Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

bugger · Aug. 19, 2009, 11:17 AM

If you want super performance get an SSD! The thing makes everything seems so fast Smile!

Ralph · Aug. 19, 2009, 12:13 PM

Proxo is working fine with my 32-bit setup in Windows 7 RC . I set it up on another partition but I had some difficulty initially in finding the startup folder . I also have the German version of Proxomitron installed and often switch between the two . I seems to run smoother than Sidke's config probably because I have a lot of stuff in that config .

***ProxRocks*** · Aug. 19, 2009, 01:00 PM

(Aug. 19, 2009 11:17 AM)bugger Wrote: If you want super performance get an SSD! The thing makes everything seems so fast

not heard of SSD 'til now...
upon a few reads, i am quite impressed - i'm still on a 5400rpm HDD pullin' "maybe" 133 Mbps ? ...

seein' several SSD's pullin' 200/220/250... wow!

ardarby · Aug. 19, 2009, 01:17 PM

I looked into putting a "large" (if you can call 80GB large) SSD as the [C:] drive on my Core i7 (overclocked to 3.6GHz), but wasn't happy with the inherent problems of finite re-writeability on SSDs, so I opted for a 300GB WD Velociraptor (10,000 rpm).

Contrary to comments above, I'm more than happy with the performance of my "quad core marketing, etc. ....". For me, it goes like the wind and I find the rationale behind x64 vs x86 to be acceptable, as I run 6GB of RAM up to whatever my wallet can afford and am not limited to ~3GB of RAM as on x86 (32 bit) processors.

I'm running my "old" XP as a Virtual Machine using VMWare for those proggies that just don't run on Vista Ultimate.

For the most part, I'm content with the performance I'm getting and look forward upgrading to Win 7 along about the time SP1 comes out. Smile!

***ProxRocks*** · Aug. 19, 2009, 01:19 PM

hmm... now that is SURPRISING...

according to HD Tach (discovered from here - http://www.smartcomputing.com/editorial/...leID=30689 ), my old 40.0GB HDD has a sequential read average of 25.5 MB/s, that's 204 Mb/s...

***ProxRocks*** · Aug. 19, 2009, 01:32 PM

(Aug. 19, 2009 01:17 PM)ardarby Wrote: I looked into putting a "large" (if you can call 80GB large)...

holy crap! that is HUGE!...
i'm only using 9.4 Gig of this 40 Gig'er and only have a 20 Gig'er at home (also only using 9-some Gig)...

my virtual disks are on a 160 Gig USB external drive...
any music/digital photos/et cetera are burned to DVD-R's...

i've never understood why people think they "need" massive 300+ Gig hard drives - all they are asking for is to lose EVERYTHING all at once, 'cause when they have that much "storage", they do NOT archive, "why archive, i'm only using 20G out of 300, at this rate, i won't run out of room for another 15 years"...

***ProxRocks*** · Aug. 19, 2009, 10:49 PM

(Aug. 19, 2009 01:41 AM)Mele20 Wrote: I had no problems getting Proxo to work on Vista but it is 32 bit. 64 bit I think has more permissions issues as it is supposed to be more security minded than 32bit.

seems your not being able to get Proxo to work in Win7 is indeed a 64-bit issue...

i got my virtual 32-bit Win7 up and running with Proxo and i didn't have to do anything "special", nothing at all...

will say that i'll NOT be "upgrading" from XP to Win7 - the D@MN ClearType CRAP being "forced" upon us is HIDEOUS !!! it is NOT "easier" to read, no matter how much they try to cram it down our throats! the "ClearType Tuner" is at least steps above the Vista (and XP) "tuner", but in Win7 (and Vista), it is BLATANTLY obvious that they have done "something" to the "don't use ClearType" mode that makes the non-cleartype look like they've intentionally "blurred" it... and the ram-rodded ClearType POS is nothing but blur-blur-blur in comparison to my XP with ClearType disabled...

i can see it now (with no blur), it is Microsoft's ClearType CRAP that is "eventually" going to lead me back to LINUX !!!

bugger · (This post was last modified: Aug. 19, 2009 11:20 PM by bugger.)

awwww....that sucks i was going to run win7-64. Now i can't use proxomitron on it, i might think twice about it.

Is this the death of proxomitron binary? Or someone is going to get his hex editor and modify something and extend its life support?

