![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
| Welcome to Windows Vista Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find solutions with any problems, errors or issues you are experiencing with Windows Vista. The Vista forum also covers news and updates and has an extensive Windows Vista tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks. |
| |||||||
![]() |
| |
| | #1 (permalink) |
| | Right Click context menu very slow on Desktop Whenever I try to right click the desktop , (icons, folders, or background) the context menu takes a very long time to pop up. I tried ShellEXView and disabled all of the items. It didn't fix the problem I have. New computer, and I only have 1 restore point, that was before I installed heavy programs Adobe CS3 and Office 2007. If I can fix it without having to reinstall these I'd be very greatful. Thanks. |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #2 (permalink) |
| | RE: Right Click context menu very slow on Desktop I have the same problem, and can't figure out how to fix either. "Anthony_Marx" wrote: Quote: > Whenever I try to right click the desktop , (icons, folders, or background) > the context menu takes a very long time to pop up. I tried ShellEXView and > disabled all of the items. It didn't fix the problem I have. New computer, > and I only have 1 restore point, that was before I installed heavy programs > Adobe CS3 and Office 2007. If I can fix it without having to reinstall these > I'd be very greatful. > Thanks. |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #3 (permalink) |
| | Re: Right Click context menu very slow on Desktop On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 10:21:00 -0800, Neil Z <Neil Z@xxxxxx> wrote: Quote: >I have the same problem, and can't figure out how to fix either. > >"Anthony_Marx" wrote: > Quote: >> Whenever I try to right click the desktop , (icons, folders, or background) >> the context menu takes a very long time to pop up. I tried ShellEXView and >> disabled all of the items. It didn't fix the problem I have. New computer, >> and I only have 1 restore point, that was before I installed heavy programs >> Adobe CS3 and Office 2007. If I can fix it without having to reinstall these >> I'd be very greatful. >> Thanks. only takes a few minutes (less than 20, in fact) to install Office 2007 Professional (ALL OF IT) to the HD. It takes more time to update it than it does to install it. Anyway, have you completely defragged your HD lately? I've found that if I haven't defragged completely recently, Desktop operations will get sluggish. Also, you aren't telling us what make/model/size your HD is, its rotational speed, its UDMA setting, your CPU's type and speed, your FSB speed, your video card, amount and speed of vram, its GPU speed, its bus speed, etc. All these things can affect the speed at which program modules on disk load into memory and display on screen. As a rule of thumb, consider this: File access times are proportional to UDMA settings, drive rotational speed, and the drive's connector type. Of course, as I've stated above, many other factors affect file access times. Remember that I've given a rule of thumb, not a fundamental Law. Example1: PATA-connected drives are fundamentally slower than SATA-connected drives. Example2: IDE drives clocked at 5400RPM are fundamentally slower than SATA drives clocked at 7200RPM, or even IDE drives clocked at 7200RPM.. Example3: External USB/Firewire drives will always be slow. Their transfer speeds are currently 400-480MB/sec (or800MB/sec for Firewire). Example4: An external e-SATA drive will be super fast (~3GB/sec for SATA-300). Hope you get it figured out... Donald L McDaniel |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #4 (permalink) |
| | Re: Right Click context menu very slow on Desktop The problem isn't with optical dreives, or even the HDD. Just right clicking on a folder or an icon. It takes 23 seconds for the context menu to popup. Games, internet, programs all run fine. But if you want to right click on the recycle bin to delete or restore a file, it seems like it takes forever. Pentium D, 3.4 Ghz 2 GM Ram 500GB Raid HDD twin Sony 16X DVD RAM drives Twin Nvidia 7900GTX SLI video cards. Hope this helps...THANX! "Donald L McDaniel" wrote: Quote: > On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 10:21:00 -0800, Neil Z <Neil > Z@xxxxxx> wrote: > Quote: > >I have the same problem, and can't figure out how to fix either. > > > >"Anthony_Marx" wrote: > > Quote: > >> Whenever I try to right click the desktop , (icons, folders, or background) > >> the context menu takes a very long time to pop up. I tried ShellEXView and > >> disabled all of the items. It didn't fix the problem I have. New computer, > >> and I only have 1 restore point, that was before I installed heavy programs > >> Adobe CS3 and Office 2007. If I can fix it without having to reinstall these > >> I'd be very greatful. > >> Thanks. > Why you worry about Office 2007's reinstallation, I do not know. It > only takes a few minutes (less than 20, in fact) to install Office > 2007 Professional (ALL OF IT) to the HD. It takes more time to update > it than it does to install it. > > Anyway, have you completely defragged your HD lately? I've found that > if I haven't defragged completely recently, Desktop operations will > get sluggish. > > Also, you aren't telling us what make/model/size your HD is, its > rotational speed, its UDMA setting, your CPU's type and speed, your > FSB speed, your video card, amount and speed of vram, its GPU speed, > its