Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why is this OE slower?
#1
Dear Forum,

Allow me to share an observation with you and invite any similar observations made by yourselves, fellow-users. THIS IS NOT CRITCISM. It is a question based on technical curiosity.

I have conducted the following experiment some 10 times.

I have downloaded 15 messages (some with attachments) through Outlook Express 6 on my old laptop, a 12 year old Samsung X10, running on an Intel 1.3GHz processor with 1 GB RAM (Windows XP).

And then I have downloaded the *identical* same 15 messages on RunAsXP's OE installed 2 days ago on a brand new laptop Samsung ATIV Book9 Pro, running on a i5-4300 processor with 8 GB RAM (Windows 10). This laptop has no other programmes installed (besides Office 2013 and Firefox).

The experiment was repeated some 10 times. Both connect to the same wireless router. Also, to make it fair, I have disabled the AVG anti-virus screening of the downloaded messages on the new laptop.

And here is the result: the downloading always took 40% longer time on the brand new super modern laptop using RunAsXp OE than on the old one.

Any ideas as to why? Is this normal?
Reply
#2
Just did a few more of those test runs as described above and found that the time difference in downloading the (identical) messages from the same pop server was even 75% longer with RunAsXP's OE in some of the cases.
I still wonder what the reasons might be. This is not criticism.
Reply
#3
Hello.
Yes it is normal.
This happens due to windows 7 (and newer) file protection services. These services are scanning continously files and applications for protecting operating system itself.
Newer windows have many security features like build in anrivirus-defender, UAC and a strong file protecrion service. These makes oe and many other apps run a bit slower.
As an example you can try running a standalone exe on xp and on 7 or newer, you will notice that difference.
Rafael
Administrator
-------------------------------------------------

Reply
#4
Thanks, Rafail, that seems to explain the difference in speed then.
Reply


Forum Jump: