explorer folders launched separate process high prio

Not sure if this has behavior has been in Windows 2000, but since XP, if you choose the "Launch folder wonders in a separate process" option, any new Explorer processes start in High priority.
Bug? feature? shouldn't it be based on the priority of the parent Desktop process..?

meant to be in the Performance forum

Not sure if this has behavior has been in Windows 2000, but since XP, if you choose the "Launch folder wonders in a separate process" option, any new Explorer processes start in High priority.
Bug? feature? shouldn't it be based on the parent Desktop process..?

Adahn, could you give me a step by step on this? I am in Vista 5270 right now. -- Andre Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm "Adahn" wrote in message

Not sure if this has behavior has been in Windows 2000, but since XP, if you choose the "Launch folder wonders in a separate process" option, any new Explorer processes start in High priority.
Bug? feature? shouldn't it be based on the parent Desktop process..?

Folder Options » View » Launch folder windows in a separate process
If you check that, and open [My] Computer or any other folder window - you'll notice (from Task Manager) that the new Explorer.exe process (there'll be at least two, one for the desktop, and another one for the folder you just opened) always has a Base Priority of High..
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message

Adahn, could you give me a step by step on this? I am in Vista 5270 right now. -- Andre Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm "Adahn" wrote in message Not sure if this has behavior has been in Windows 2000, but since XP, if you choose the "Launch folder wonders in a separate process" option, any new Explorer processes start in High priority.
Bug? feature? shouldn't it be based on the parent Desktop process..?

Good grief, that's still in Vista?
I've been seeing this in XP for years--I would've thought it would've been fixed by now.
What about that handle leak for HKCU\software\microsoft\windows\currentversion\internet settings\zonemap? I can't keep any of my XP systems up for more than a week because of this...

Ahhhh so *that's* what it is!! :-o
I've been wondering what that little tick box has been doing ever since 2002!!! Is it better to have it ticked or not? I don't know :op
-- Zack Whittaker Microsoft Beta (Windows Server R2 Beta Mentor) » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org » ZackNET Forum: www.zacknet.co.uk/forum » VistaBase: www.zacknet.co.uk/vistabase » This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not of my employer, best friend, mother or cat. Let's be clear on that one!

I love it how even the more knowledgable ones learn from others :o) Very cool.
-- Zack Whittaker Microsoft Beta (Windows Server R2 Beta Mentor) » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org » ZackNET Forum: www.zacknet.co.uk/forum » VistaBase: www.zacknet.co.uk/vistabase » This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not of my employer, best friend, mother or cat. Let's be clear on that one!

I love it how even the more knowledgable ones learn from others :o) Very cool.

I hope you meant that comment above as a joke Zack.
-- Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
"Zack Whittaker (R2 Mentor)" wrote in message

I love it how even the more knowledgable ones learn from others :o) Very cool.
-- Zack Whittaker Microsoft Beta (Windows Server R2 Beta Mentor) » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org » ZackNET Forum: www.zacknet.co.uk/forum » VistaBase: www.zacknet.co.uk/vistabase » This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not of my employer, best friend, mother or cat. Let's be clear on that one!

"Zack Whittaker (R2 Mentor)" wrote in message

Ahhhh so *that's* what it is!! :-o
I've been wondering what that little tick box has been doing ever since 2002!!! Is it better to have it ticked or not? I don't know :op

So far the only benefit that option has had is to increase the chances of your "desktop" (the process that handles the Taskbar, Start Menu, Notification Tray etc.) staying intact in the event of a crash inside a folder window...
Take the instance of how Build 5270 locks up when you try to touch a ZIP file that contains subfolders - with the Separate Process option you could just kill the frozen Explorer.exe task.
However, with that strange behavior of starting the new folder windows at a High priority, when they freeze it tends to slow down the rest of the system as well :(
as for performance during normal usage, I've yet to try it on a true multiprocessor system to notice if there's any improved responsiveness, but as it is, so far it seems like another one of those trademark Microsoft hacks that try to cover up for base flaws in something else :(

"Homer J. Simpson" wrote in message

What about that handle leak for HKCU\software\microsoft\windows\currentversion\internet settings\zonemap? I can't keep any of my XP systems up for more than a week because of this...

