Windows 8.1



  • My desktop PC has an 128GB SSD on which my OS (Windows 8) is installed, and a second 1TB HDD on which all my files and programs are installed.  Considering the cost of SSDs, their aptitutde to fail more often than traditional HDDs, as well as just the convenience of keeping user files and OS files separated, I don't think this set-up is too uncommon.

    In Windows 7, redirecting the users folder to another partition could be done seemlessly and flawlessly by symlinking C:\Users to the location you actually wanted the Users folder.

    Windows 8, on the other hand, did not play well with this set-up at all, to the point that any sort of redirection configured in Windows 7 completely prevented an upgrade to Windows 8 (instead having to do a clean install of the OS).  Redirection on Windows 8 is handledly much less seemlessly through installing with an answers file that specifies the location of the users file.  Despite the initial frustrations, this has worked well...

    ... until today, when I attempted to upgrade to Windows 8.1.  After downloading the upgrade files, I am simply presented with a message that states: "Sorry, it looks like this PC can't run Windows 8.1.  This might be because the Users or Program Files folder is being redirected to another partition."

    WTF does the location of my users folder even matter in the first place?  Is it so ridiculous of me to expect that this sort of set-up would be supported?  So essentially the Microsoft answer to "I don't want my users folder on the same partition as my OS" is you can no longer upgrade your OS, ever.



  •  Actually minimizing the "Supported" scenarios is not a bad idea... If a person is smart enough to re-direct their folders, then it is a simple matter to remove the re-direct for the duration (leaving all the files in the "Rela" location", perform the upgrade and re-enable the re-direct...



  •  Actually, if the person is smart enougth, then s/he does not run Windows at all and so does not have this kind of problems.



  • How did you do the redirect again? Is it in the way actually supported by windows?



  • So.. Windows 8.1 deprecated symlinks? Can Microsoft do that?

    Fortunately for you, future Microsoft OS upgrades are going to be horrible so you won't be missing anything. If Windows 8 is any indication, anyways. On a somewhat related note, I've been having a hell of a time tracking down a website/store that still sells Windows 7 (Microsoft decided my perfectly valid key was not anymore, so I'm in search of a new one). My existing bias against the company tells me they are obviously doing this on purpose so you will be forced to use it's inferior successor.



  • @henke37 said:

    How did you do the redirect again? Is it in the way actually supported by windows?

     I used sysprep audit mode to customize the answers file used during the installation.  There is a node in the answers file for UserProfileDirectory which I modifed to D:\Users instead of C:\Users, then ran the Windows 8 installation with that answers file.  This is OOB Windows 8 functionality so I thought it was a fair assumption that it would be supported in future upgrades.



  •  @aapis said:

    So.. Windows 8.1 deprecated symlinks? Can Microsoft do that?

    Fortunately for you, future Microsoft OS upgrades are going to be horrible so you won't be missing anything. If Windows 8 is any indication, anyways. On a somewhat related note, I've been having a hell of a time tracking down a website/store that still sells Windows 7 (Microsoft decided my perfectly valid key was not anymore, so I'm in search of a new one). My existing bias against the company tells me they are obviously doing this on purpose so you will be forced to use it's inferior successor.

     Well it wasn't 8.1 that the symlink method stopped working, it was actually with Windows 8.  I wouldn't say they deprecated symlinks altogheter, just using them to redirect the users folder.  With Windows 7 you could easily redirect the users directory with a junction point that worked really, really well.  In Windows 8 that stopped working.

     



  • @bullrider718 said:

     @aapis said:

    So.. Windows 8.1 deprecated symlinks? Can Microsoft do that?

    Fortunately for you, future Microsoft OS upgrades are going to be horrible so you won't be missing anything. If Windows 8 is any indication, anyways. On a somewhat related note, I've been having a hell of a time tracking down a website/store that still sells Windows 7 (Microsoft decided my perfectly valid key was not anymore, so I'm in search of a new one). My existing bias against the company tells me they are obviously doing this on purpose so you will be forced to use it's inferior successor.

     Well it wasn't 8.1 that the symlink method stopped working, it was actually with Windows 8.  I wouldn't say they deprecated symlinks altogheter, just using them to redirect the users folder.  With Windows 7 you could easily redirect the users directory with a junction point that worked really, really well.  In Windows 8 that stopped working.

     

    I don't see why newer versions would care, clearly it wasn't a problem before. Silly Windows.


  • SSDs are definitely a problem with Windows. An HDD+SSD combo is the only setup that makes sense today, but this means ideally you should be able to move software and system folders between drives, and Windows doesn't seem to like that idea (as evidenced in this thread).

    Linux is at least much more lenient with symbolic links, mount points and stuff like that, so when there's no way to move a folder you can usually hack your way around the problem.






  • @TheCPUWizard said:

     Actually minimizing the "Supported" scenarios is not a bad idea... If a person is smart enough to re-direct their folders, then it is a simple matter to remove the re-direct for the duration (leaving all the files in the "Rela" location", perform the upgrade and re-enable the re-direct...

    Hmm I don't know about that. Obviously the Users folder and Program Files folder are important to Windows in upgrading to 8.1, and any important modifications the upgrade software will do to them, will be discarded if your suggestion is implemented.



  • @gilhad said:

     Actually, if the person is smart enougth, then s/he does not run Windows at all and so does not have this kind of problems.

    As a Linux user, I quite agree with you that the only way not to have annoying OS issues, is not to use an OS.

    That is, of course, what you meant, isn't it?



  • @bullrider718 said:

    In Windows 7, redirecting the users folder to another partition could be done seemlessly and flawlessly by symlinking C:\Users to the location you actually wanted the Users folder.

    I was very pleased with myself the day I figured out I could do this with Windows XP, thereby avoiding the horribly tedious process of having to change every. single. registry reference! to C:\Documents and Settings by hand, and immediately proceeded to set up a machine for a customer that way (with C:\Documents and Settings symlinked to D:\Documents and Settings).

    Smile got wiped off my face a week after installation when she reported that dragging stuff to the Recycle Bin just plain didn't work. Turns out Explorer completely fails to understand that the file it wants to move to the recycle bin is actually on D:, and tries to move it to a subdirectory of C:\RECYCLER using a directory move operation, which naturally fails; the user is presented with a completely baffling "access denied" error on every attempt.

    Does Windows 7 not do that?



  • I have done something similar, although I've moved my Program Files (and (x86)) after setup and created junction points. There was one minor problem which took a while before I got it resolved; you have to change a few values in the registry key HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion, most notably 'CommonFilesDir', 'ProgramFilesDir' and any x86-alternatives found there. Haven't had an issue since, though I admit I haven't tried to upgrade from 8 to 8.1



  • @aapis said:

    If Windows 8 is any indication, anyways. On a somewhat related note, I've been having a hell of a time tracking down a website/store that still sells Windows 7 (Microsoft decided my perfectly valid key was not anymore, so I'm in search of a new one). My existing bias against the company tells me they are obviously doing this on purpose so you will be forced to use it's inferior successor.

    Had this happen a couple of times - if it wants to take you to a website to run a genuine check, let it do that because that often clears it up (sometimes it gets scared and confused). If that doesn't help, do a Change Product Key from the System control panel and then try activating over the phone. You might have to plea your innocence to one of the activationbot's human minders but they'll usually generate you a code that will get you working again.



  • @flabdablet said:

    @bullrider718 said:
    In Windows 7, redirecting the users folder to another partition could be done seemlessly and flawlessly by symlinking C:\Users to the location you actually wanted the Users folder.

    I was very pleased with myself the day I figured out I could do this with Windows XP, thereby avoiding the horribly tedious process of having to change every. single. registry reference! to C:\Documents and Settings by hand, and immediately proceeded to set up a machine for a customer that way (with C:\Documents and Settings symlinked to D:\Documents and Settings).

    Smile got wiped off my face a week after installation when she reported that dragging stuff to the Recycle Bin just plain didn't work. Turns out Explorer completely fails to understand that the file it wants to move to the recycle bin is actually on D:, and tries to move it to a subdirectory of C:\RECYCLER using a directory move operation, which naturally fails; the user is presented with a completely baffling "access denied" error on every attempt.

    This sounds like the setup to a classic blakeyrant about Windows developers not caring enough to figure out how the OS works. Well, it would if Explorer was open source.



  • @bullrider718 said:

    SSDs... their aptitutde to fail more often than traditional HDD...

    Wrong. HDD = 5%, SSD = 1.5%.

    As for Win8 and symlinks, this issue is fucking stupid. If Win7 supports symlinked Users/Program Files, why does Win8 not? Perhaps consider filing a support request with MS to ask them.

    Personally I only symlink subfolders within Users/Program Files to other locations (e.g. C:\Users\The_Assimilator\Downloads to D:\Users\The_Assimilator\Downloads).



  • Coworker just came up with this series of steps he followed to upgrade:

    • Start upgrade from Windows 8 to 8.1
    • Have all monitors go black on you
    • Decide to wait it out
    • After ten minutes, decide the upgrade process has hung, and hard reboot
    • Notice the upgrade start to revert itself upon reboot
    • Have PC reboot automatically afterwards
    • Upon reboot, get BSOD explaining that your registry is corrupt so Windows 8.0 can't start

    The way around this? Why, there is none: after all, he's got an upgrade license, not a clean install license! So there's nothing for it but to do a clean install of 8.0.



  • @The_Assimilator said:

    Wrong. HDD = 5%, SSD = 1.5%.

    "If I'm writing 10GB a day minute to a 120GB SSD, it will last over 10 years 60 days," Geiser
    said.



  • @toon said:

    Coworker just came up with this series of steps he followed to upgrade:

    • Start upgrade from Windows 8 to 8.1
    • Have all monitors go black on you
    • Decide to wait it out
    • After ten minutes, decide the upgrade process has hung, and hard reboot
    • Notice the upgrade start to revert itself upon reboot
    • Have PC reboot automatically afterwards
    • Upon reboot, get BSOD explaining that your registry is corrupt so Windows 8.0 can't start

    The way around this? Why, there is none: after all, he's got an upgrade license, not a clean install license! So there's nothing for it but to do a clean install of 8.0. Restore from Backup taken immediately prior to upgrade.

     Fixed!



  • @TheCPUWizard said:

    Backup
     

    I don't know what you mean. What kind of supernerd jargon is that?



  • @The_Assimilator said:

    Personally I only symlink subfolders within Users/Program Files to other locations (e.g. C:\Users\The_Assimilator\Downloads to D:\Users\The_Assimilator\Downloads).
    Does the Recycle Bin work correctly for folders you've symlinked to a different drive?



  • @dhromed said:

    @TheCPUWizard said:

    Backup
     

    I don't know what you mean. What kind of supernerd jargon is that?


    Backups are for n00bs. Hell, Linus doesn't use them.



  • @aapis said:

    My existing bias against the company tells me they are obviously doing this on purpose so you will be forced to use it's inferior successor.

    They are. I had to search microsoft.com with google to find a page about Windows 7. Clicking on the link that reads "Buy Windows 7 now!" takes you to the Windows 8 sales page. Then it pops up a survey asking you if you found the information helpful.

    I ended up downloading a Windows 7 image (Microsoft don't let you download anything, but one of their distributors have them lying around on their servers), then ordering a physical DVD just for the stupid license key.



  • @flabdablet said:

    Turns out Explorer completely fails to understand that the file it wants to move to the recycle bin is actually on D:, and tries to move it to a subdirectory of C:\RECYCLER using a directory move operation, which naturally fails; the user is presented with a completely baffling "access denied" error on every attempt.

    I can't decide whether I hate the Win32 API for not falling back to copy and remove when a move crosses file systems or laud it for the semantic "purity" which results in better integrity (no possibility of duplicate files ending up at the destination if the move fails halfway, etc.) I'm having a hell of a time with a related issue, but I'll save it for another subforum.

    Edit: Oh yeah, my point was "Access denied" is an asinine error message; it's probably still associated with that use case for DOS/Win16 compatibility, but it never should have been in the first place.



  • Why bother with all the iffy hacks to move the whole profile directory? Open your profile dir, right click My Documents, go to the Location tab, click Move. Presto! Repeat as desired with other profile subdirectories. Who gives a shit if your NTUSER.DAT is still on C:?



  • @db2 said:

    Why bother with all the iffy hacks to move the whole profile directory? Open your profile dir, right click My Documents, go to the Location tab, click Move. Presto! Repeat as desired with other profile subdirectories. Who gives a shit if your NTUSER.DAT is still on C:?

    Because you want to back it up separately, and you don't want it to hog your SSD.

    We're talking about the entire C:\Users directory, and the C:\Program Files directory, by the way. Not just My Documents.



  • @bullrider718 said:

    My desktop PC has an 128GB SSD on which my OS (Windows 8) is installed, and a second 1TB HDD on which all my files and programs are installed.  Considering the cost of SSDs, their aptitutde to fail more often than traditional HDDs, as well as just the convenience of keeping user files and OS files separated, I don't think this set-up is too uncommon.

    In Windows 7, redirecting the users folder to another partition could be done seemlessly and flawlessly by symlinking C:\Users to the location you actually wanted the Users folder.

    Windows 8, on the other hand, did not play well with this set-up at all, to the point that any sort of redirection configured in Windows 7 completely prevented an upgrade to Windows 8 (instead having to do a clean install of the OS).  Redirection on Windows 8 is handledly much less seemlessly through installing with an answers file that specifies the location of the users file.  Despite the initial frustrations, this has worked well...

    ... until today, when I attempted to upgrade to Windows 8.1.  After downloading the upgrade files, I am simply presented with a message that states: "Sorry, it looks like this PC can't run Windows 8.1.  This might be because the Users or Program Files folder is being redirected to another partition."

    WTF does the location of my users folder even matter in the first place?  Is it so ridiculous of me to expect that this sort of set-up would be supported?  So essentially the Microsoft answer to "I don't want my users folder on the same partition as my OS" is you can no longer upgrade your OS, ever.

    Sysprep doesn't like upgrades; see: http://www.eightforums.com/tutorials/4275-user-profiles-relocate-another-partition-disk.html



  • @bullrider718 said:

    My desktop PC has an 128GB SSD on which my OS (Windows 8) is installed, and a second 1TB HDD on which all my files and programs are installed.  Considering the cost of SSDs, their aptitutde to fail more often than traditional HDDs, as well as just the convenience of keeping user files and OS files separated, I don't think this set-up is too uncommon.

    In Windows 7, redirecting the users folder to another partition could be done seemlessly and flawlessly by symlinking C:\Users to the location you actually wanted the Users folder.

    Windows 8, on the other hand, did not play well with this set-up at all, to the point that any sort of redirection configured in Windows 7 completely prevented an upgrade to Windows 8 (instead having to do a clean install of the OS).  Redirection on Windows 8 is handledly much less seemlessly through installing with an answers file that specifies the location of the users file.  Despite the initial frustrations, this has worked well...

    ... until today, when I attempted to upgrade to Windows 8.1.  After downloading the upgrade files, I am simply presented with a message that states: "Sorry, it looks like this PC can't run Windows 8.1.  This might be because the Users or Program Files folder is being redirected to another partition."

    WTF does the location of my users folder even matter in the first place?  Is it so ridiculous of me to expect that this sort of set-up would be supported?  So essentially the Microsoft answer to "I don't want my users folder on the same partition as my OS" is you can no longer upgrade your OS, ever.

    Wow, seriously?

    Like you, I have my Users directory junctioned from my SSD to my HDD... and I intend to keep it that way.

