turned off every service possible, but it still takes much longer to do the same thing the "slower" 2000, NT, 98 machines are currently doing.
Does anyone have any ideas?
One thing that may be of significance is that the Windows Imaging control used in the software does open and close the image file for each thumbnail in a multi-page tif, which seems a bit odd to me, but it still works fine on the other operating systems.

Windows xp is a tad slower than the other O.S. due to the increase security that is built in and because of a lot of other services that may be running. You can speed it up by tweaking the services and shutting down unneeded programs and shutting down security things that are not required across the network.
In The Matters Of Style,
swim with the current;
in matters of principle,
Stand Like A Rock
"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the
freedom of thought which they avoid."

Is this performance issue only related to the incident you described? How does performance compare when doing things like copying other files across the network?
Try copying the TIF files to the local machine and open them from there - what is performance like?

![]() |
![]() |
![]() |

This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |