Question About LF95 v5.6h executables 
Author Message
 Question About LF95 v5.6h executables

I recently upgraded from Lahey LF90 v4.0e to Lahey-Fujistu LF95 v5.6h
at work.  I am running on a Dell Optiplex GXi Pentium 200 MHz with
128Mbytes memory under Windows 95 OSR2.  I have successfully compiled
and run programs with the new compiler.  The problem is that the
executable files take a LOOONG time to load.  For one example, I will
use M. Olagnon's fppr90.  With an executable compiled with LF90 v4.0e,
it loads in roughly one second or less in a DOS window, just using
enough time to find the DLLs it needs.  The executable compiled with
LF95 v5.6h takes ~15 sec to load.  The same executable taken home to
my Dell Pentium II (128 Mbytes memory, 350 MHz) with Windows 98 loads
instantly.  An executable of fppr90 compiled with Compaq VF v6.6 loads
instantly on the Pentium 200 MHz.

Furthermore, any folder which has an executable compiled with LF95
v5.6h takes a long time to open with Windows Explorer, about the same
amount of time it takes to load the executable in a DOS window.

I don't have a lot of free space on my hard drive, so Lahey tech
support (and my local tech support) recommended freeing up some space,
running scandisk, and then defragmenting.  I freed up space until I
had about 220 Mb free, checked the disk, and defragged.  It made no
difference at all.

The Windows Explorer problem occurs only on folders with Lahey LF95
executables.  I can put other large files in the folders, and they
open instantly.

I have taken the executables to another Dell Optiplex Pentium 200 MHz
machine, also with 128 Mb memory and Win 95 OSR2, but with a second
hard drive having about 1.5Gbytes free.  On that machine, the fppr90
executable takes about 7 sec to load (compared to 14 or 15 sec on my
machine).  The Windows Explorer problem is still present, but the
folder opens about twice as fast, just like loading the executable.
All other executables I have tried load about twice as fast on that
machine, but not as fast as on my Win 98 machine, or as fast as the
LF90 v4.0e  or Compaq VF6.6 executables.

Lahey tech support has listed patiently, but they haven't a clue, and
have not apparently received this kind of complaint before.

Does anyone have any idea what is going on?  Our local tech support
have checked my PC and can't find anything wrong.
Jeff Ryman
email:  rymanjc_at_
        e{*filter*}_dot_com



Sun, 17 Oct 2004 13:01:26 GMT  
 Question About LF95 v5.6h executables


[snip]
I should have mentioned that both the Lahey executables were compiled
from within ED using whatever the default compiler options are for
that environment.
Jeff Ryman
email:  rymanjc_at_
        e{*filter*}_dot_com



Sun, 17 Oct 2004 13:31:01 GMT  
 Question About LF95 v5.6h executables


Quote:
>  An executable of fppr90 compiled with Compaq VF v6.6 loads
>instantly on the Pentium 200 MHz.

        What are the sizes of the executables from the different compilers.

Quote:
>Furthermore, any folder which has an executable compiled with LF95
>v5.6h takes a long time to open with Windows Explorer, about the same
>amount of time it takes to load the executable in a DOS window.

        Do you have an active back-ground virus-checker?

--

        KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".



Sun, 17 Oct 2004 13:45:53 GMT  
 Question About LF95 v5.6h executables
I've had Windows Explorer under ME be slow to work when there are
problems locating icons within a file, usually when I have a 'preview'
file mode set, or when there are many files. Perhaps Lahey are using a
non-default EXE icon?

I can also have Windows be slow loading files - this is many programs,
and I doubt that Lahey were used for many of them. My guess is that
the slow down is a bloated registry, so again it may be that lahey is
using the registry more than Compaq - or that the registry has a
simple search, so that L takes longer than C!

Quote:

> I recently upgraded from Lahey LF90 v4.0e to Lahey-Fujistu LF95 v5.6h
> at work.  I am running on a Dell Optiplex GXi Pentium 200 MHz with
> 128Mbytes memory under Windows 95 OSR2.  I have successfully compiled
> and run programs with the new compiler.  The problem is that the
> executable files take a LOOONG time to load.  For one example, I will
> use M. Olagnon's fppr90.  With an executable compiled with LF90 v4.0e,
> it loads in roughly one second or less in a DOS window, just using
> enough time to find the DLLs it needs.  The executable compiled with
> LF95 v5.6h takes ~15 sec to load.  The same executable taken home to
> my Dell Pentium II (128 Mbytes memory, 350 MHz) with Windows 98 loads
> instantly.  An executable of fppr90 compiled with Compaq VF v6.6 loads
> instantly on the Pentium 200 MHz.

> Furthermore, any folder which has an executable compiled with LF95
> v5.6h takes a long time to open with Windows Explorer, about the same
> amount of time it takes to load the executable in a DOS window.

> I don't have a lot of free space on my hard drive, so Lahey tech
> support (and my local tech support) recommended freeing up some space,
> running scandisk, and then defragmenting.  I freed up space until I
> had about 220 Mb free, checked the disk, and defragged.  It made no
> difference at all.

> The Windows Explorer problem occurs only on folders with Lahey LF95
> executables.  I can put other large files in the folders, and they
> open instantly.

> I have taken the executables to another Dell Optiplex Pentium 200 MHz
> machine, also with 128 Mb memory and Win 95 OSR2, but with a second
> hard drive having about 1.5Gbytes free.  On that machine, the fppr90
> executable takes about 7 sec to load (compared to 14 or 15 sec on my
> machine).  The Windows Explorer problem is still present, but the
> folder opens about twice as fast, just like loading the executable.
> All other executables I have tried load about twice as fast on that
> machine, but not as fast as on my Win 98 machine, or as fast as the
> LF90 v4.0e  or Compaq VF6.6 executables.

> Lahey tech support has listed patiently, but they haven't a clue, and
> have not apparently received this kind of complaint before.

> Does anyone have any idea what is going on?  Our local tech support
> have checked my PC and can't find anything wrong.
> Jeff Ryman
> email:  rymanjc_at_
>         e{*filter*}_dot_com



Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:07:15 GMT  
 Question About LF95 v5.6h executables

Quote:


>>  An executable of fppr90 compiled with Compaq VF v6.6 loads
>>instantly on the Pentium 200 MHz.

>    What are the sizes of the executables from the different compilers.

LF90 v4.0e - 184 Kb
LF95 v5.6h - 805 Kb
CVF v6.6 - 628 Kb
Quote:
>>Furthermore, any folder which has an executable compiled with LF95
>>v5.6h takes a long time to open with Windows Explorer, about the same
>>amount of time it takes to load the executable in a DOS window.

>    Do you have an active back-ground virus-checker?

Yes--This turned out to be the trouble.  I was running McAfee Vshield
from Virusscan 4.0.3 -- turning it off cures the problem.  We were in
the process of ugrading to McAfee v4.5.1.  I called our tech support
and had it installed.  When Vshield is running for all files, this
version too slows down loading of Lahey executables from v5.6h.
However, this VShield has an option to turn off Express scanning,
which leaves the program only scanning some class of critical files.
When Express Scanning is off, everything loads quickly.

I don't know why only Lahey executables seem to load so slowly-628 Kb
(for the CVF executable) is not that much smaller than 805 Kb.  For
example, another program of 395Kb compiled with Lahey v5.6h also loads
slowly (about 8 or 9 sec).

At any rate, thanks for the suggestion!!!
Jeff Ryman
email:  rymanjc_at_
        e{*filter*}_dot_com



Mon, 18 Oct 2004 09:55:26 GMT  
 Question About LF95 v5.6h executables


Quote:



>>>  An executable of fppr90 compiled with Compaq VF v6.6 loads
>>>instantly on the Pentium 200 MHz.
>>        What are the sizes of the executables from the different compilers.
>LF90 v4.0e - 184 Kb
>LF95 v5.6h - 805 Kb
>CVF v6.6 - 628 Kb

        Scratch that thought...

Quote:
>>>Furthermore, any folder which has an executable compiled with LF95
>>>v5.6h takes a long time to open with Windows Explorer, about the same
>>>amount of time it takes to load the executable in a DOS window.
>>        Do you have an active back-ground virus-checker?
>Yes--This turned out to be the trouble.  I was running McAfee Vshield
>from Virusscan 4.0.3 -- turning it off cures the problem.

        Aha!

Quote:
>I don't know why only Lahey executables seem to load so slowly-628 Kb
>(for the CVF executable) is not that much smaller than 805 Kb.  For
>example, another program of 395Kb compiled with Lahey v5.6h also loads
>slowly (about 8 or 9 sec).

        The fomat of some part (probably the data section?) must be
similar enough to a virus signature to warrant extra checking.  It might be
worth contacting McAfee to ask if they're aware of the problem.

Quote:
>At any rate, thanks for the suggestion!!!

--

        KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".


Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:34:57 GMT  
 Question About LF95 v5.6h executables

Quote:

> >>      Do you have an active back-ground virus-checker?

> >Yes--This turned out to be the trouble.  I was running McAfee Vshield
> >from Virusscan 4.0.3 -- turning it off cures the problem.

>         Aha!

>         The fomat of some part (probably the data section?) must be
> similar enough to a virus signature to warrant extra checking.  It might be
> worth contacting McAfee to ask if they're aware of the problem.

This behaviour is certainly not unique to McAfee! We have a different
one and just copying certain executables (to/from a network disk for
instance) takes almost forever.

Regards,

Arjen



Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:13:42 GMT  
 Question About LF95 v5.6h executables

Quote:




>>>  An executable of fppr90 compiled with Compaq VF v6.6 loads
>>>instantly on the Pentium 200 MHz.

>>        What are the sizes of the executables from the different compilers.

>LF90 v4.0e - 184 Kb
>LF95 v5.6h - 805 Kb
>CVF v6.6 - 628 Kb
>>>Furthermore, any folder which has an executable compiled with LF95
>>>v5.6h takes a long time to open with Windows Explorer, about the same
>>>amount of time it takes to load the executable in a DOS window.

>>        Do you have an active back-ground virus-checker?
>Yes--This turned out to be the trouble.  I was running McAfee Vshield
>from Virusscan 4.0.3 -- turning it off cures the problem.  We were in
>the process of ugrading to McAfee v4.5.1.  I called our tech support
>and had it installed.  When Vshield is running for all files, this
>version too slows down loading of Lahey executables from v5.6h.
>However, this VShield has an option to turn off Express scanning,
>which leaves the program only scanning some class of critical files.
>When Express Scanning is off, everything loads quickly.

>I don't know why only Lahey executables seem to load so slowly-628 Kb
>(for the CVF executable) is not that much smaller than 805 Kb.  For
>example, another program of 395Kb compiled with Lahey v5.6h also loads
>slowly (about 8 or 9 sec).

>At any rate, thanks for the suggestion!!!
>Jeff Ryman
>email:  rymanjc_at_
>        e{*filter*}_dot_com

I have McAfee on my work NT machine.  It is REQUIRED by my state employer!!!
You see...  we pay between $3.5 and 8 thousand for a computer that I can buy
myself for around 1500.  Then,  our IT guys tweak all the settings and also
mandatorily put McAfee on our machines ( apparently without doing any checks on
how it effects system performance ).

The result is that our machines run abismally slow...  similar to the problem
you've been having.

I'm lucky!!  I often evaluate commercial software for my department.  So..
even though I am merely a lowly engineer...  I get to have administrative
rights ( so that I can load software that can alter DLL's etc ).   The first
thing I do every time I turn my computer on in the morning is turn off the
virus checking software.  Otherwise I go nuts.  

Others at work are stuck with the awful systems.  Of course...  all "that"
security that is FORCED upon us is easily circumvented simply by renaming ( or
deleting ) the two main McAfee executable files.  

Oh well... ramble, ramble, ramble...  I'm glad you're problem is solved!!

Dan   ;-)



Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:49:37 GMT  
 Question About LF95 v5.6h executables

Quote:

> Others at work are stuck with the awful systems.  Of course...  all "that"
> security that is FORCED upon us is easily circumvented simply by renaming ( or
> deleting ) the two main McAfee executable files.

Better yet, get rid of McAfee bloat and replace it with a German lean
machine*. Not a brand name, however watching it at work "disinfecting" a
corrupted machine was so impressive I thought they wrote the virus and
the cure.

        http://www.free-av.com

* free Personal Edition



Tue, 19 Oct 2004 08:22:25 GMT  
 Question About LF95 v5.6h executables
On Thu, 02 May 2002 09:13:42 +0200, Arjen Markus

Quote:


>> >>      Do you have an active back-ground virus-checker?

>> >Yes--This turned out to be the trouble.  I was running McAfee Vshield
>> >from Virusscan 4.0.3 -- turning it off cures the problem.

>>         Aha!

>>         The fomat of some part (probably the data section?) must be
>> similar enough to a virus signature to warrant extra checking.  It might be
>> worth contacting McAfee to ask if they're aware of the problem.

>This behaviour is certainly not unique to McAfee! We have a different
>one and just copying certain executables (to/from a network disk for
>instance) takes almost forever.

>Regards,

>Arjen

On a Win98 Pentium II (350 MHz) at home, running Auto-Protect from
Norton Antivirus v5.0, the same executables don't slow down noticeably
(< 1 s).
Jeff Ryman
email:  rymanjc_at_
        e{*filter*}_dot_com


Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:50:59 GMT  
 
 [ 10 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. oberon for linux 2.3.6h

2. Clean your PC properly ( q 6h)

3. ANNOUNCE: TkPixmap3.6h

4. lf95+IMSL on Linux->Massive executables?

5. newbie question: nag90 and lf95

6. Vds doc V5.3 ( To sell doc v5.3 )

7. Question : Can clipper v5.2 take advantage of Pentium CPU power

8. v5.3 Menu Question

9. v5.3 Menu Question

10. Sr. Lotus Notes Developer - Dallas, TX 7/22/98 6:00:11 PM

11. Digital FORTRAN v5.0 question

12. Contolling a labview executable from another labview executable

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software