    I didn't need more reasons not to upgrade to Windows 8.x, but MS gives them to me anyway...

    (Oh, and for those of you who are wondering how to symlink directories in Windows 7+, it's mklink /j link directory as opposed to UNIX's ln -s directory link)

     



  • @toon said:

    @db2 said:
    Why bother with all the iffy hacks to move the whole profile directory? Open your profile dir, right click My Documents, go to the Location tab, click Move. Presto! Repeat as desired with other profile subdirectories. Who gives a shit if your NTUSER.DAT is still on C:?

    Because you want to back it up separately, and you don't want it to hog your SSD.

    We're talking about the entire C:\Users directory, and the C:\Program Files directory, by the way. Not just My Documents.

    My NTUSER.DAT is a whole 24 MB. If that's hogging your SSD, get a bigger SSD. And you can move most of the special folders, not just My Documents. Can't help you with Program Files, but wouldn't you want that left on the SSD for better launch performance?



  • @db2 said:

    @toon said:
    @db2 said:
    Why bother with all the iffy hacks to move the whole profile directory? Open your profile dir, right click My Documents, go to the Location tab, click Move. Presto! Repeat as desired with other profile subdirectories. Who gives a shit if your NTUSER.DAT is still on C:?

    Because you want to back it up separately, and you don't want it to hog your SSD.

    We're talking about the entire C:\Users directory, and the C:\Program Files directory, by the way. Not just My Documents.

    My NTUSER.DAT is a whole 24 MB. If that's hogging your SSD, get a bigger SSD. And you can move most of the special folders, not just My Documents. Can't help you with Program Files, but wouldn't you want that left on the SSD for better launch performance?

    @toon said:

    Because you want to back your users directory up separately, and you don't want it to hog your SSD.

    FTFY. Sorry for having to spell it out for you!

    @db2 said:

    Can't help you with Program Files, but wouldn't you want that left on the SSD for better launch performance?

    Depends on the size of the SSD, doesn't it? We are talking Windows 8 here.



  • @The_Assimilator said:

    Personally I only symlink subfolders within Users/Program Files to other locations (e.g. C:\Users\The_Assimilator\Downloads to D:\Users\The_Assimilator\Downloads).

    Why the hell would you do that? Vista and onward allow you to move those without any symlinking - just go into the folder properties and change the location of the folder.



  • @heterodox said:

    I can't decide whether I hate the Win32 API for not falling back to copy and remove when a move crosses file systems or laud it for the semantic "purity" which results in better integrity (no possibility of duplicate files ending up at the destination if the move fails halfway, etc.)
    Personally I hate it for not being able to figure out which filesystem a file it's trying to recycle is part of. It already supports per-drive Recycler folders and it should just bloody well use the right one.



  • @toon said:

    Because you want to back your users directory up separately, and you don't want it to hog your SSD.
     

    The built-in folder redirection can move My Documents, My Pictures, and every other builtin subfolder to wherever you want, and copying or backing up C\Users will still find everything for all users.  That's the entire point of folder redirection - operations on the Users folder don't have to care where individual users have actually stored their files.  Unless you store things directly in C:\User[YourUserName] or use a program that dumps all its crap there, leaving Users where it is and redirecting everything else will leave your SSD clean.

     



  • @rampaging-poet said:

    The built-in folder redirection can move My Documents, My Pictures, and every other builtin subfolder to wherever you want
    I'm going to stop you there - it can't move every subfolder. AppData, for instance, can't be moved.



  • @anotherusername said:

    @rampaging-poet said:
    The built-in folder redirection can move My Documents, My Pictures, and every other builtin subfolder to wherever you want
    I'm going to stop you there - it can't move every subfolder. AppData, for instance, can't be moved.

    But AppData subfolders can be moved. Mind you, they can't be in use at the time.

    And you have to be logged into the user account that they belong to to move them.

    But other than that...