...eh what's this then? -_-a

LOL! Of course!!
Why didn't it come out that way? :o(
-- Zack Whittaker Microsoft Beta (Windows Server R2 Beta Mentor) » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org » ZackNET Forum: www.zacknet.co.uk/forum » VistaBase: www.zacknet.co.uk/vistabase » This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not of my employer, best friend, mother or cat. Let's be clear on that one!

Not sure about the leak he is talking about as I use this pretty extensively, but that set of keys defines the zone that a web site will be subjected to. Under the domain sub key you would your site and the protocol and what security zone you want the site to be in. 0=Local Machine Zone 1=Local Intranet 2=Trusted Site 3=Internet Zone 4=Restricted site zone.

josh http://windowsconnected.com

"Adahn" wrote in message

"Homer J. Simpson" wrote in message
What about that handle leak for HKCU\software\microsoft\windows\currentversion\internet settings\zonemap? I can't keep any of my XP systems up for more than a week because of this...
..eh what's this then? -_-a

"Homer J. Simpson" wrote in message
What about that handle leak for HKCU\software\microsoft\windows\currentversion\internet settings\zonemap? I can't keep any of my XP systems up for more than a week because of this...
..eh what's this then? -_-a

I have an XP machine sitting next to me at the office that I rebooted at some point on Friday. My secondary development/test box...it hasn't done anything all weekend.
As I'm typing this on Monday morning @ 9:30am, explorer.exe's handle count is now showing 16,597. According to Process Explorer, there's thousands of references to the registry key I listed above.

WinXP-specific newsgroup: news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general -- ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear) MS MVP-Windows (IE/OE, Shell/User, Security), Aumha.org VSOP, DTS-L.org
Homer J. Simpson wrote:

"Homer J. Simpson" wrote in message
What about that handle leak for HKCU\software\microsoft\windows\currentversion\internet settings\zonemap? I can't keep any of my XP systems up for more than a week because of this...
..eh what's this then? -_-a
I have an XP machine sitting next to me at the office that I rebooted at some point on Friday. My secondary development/test box...it hasn't done anything all weekend.
As I'm typing this on Monday morning @ 9:30am, explorer.exe's handle count is now showing 16,597. According to Process Explorer, there's thousands of references to the registry key I listed above.

WinXP-specific newsgroup: news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general

And this is a Vista-specific newsgroup, in which somebody posted a message reporting (arguably what seems to be) a bug that was first seen in XP and is still apparently there in Vista.
I was inquiring whether another bug I'm currently seeing in XP is also still present in Vista. I wasn't requesting help to fix it (in which case you'd be absolutely right to redirect me to an XP group).
If long-standing Shell Bug X in OS A is still present in OS A+1, why is it unreasonable for me to ask others to verify whether also-long-standing Shell Bug Y is also still in OS A+1?
My second post simply elaborated on what I'm currently seeing, as other posters didn't seem to be aware of what I was talking about. If everybody can first agree on the presence of the bug in XP, then it has better chances of being noticed in Vista if it's still there. Otherwise nobody would know what to look for.
I'd be even more off-topic asking about this in the newsgroup you proposed.
If you think I'm straying way off-topic, then we'll have to disagree.

Yes you're right. However if the first explorer.exe crashes, the windows are intact but the taskbar and others are gone.
Come to think of it, this might not be a bug actually. See, if two instances of explorer.exe are running concurrently, you would expect more responsiveness from the window you ordered to open more than the taskbar.
But again... you could be right... it's a bug...
Regards
"Adahn" wrote in message

"Zack Whittaker (R2 Mentor)" wrote in message Ahhhh so *that's* what it is!! :-o
I've been wondering what that little tick box has been doing ever since 2002!!! Is it better to have it ticked or not? I don't know :op
So far the only benefit that option has had is to increase the chances of your "desktop" (the process that handles the Taskbar, Start Menu, Notification Tray etc.) staying intact in the event of a crash inside a folder window...
Take the instance of how Build 5270 locks up when you try to touch a ZIP file that contains subfolders - with the Separate Process option you could just kill the frozen Explorer.exe task.
However, with that strange behavior of starting the new folder windows at a High priority, when they freeze it tends to slow down the rest of the system as well :(
as for performance during normal usage, I've yet to try it on a true multiprocessor system to notice if there's any improved responsiveness, but as it is, so far it seems like another one of those trademark Microsoft hacks that try to cover up for base flaws in something else :(