bus speed, etc. All these things can affect the speed at which > program modules on disk load into memory and display on screen. > > As a rule of thumb, consider this: > File access times are proportional to UDMA settings, drive rotational > speed, and the drive's connector type. > > Of course, as I've stated above, many other factors affect file access > times. Remember that I've given a rule of thumb, not a fundamental > Law. > > Example1: PATA-connected drives are fundamentally slower than > SATA-connected drives. > Example2: IDE drives clocked at 5400RPM are fundamentally slower than > SATA drives clocked at 7200RPM, or even IDE drives clocked at > 7200RPM.. > Example3: External USB/Firewire drives will always be slow. Their > transfer speeds are currently 400-480MB/sec (or800MB/sec for > Firewire). > Example4: An external e-SATA drive will be super fast (~3GB/sec for > SATA-300). > > Hope you get it figured out... > > Donald L McDaniel > > |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #5 (permalink) |
| | Re: Right Click context menu very slow on Desktop On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 15:09:02 -0800, Neil Z <NeilZ@xxxxxx> wrote: Quote: >The problem isn't with optical dreives, or even the HDD. Just right clicking >on a folder or an icon. It takes 23 seconds for the context menu to popup. >Games, internet, programs all run fine. But if you want to right click on the >recycle bin to delete or restore a file, it seems like it takes forever. >Pentium D, 3.4 Ghz >2 GM Ram >500GB Raid HDD >twin Sony 16X DVD RAM drives >Twin Nvidia 7900GTX SLI video cards. > >Hope this helps...THANX! > But I would STILL advise you to do a complete defrag, including a boot-files defrag, as well as a defrag of the MFT, the Paging file, etc. BTW, you didn't tell us how much of that 500GB HDD is free. The fuller and more fragmented it becomes, the more sluggish Desktop operations will become. Also, "RAID" is related to the controller, not the HDD, so you do NOT have a "RAID HDD", you have a "500GB HDD attached to a RAID-controller". Also, if I had a RAID-Controller (I do, btw), I would turn RAID off in the BIOS if you have only a single physical HDD. RAID is best-used only for multiple physical drives, not logical drives on a single physical drive. In fact, turning it on when you only have a single physical drive will result in poorer performance, not better performance. Donald L McDaniel |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #6 (permalink) |
| | Re: Right Click context menu very slow on Desktop I performed a (Windows) defrag - no help at all. I have twin 250Gb drives attached to a R.A.I.D. conroller (RAID0) with 40% free. I increased the paging file to 4096; uninstalled and software that attached itself to the context menu (Norton, WinRar, etc). I forgot to mention I am running 64bit Vista. Getting ready to give this pc away. Would really like it to be running the way it should Donald L McDaniel" wrote: Quote: > On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 15:09:02 -0800, Neil Z > <NeilZ@xxxxxx> wrote: > Quote: > >The problem isn't with optical dreives, or even the HDD. Just right clicking > >on a folder or an icon. It takes 23 seconds for the context menu to popup. > >Games, internet, programs all run fine. But if you want to right click on the > >recycle bin to delete or restore a file, it seems like it takes forever. > >Pentium D, 3.4 Ghz > >2 GM Ram > >500GB Raid HDD > >twin Sony 16X DVD RAM drives > >Twin Nvidia 7900GTX SLI video cards. > > > >Hope this helps...THANX! > > > But I would STILL advise you to do a complete defrag, including a > boot-files defrag, as well as a defrag of the MFT, the Paging file, > etc. > > BTW, you didn't tell us how much of that 500GB HDD is free. The > fuller and more fragmented it becomes, the more sluggish Desktop > operations will become. > > Also, "RAID" is related to the controller, not the HDD, so you do NOT > have a "RAID HDD", you have a "500GB HDD attached to a > RAID-controller". > > Also, if I had a RAID-Controller (I do, btw), I would turn RAID off in > the BIOS if you have only a single physical HDD. RAID is best-used > only for multiple physical drives, not logical drives on a single > physical drive. In fact, turning it on when you only have a single > physical drive will result in poorer performance, not better > performance. > > Donald L McDaniel > |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #7 (permalink) |
| | Re: Right Click context menu very slow on Desktop On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:39:01 -0800, Neil Z <NeilZ@xxxxxx> wrote: Quote: > >I performed a (Windows) defrag - no help at all. I have twin 250Gb drives >attached to a R.A.I.D. conroller (RAID0) with 40% free. I increased the >paging file to 4096; uninstalled and software that attached itself to the >context menu (Norton, WinRar, etc). I forgot to mention I am running 64bit >Vista. Getting ready to give this pc away. Would really like it to be running >the way it should >Donald L McDaniel" wrote: Is your RAID set striped, and appears as a single volume in Windows, or is the second volume just a shadow-volume (used to do automatic backups)? Personally, I would be of the opinion that your problem is your RAID setup, if the set is striped. Also, my own opinion about 64-bit Vista is that it is not ready for prime-time, since there is so little software which will take advantage of 64bits at the present time, and there are so few 64bit drivers. Unless your software is optimized for 64bits, your 64bit OS is