  • @anonymous234 said:

    An HDD+SSD combo is the only setup that makes sense today, but this means ideally you should be able to move software and system folders between drives, and Windows doesn't seem to like that idea (as evidenced in this thread).

    Depends a bit on what you do with your PC. I only have a 240GB SSD in my workstation (and a 60GB SSD in my laptop), which suffices just fine for what I do with it - including dozens of applications and games, and my users folder right there on the C: drive.

    Of course, I also have about 2TB worth of media files, but those are stored on my NAS - cheap, reliable, and it facilitates using a media center instead of fooling around with USB sticks or, heavens forbid, DVDs / Blu-rays. As a bonus, windows can do automatic backups to it as well, so even if my SSD breaks, my data is still save.

    @The_Assimilator said:

    Wrong. HDD = 5%, SSD = 1.5%.

    You have to appreciate the inertia of this kind of thinking. There was once a time when batteries should be regularly discharged completely, and even though that is a sure way to deteriorate modern LiIon batteries, it is still the advice my mother recently received upon purchasing a new laptop battery. People just remember some little bit of information and keep repeating it, even though that information has long since been invalidated. Thus people still believe that windows constantly crashes, that IE is the slowest browser and Firefox uses the most memory (no really), and that SSDs break a lot.



  • @FragFrog said:

    Thus people still believe that windows constantly crashes, that IE is the slowest browser and Firefox uses the most memory

    Firefox was good about not using too much memory for a while, but the current version of Firefox (24.0) seems like a giant step in the backward direction. Or maybe it's the version that immediately preceded this one. In either case, Firefox routinely takes upward of 800 MB (usually hovering around 1000 MB) of memory. It doesn't seem to matter whether I have 50 tabs open or only 5... it just gradually bloats as I use it until it almost forces me to close it out and start anew. On a machine with less than 2 GB of RAM it's downright unpleasant to use, and even with more than 2 GB that's still not really acceptable. (It doesn't help that Java likes to consume another GB or so.)



  • @anotherusername said:

    I'm going to stop you there - it can't move every subfolder. AppData, for instance, can't be moved.

    AppData/Roaming can be.



  • @anotherusername said:

    Firefox routinely takes upward of 800 MB (usually hovering around 1000 MB) of memory.
    I've heard many people complain about this, but I've been using Firefox since the earliest days and I've never experienced this.  Right now Firefox is using 200MB on my computer and that's about typical in my erperience. Being an old fart, the idea of a web browser using 200MB seems absurd, but at some point you have to start living in the present rather than the past.  For example: @anotherusername said:
    On a machine with less than 2 GB of RAM
    8 GB of RAM is currently about $60.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @anotherusername said:
    Firefox routinely takes upward of 800 MB (usually hovering around 1000 MB) of memory.
    I've heard many people complain about this, but I've been using Firefox since the earliest days and I've never experienced this.  Right now Firefox is using 200MB on my computer and that's about typical in my erperience. Being an old fart, the idea of a web browser using 200MB seems absurd, but at some point you have to start living in the present rather than the past.  For example: @anotherusername said:
    On a machine with less than 2 GB of RAM
    8 GB of RAM is currently about $60.
    Reminds me of a support case that happened last year at my previous job. A user complained that our web app didn't work well on their system because it didn't fit on his screen. We had him send us a screenshot, and lo and behold he was running at 640x480 resolution--in 2012! We asked him if he could increase the resolution and he could not. At that point we dropped the issue, either he had no VGA drivers installed or he was using a 13" CRT from 1991.

    My home PC has 16 GB RAM. I don't care how much memory anything uses. I wish some applications were smart enough to see how much I have and actually use more of it, instead of assuming I have little RAM and constantly performing I/O on my spinning rust hard drive so it never goes above 1 GB used.

     



  • @El_Heffe said:

    @anotherusername said:
    Firefox routinely takes upward of 800 MB (usually hovering around 1000 MB) of memory.
    I've heard many people complain about this, but I've been using Firefox since the earliest days and I've never experienced this.  Right now Firefox is using 200MB on my computer and that's about typical in my erperience.
    Like I said, it seems to be a recent thing. Are you using the latest version?

