listbox versus listview
Moderators: Hacker, petermad, Stefan2, white
listbox versus listview
I have read for the Xth time a statement by ghisler that he uses a listbox control in the file panels because it would be "clearly faster" than a listview control, like in Explorer.
I cannot confirm that for XP SP2, not even on my antique PII boxes!
The listview control in Explorer is definetely more fluent here than the listbox in TC and even more important than that: It doesn't flicker when scrolling, everything is smooth.
Indeed, there are some file managers out there which have a very slow listview control (Speed Commander for example), so I can only assume that ghisler's statement about speed is either based on bad examples or outdated, maybe true for WinDOS?
So, what are your experiences? Do you see any differences?
If you add an answer:
What OS are you using and how powerful is your box?
Icfu
I cannot confirm that for XP SP2, not even on my antique PII boxes!
The listview control in Explorer is definetely more fluent here than the listbox in TC and even more important than that: It doesn't flicker when scrolling, everything is smooth.
Indeed, there are some file managers out there which have a very slow listview control (Speed Commander for example), so I can only assume that ghisler's statement about speed is either based on bad examples or outdated, maybe true for WinDOS?
So, what are your experiences? Do you see any differences?
If you add an answer:
What OS are you using and how powerful is your box?
Icfu
This account is for sale
Re: listbox versus listview
I also use XP SP2. Pentium D @2.9. Explorer definitely feels faster.icfu wrote:I have read for the Xth time a statement by ghisler that he uses a listbox control in the file panels because it would be "clearly faster" than a listview control, like in Explorer.
I cannot confirm that for XP SP2, not even on my antique PII boxes!
The listview control in Explorer is definetely more fluent here than the listbox in TC and even more important than that: It doesn't flicker when scrolling, everything is smooth.
Indeed, there are some file managers out there which have a very slow listview control (Speed Commander for example), so I can only assume that ghisler's statement about speed is either based on bad examples or outdated, maybe true for WinDOS?
So, what are your experiences? Do you see any differences?
If you add an answer:
What OS are you using and how powerful is your box?
Icfu
- sqa_wizard
- Power Member
- Posts: 3878
- Joined: 2003-02-06, 11:41 UTC
- Location: Germany
2icfu: May I ask what you are talking about ?
Yes, I have read the statement by Ch. Ghisler, but do you mean the speed of :
- scrolling through a list of 30000 files
- sorting those by date
- selecting files
- what else ?
Furthermore you cannot simply compare the listview of MS Explorer (which is an integrated part of the OS) with any control of a separate program ...
Yes, I have read the statement by Ch. Ghisler, but do you mean the speed of :
- scrolling through a list of 30000 files
- sorting those by date
- selecting files
- what else ?
Furthermore you cannot simply compare the listview of MS Explorer (which is an integrated part of the OS) with any control of a separate program ...
#5767 Personal license
@sqa_wizard:
To give you an example about the "speed" of TC, I made a test with 30000 files with very simple names: 1 to 30000.
Time needed to switch the sort direction of the name column on a PII 333:
TC: 25 seconds
Explorer: 4 seconds
SpeedCommander: 38 seconds
The more files TC listbox has to work with, the more extreme the differences are...
@Alextp and Lefteous:
Thanks for additional information.
Icfu
In short: All of that!Yes, I have read the statement by Ch. Ghisler, but do you mean the speed of :
- scrolling through a list of 30000 files
- sorting those by date
- selecting files
- what else ?
To give you an example about the "speed" of TC, I made a test with 30000 files with very simple names: 1 to 30000.
Time needed to switch the sort direction of the name column on a PII 333:
TC: 25 seconds
Explorer: 4 seconds
SpeedCommander: 38 seconds
The more files TC listbox has to work with, the more extreme the differences are...
@Alextp and Lefteous:
Thanks for additional information.
Icfu
This account is for sale
2icfu
Can you provide an app. that can generate those files?I made a test with 30000 files with very simple names: 1 to 30000.
License #524 (1994)
Danish Total Commander Translator
TC 11.03 32+64bit on Win XP 32bit & Win 7, 8.1 & 10 (22H2) 64bit, 'Everything' 1.5.0.1383a
TC 3.60b4 on Android 6, 13 & 14
TC Extended Menus | TC Languagebar | TC Dark Help | PHSM-Calendar
Danish Total Commander Translator
TC 11.03 32+64bit on Win XP 32bit & Win 7, 8.1 & 10 (22H2) 64bit, 'Everything' 1.5.0.1383a
TC 3.60b4 on Android 6, 13 & 14
TC Extended Menus | TC Languagebar | TC Dark Help | PHSM-Calendar
Sure:
http://icfu.totalcmd.net/Temp/create_30000_files.exe
Copy to a directory of your choice and execute. Files will be created in that directory.
Icfu
http://icfu.totalcmd.net/Temp/create_30000_files.exe
Copy to a directory of your choice and execute. Files will be created in that directory.
Icfu
This account is for sale
BY HAND !
2petermad
Hello Peter !
• Let be bold ! Make them one by one using Shift+F4 ! :lol:
{End of the joke }
• It should be interesting to know the average and total sizes…
… and then, to test with different machines having various CPU-clock speeds.
FR
Claude
Clo
Hello Peter !
• Let be bold ! Make them one by one using Shift+F4 ! :lol:
{End of the joke }
• It should be interesting to know the average and total sizes…
… and then, to test with different machines having various CPU-clock speeds.
FR
Claude
Clo
#31505 Traducteur Français de T•C French translator Aide en Français Tutoriels Français English Tutorials
There's no need to write an EXE program. Simple CMD-script will do the job:
1. If run directly from the command line, replace double % signs with single ones.
2. If you need files of size greater than zero, replace "copy nul %%i.tmp" with "fsutil file createnew %%i.tmp <size>", where <size> is either fixed size in bytes, or e.g. %%i itself (to create files of different sizes).
P.S.
Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.
© William of Ockham
Code: Select all
for /L %%i in (1,1,30000) do copy nul %%i.tmp
2. If you need files of size greater than zero, replace "copy nul %%i.tmp" with "fsutil file createnew %%i.tmp <size>", where <size> is either fixed size in bytes, or e.g. %%i itself (to create files of different sizes).
P.S.
Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.
© William of Ockham
Flint's Homepage: Full TC Russification Package, VirtualDisk, NTFS Links, NoClose Replacer, and other stuff!
Using TC 11.03 / Win10 x64
Using TC 11.03 / Win10 x64
The programmer is a man who within 5 hours writes a program which within 5 minutes does the job you would have done yourself within 30 minutes.icfu wrote:It will do the job but it isn't that fast, not only because you forgot @echo off and 1>nul and 2>nul.
I compared times and found that creating 10000 files by my methode with all the output shown takes 27 seconds; with all the output hidden - 25 seconds. So, don't overestimate the output timings, in WinXP it's implemented in quite an effective way.
Of course, EXE will be faster, but will the summary time of (downloading the program + copying it to the temporary folder + running it) be smaller than executing the script I wrote above? I'm not sure.
In any case, I didn't pretend for an universal and best solution. I just wrote one more variant for doing the same job, which can be done with only the standard Windows tools.
Flint's Homepage: Full TC Russification Package, VirtualDisk, NTFS Links, NoClose Replacer, and other stuff!
Using TC 11.03 / Win10 x64
Using TC 11.03 / Win10 x64
2icfu
Here's my test results with 30000 files - changing the sort direction of the Name column:
TC: 3 - 3.5 secs
Explorer: 2 secs
Testing with 60000 files:
TC: 7 secs
Explorer: 3 secs
When TC has been out of focus with that big filelist displayed and it gets the focus back, it takes about 2 secs before TC is ready for input - no such thing occurs with Explorer.