kind of redundant, since all 32bit software will only run in 32bits under a 64bit OS.. I would either install 32bit Vista, or XP 32bit. Unless the person you are giving it away to has lots of 64bit software, the 64bit processor will be wasted on him/her. BTW, software optimized for 32bits WILL run slower under a 64bit OS. Also, another thing to consider: I ALWAYS experience such slowdowns you've described if 1) Nero Scout is always running. or 2) Windows Indexing is turned on. or 3) Both Windows indexing AND Nero Scout are running. If that is the case, try turning off Nero Indexing FIRST, since it seems to be continually running if it is installed, whether you are actively indexing your media or not. Personally, I prefer to turn ALL indexing off immediately after updating Windows the first time after installation, since my machine is more than fast enough to use old-style Windows search rather than Vista's so-called "fast search". If you experience this indexing slowdown after first installing Windows, Windows Indexing is obviously the culprit. You will know it is running, since your HDDs will be "grinding" all the time. Nero, however, it a MUCH BIGGER culprit. Its indexing feature (Nero Scout) is slower than mollasses, even on a fast machine like mine, MUCH slower even than Windows Indexing, which is slower than [enter anything you consider very slow here]. Hope this helps..,. Donald McDaniel |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #8 (permalink) |
| | Re: Right Click context menu very slow on Desktop This has been helpful, TY. I will try the indexin g thing when I get home. You're right about the 64bit problem. I did it for gaming (which is working fine) and really didn't care about anything else. I DID build this pc for gaming after all! But daily routines (copy/paste, cd burning, etc) brings me back to the 486 days. Thanks for the reply. I'll let you know how it worked! "Donald L McDaniel" wrote: Quote: > On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:39:01 -0800, Neil Z > <NeilZ@xxxxxx> wrote: > Quote: > > > >I performed a (Windows) defrag - no help at all. I have twin 250Gb drives > >attached to a R.A.I.D. conroller (RAID0) with 40% free. I increased the > >paging file to 4096; uninstalled and software that attached itself to the > >context menu (Norton, WinRar, etc). I forgot to mention I am running 64bit > >Vista. Getting ready to give this pc away. Would really like it to be running > >the way it should > >Donald L McDaniel" wrote: > Question: > Is your RAID set striped, and appears as a single volume in Windows, > or is the second volume just a shadow-volume (used to do automatic > backups)? > > Personally, I would be of the opinion that your problem is your RAID > setup, if the set is striped. > > Also, my own opinion about 64-bit Vista is that it is not ready for > prime-time, since there is so little software which will take > advantage of 64bits at the present time, and there are so few 64bit > drivers. > > Unless your software is optimized for 64bits, your 64bit OS is kind of > redundant, since all 32bit software will only run in 32bits under a > 64bit OS.. I would either install 32bit Vista, or XP 32bit. > > Unless the person you are giving it away to has lots of 64bit > software, the 64bit processor will be wasted on him/her. > > BTW, software optimized for 32bits WILL run slower under a 64bit OS. > > Also, another thing to consider: > I ALWAYS experience such slowdowns you've described if > 1) Nero Scout is always running. > or > 2) Windows Indexing is turned on. > or > 3) Both Windows indexing AND Nero Scout are running. > > If that is the case, try turning off Nero Indexing FIRST, since it > seems to be continually running if it is installed, whether you are > actively indexing your media or not. > > Personally, I prefer to turn ALL indexing off immediately after > updating Windows the first time after installation, since my machine > is more than fast enough to use old-style Windows search rather than > Vista's so-called "fast search". If you experience this indexing > slowdown after first installing Windows, Windows Indexing is obviously > the culprit. You will know it is running, since your HDDs will be > "grinding" all the time. Nero, however, it a MUCH BIGGER culprit. Its > indexing feature (Nero Scout) is slower than mollasses, even on a fast > machine like mine, MUCH slower even than Windows Indexing, which is > slower than [enter anything you consider very slow here]. > > Hope this helps..,. > > Donald McDaniel > > |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #9 (permalink) |
| | Re: Right Click context menu very slow on Desktop This is well known problem with Vista. The context menu software was changed in Vista and has some bugs. |
My System Specs![]() |
| | #10 (permalink) |
| | Re: Right Click context menu very slow on Desktop I figured out the problem. Turns out to be Roxio's Drag to Disc program. I uninstalled this module, left the rest of Roxio alone, and everything is running greart! Hope this helps "super_duper_englander" wrote: Quote: > This is well known problem with Vista. > > The context menu software was changed in Vista and has some bugs. > > |
My System Specs![]() |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Right click context menu | Vista General | |||
| Right-click context menu loads SLOW! | General Discussion | |||
| context menu/right click | Vista performance & maintenance | |||
| Right Click Context Menu Help | Vista General | |||
| Slow Context Menu Right Click & ROXIO | General Discussion | |||