***ProxRocks*** · (This post was last modified: Aug. 19, 2009 11:43 PM by ProxRocks.)

according to here - http://prxbx.com/forums/showthread.php?t...7#pid13297 (post by ardarby)
i suspect that Proxo WILL run in 64-bit Win7, we're kinda waitin' on someone with a 64-bit host to test this theory for us in a virtual environment...

edit: edited link...

Mele20 · Aug. 20, 2009, 12:13 AM

(Aug. 19, 2009 10:49 PM)ProxRocks Wrote:
(Aug. 19, 2009 01:41 AM)Mele20 Wrote: I had no problems getting Proxo to work on Vista but it is 32 bit. 64 bit I think has more permissions issues as it is supposed to be more security minded than 32bit.

seems your not being able to get Proxo to work in Win7 is indeed a 64-bit issue...

i got my virtual 32-bit Win7 up and running with Proxo and i didn't have to do anything "special", nothing at all...

I mentioned 64bit because someone else at another forum mentioned Proxo in Vista 64 bit.

I am trying to get Proxo to work in Windows 7 32bit. Maybe the problem is because I don't know where the Startup folder is for Windows 7. The Start menu is hideous in Windows 7. I can't even find Start/Programs where Startup would be. So, I have to start Proxo after a boot but that shouldn't matter other than that is inconvenient.

I'll look at the settings again but I have Proxo configured for IE same as I would on XP. I can't imagine what the problem could be.

Mele20 · Aug. 20, 2009, 01:29 AM

It was a half missing address that I had looked at a million times and couldn't see there was a problem. Sort of like proofreading and you don't see the misspelled word. I finally saw the problem today. Under Internet Options/Connections/LAN settings where it says "use a proxy server" in the box next to "address" IE had put "host". I'm sure I didn't type that because I know it is "localhost" and there are two other places where you have to type that in the LAN settings (on the advanced tab) and I typed it correctly in both those places. I think every time I double checked the settings that my brain saw "localhost". I checked it four times today looking for a wrong setting and STILL didn't catch it until the last time I checked! I must be getting senile along with getting old. Geez. Anyhow, as soon as I corrected that everything was fine.

As for the startup folder, I found a windows 7 forum site that showed me where to find it. My start list is nothing like what they say I should be seeing ...a lot of things missing. Once I found the folder, it was easy to copy a shortcut into it and Proxo now starts at boot. I hope there is some way to have the normal Start/Programs list in Windows 7. I hate the junked up way it looks. Besides, why would I want to have to go to the Control Panel to get to Services or whatever? Every program should be listed in Start/Programs.

I knew I hadn't yet unhid hidden Windows files in Explorer/folder options. There is a lot of configuration I haven't done yet. I don't remember from XP (but that has been a long time ago) or Vista that the Startup folder is a hidden system folder. I can't imagine why that would be hidden but then I don't understand why any of the system folders are hidden by default. (Oh, I know it is to protect users who don't know anything about computers from accidently deleting some critical system file and hosing their system).

I guess we all have our irritations with new OSes. I love ClearType for my LCD flat panel 19" monitor. I would never use ClearType on a CRT monitor though. Until I turned on ClearType in XP years ago, there was a fuzzy, jagged edge to any font and it was blurry too. I remember now that ProxRocks has spoken before about how to him ClearType is awful. What irritates me is that Apple's font rendering engine for flat panel LCD monitors is far superior to Microsoft's. I don't like Safari except for its gorgeous fonts. They are so crisp and sharp and black and I can use a smaller font on Safari ...much smaller...than what I need on Windows to be able to comfortably read.

I guess the only "issue" with Proxo is will it work correctly on 64 bit. It ought to because the browsers are running as 32bit inside 64bit. When Fx comes out with a 64bit version then Proxo may be in trouble. There is a 64bit unofficial version of Firefox and maybe someone with 64bit Windows has Proxo running on it?

ardarby · (This post was last modified: Aug. 20, 2009 03:29 AM by ardarby.)

(Aug. 19, 2009 01:32 PM)ProxRocks Wrote: [...]

i've never understood why people think they "need" massive 300+ Gig hard drives - all they are asking for is to lose EVERYTHING all at once, 'cause when they have that much "storage", they do NOT archive, "why archive, i'm only using 20G out of 300, at this rate, i won't run out of room for another 15 years"...