If I change in and out of the 60000 files directory, it takes 7 seconds to generate the filelist in BOTH TC and Explorer.
Testet on a 3.0 GHz PC.
Tested on both FAT and NTFS partitions - I am not sure but it seems to be a tiny bit faster on NTFS in both TC and Explorer.
Test in various views (Full, Brief, Custom Columns views using various content plugins)
Thank you.
Here's my test results with 30000 files - changing the sort direction of the Name column:
TC: 3 - 3.5 secs
Explorer: 2 secs
Testing with 60000 files:
TC: 7 secs
Explorer: 3 secs
When TC has been out of focus with that big filelist displayed and it gets the focus back, it takes about 2 secs before TC is ready for input - no such thing occurs with Explorer.
If I change in and out of the 60000 files directory, it takes 7 seconds to generate the filelist in BOTH TC and Explorer.
Testet on a 3.0 GHz PC.
Tested on both FAT and NTFS partitions - I am not sure but it seems to be a tiny bit faster on NTFS in both TC and Explorer.
Test in various views (Full, Brief, Custom Columns views using various content plugins)
License #524 (1994)
Danish Total Commander Translator
TC 11.03 32+64bit on Win XP 32bit & Win 7, 8.1 & 10 (22H2) 64bit, 'Everything' 1.5.0.1383a
TC 3.60b4 on Android 6, 13 & 14
TC Extended Menus | TC Languagebar | TC Dark Help | PHSM-Calendar
Danish Total Commander Translator
TC 11.03 32+64bit on Win XP 32bit & Win 7, 8.1 & 10 (22H2) 64bit, 'Everything' 1.5.0.1383a
TC 3.60b4 on Android 6, 13 & 14
TC Extended Menus | TC Languagebar | TC Dark Help | PHSM-Calendar
@petermad:
Thanks for your detailed report, looks like you have exactly reproduced my findings, even the delay when TC gets focus back which I hadn't mentioned.
@Flint:
5 seconds I'd say, not 5 hours, otherwise you are right of course.
I had tried a batch too at first, but with "fsutil file createnew" instead which was terribly slow. Your version is definetely faster.
Icfu
Thanks for your detailed report, looks like you have exactly reproduced my findings, even the delay when TC gets focus back which I hadn't mentioned.
Yep, this is because these tiny files are stored directly in the MFT (Master File Table) on NTFS and don't waste any regular disk space.Tested on both FAT and NTFS partitions - I am not sure but it seems to be a tiny bit faster on NTFS in both TC and Explorer.
@Flint:
Code: Select all
Loop, 30000
FileAppend, , %A_Index%
I had tried a batch too at first, but with "fsutil file createnew" instead which was terribly slow. Your version is definetely faster.
Icfu
This account is for sale
Well, it seems that TC is about 8 times faster on my PC compared to yours, whereas Explorer is only 2 times faster on my PC.looks like you have exactly reproduced my findings
Or said in another way: your difference between TC and Explorer is about 6 times, while my difference is only 2 times.
I'm still not sure what to wote, because with more "normal" sized directories TC "feels" faster especially when navigating into the folder tree for the first time in a session - but that might be due TC's use of treeinfo.wc
License #524 (1994)
Danish Total Commander Translator
TC 11.03 32+64bit on Win XP 32bit & Win 7, 8.1 & 10 (22H2) 64bit, 'Everything' 1.5.0.1383a
TC 3.60b4 on Android 6, 13 & 14
TC Extended Menus | TC Languagebar | TC Dark Help | PHSM-Calendar
Danish Total Commander Translator
TC 11.03 32+64bit on Win XP 32bit & Win 7, 8.1 & 10 (22H2) 64bit, 'Everything' 1.5.0.1383a
TC 3.60b4 on Android 6, 13 & 14
TC Extended Menus | TC Languagebar | TC Dark Help | PHSM-Calendar