    I'm halfway tempted to uninstall it and roll back a few version numbers to see if it makes a difference, but the lazy part of me wants to suffer it out and wait for them to fix the memory leaks again like they did before.@El_Heffe said:

    @anotherusername said:
    On a machine with less than 2 GB of RAM
    8 GB of RAM is currently about $60.

    I have 4 GB in my laptop. I don't like the fact that I'd have to give a virtual machine half of that just to have it run Firefox passably well.

    (As it is, I give it 1 GB, and restart Firefox occasionally to reset the hands of time when it starts getting too slow to use comfortably.)



  • @anotherusername said:

    I have 4 GB in my laptop. I don't like the fact that I'd have to give a virtual machine half of that just to have it run Firefox passably well.

    (As it is, I give it 1 GB, and restart Firefox occasionally to reset the hands of time when it starts getting too slow to use comfortably.)


    Why are you running a web browser in a VM? Just run the goddamn web browser.



  • @Ben L. said:

    @anotherusername said:

    I have 4 GB in my laptop. I don't like the fact that I'd have to give a virtual machine half of that just to have it run Firefox passably well.

    (As it is, I give it 1 GB, and restart Firefox occasionally to reset the hands of time when it starts getting too slow to use comfortably.)


    Why are you running a web browser in a VM? Just run the goddamn web browser.

    FWIW:  ALL of my machines are running pure VM's except for the few that are used for embedded hardware (e.g. PCI-E card) development that requires a physcial box. On Windows boxes, the host is "core".



  • @anotherusername said:

    I have 4 GB in my laptop.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Ben L. said:

    Why are you running a web browser in a VM? Just run the goddamn web browser.
    One of my colleagues runs browsers in a VM. Actually, he runs lots of VMs with different versions of lots of browsers so he can check that the sites he develops run the same in all of them. (The poor man still has to support IE6 because of downstream customers…)



  •  @anotherusername said:

    I'm going to stop you there - it can't move every subfolder. AppData, for instance, can't be moved.

    Oops.  That's what I get for working from memory instead of checking the documentation first.  Still, moving My Documents, My Pictures, My Music, and the like will free up most of the the Users folder uses.



  • @anotherusername said:

    Firefox was good about not using too much memory for a while, but the current version of Firefox (24.0) seems like a giant step in the backward direction.
    It's not much better at 27.0:




    USER       PID %CPU %MEM    VSZ   RSS TTY      STAT START   TIME COMMAND

    xxxxxxxx  6657  9.8 37.8 2501468 1362732 ?     Sl   Oct16 391:37  _ /home/xxxxxxxx/firefox/firefox

    xxxxxxxx  7212  0.0  0.6 265348 22684 ?        Sl   Oct16   1:24      _ /home/xxxxxxxx/firefox/plugin-container /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so -greomni /home/xxxxxxxx/firefox/omni.ja -appomni /home/xxxxxxxx/firefox/browser/omni.ja -appdir /home/xxxxxxxx/firefox/browser 6657 true plugin



  • @Ben L. said:

    @anotherusername said:

    I have 4 GB in my laptop. I don't like the fact that I'd have to give a virtual machine half of that just to have it run Firefox passably well.

    (As it is, I give it 1 GB, and restart Firefox occasionally to reset the hands of time when it starts getting too slow to use comfortably.)


    Why are you running a web browser in a VM? Just run the goddamn web browser.
    Shh. It's for private browsing.



  • @Ronald said:

    @anotherusername said:

    I have 4 GB in my laptop.

     

    Well, I have 1 GB of RAM on my laptop. It works great, Firefox and all.

    Or, better, it worked great untill the BIOS battery discharged. Now it works great once you set the clock again after each boot. It's mounted in a way that I simply can not understand how to open it, and it'll probably get replaced just because of that (from another manufacturer's model, of course).

     


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.