My backup procedures, learned from 47+ years of IT experience, are such that losing anything is NOT an option.

Besides if I didn't protect my wife's 25 year genealogy data, life as I know it would cease. Smile!

Plus, I have a business to run that demands a solid Disaster Recovery plan. I don't understand people who don't backup their data / system, then gnash their teeth when it goes turtle on them.

(Aug. 19, 2009 10:49 PM)ProxRocks Wrote: [...]

will say that i'll NOT be "upgrading" from XP to Win7 - the D@MN ClearType CRAP being "forced" upon us is HIDEOUS !!! it is NOT "easier" to read, no matter how much they try to cram it down our throats! the "ClearType Tuner" is at least steps above the Vista (and XP) "tuner", but in Win7 (and Vista), it is BLATANTLY obvious that they have done "something" to the "don't use ClearType" mode that makes the non-cleartype look like they've intentionally "blurred" it... and the ram-rodded ClearType POS is nothing but blur-blur-blur in comparison to my XP with ClearType disabled...

i can see it now (with no blur), it is Microsoft's ClearType CRAP that is "eventually" going to lead me back to LINUX !!!

I'm pretty sure use of ClearType is optional.

I'm 74, have a mild astigmatism and I use it comfortably.

bugger · Aug. 20, 2009, 04:02 AM

(Aug. 20, 2009 01:29 AM)Mele20 Wrote: There is a 64bit unofficial version of Firefox and maybe someone with 64bit Windows has Proxo running on it?

Thats coming soon or IPv6 starts going off.

Now since proxomido has ipv6 support, surely we can recompile to work in 64 bits Smile!

***ProxRocks*** · Aug. 20, 2009, 08:59 AM

startup -
ah, i never bothered to look for a startup folder, i don't start my Proxo via startup (i see it as an added layer of security by setting localhost:8080 but then NOT having Proxo run unless my browswer is also running [whereby i open Proxo MANUALLY])... ie, i've seen "several" trialware/shareware try-me apps that open my default browser and "phone home" right after install, i block that "phoning" in that the browser will open, it just won't "get anywhere" because Proxo wasn't MANUALLY set to run while installing that try-me app... and with Proxo being my ONLY app allowed to access a DNS Port 53 per my firewall, that setup essentially allows NOTHING out when i don't have Proxo running...

cleartype -
take a look-see at a Linux desktop/GUI, now take a look-see at a WinXP desktop/GUI with cleartype disabled - they LOOK THE SAME!

now compare WinXP with cleartype ON versus WinXP with cleartype OFF...

now compare Vista with cleartype ON versus Vista with cleartype OFF...

now compare Win7 with cleartype ON versus Win7 with cleartype OFF...

ALL operating systems SHOULD look the SAME with cleartype turned OFF... Vista (and Win7) does "something" to their "cleartype disabled" mode to make it look like crap and thereby FORCES us to use THEIR subpixel rendering "invention"... at least Win7's "tuner" works better and does get the Win7 with cleartype ON to look "more like" XP (and LINUX) withOUT cleartype - but still LACKING in "contrast" to XP's (and LINUX') "pixel rendering"...

***ProxRocks*** · (This post was last modified: Aug. 20, 2009 11:42 AM by ProxRocks.)

upon additional research in Vista (probably Win7 as well), it is the "Segoe UI" font that is used throughout the OS's GUI that is indeed INTENTIONALLY made to look like CRAP with cleartype turned OFF...

i have Lasik-corrected vision and trust me, if you have AWESOME eyesight, you CAN see the red and green pixeled lines drawn into "cleartype characters"... AND IT LOOKS LIKE CRAP!...

in XP, it can be TOTALLY and COMPLETELY disabled...
in Vista and Win7 (and Office 2007, btw, i've reverted to 2003 because of ClearType!), you can NOT disable it "completely", it's "hard-coded" into various sections of the OS's GUI (aka "Windows Presentation Foundation architecture") and intentionally made to look like crap if you DISABLE cleartype... the cleartype still looks like crap, but it becomes a matter of the lesser of two evils...

i've seen reports that some Linux versions can use ClearType also - thank God i haven't bumped into them or else i'd "Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter Here", to quote a famous Italian, lol...

edit: inserted (aka...)