Empty recycle bin and bad performance

[cnewtonne]

I really do not understand why there is an undo when emptying trash bin. We already have a chance to change our minds when deleting items to the trash bin. One chance is good enough (besides your backup). If I have to choose between this trivial second chance or having UR perform well upon emptying trash bin, I will certainly choose later. After all every app I know works this way, windows, outlook, thunderbird, ...etc.

I say, remove all undo work when emptying trash bin.

[Jon Polish]

Agreed. But that only addresses performance when emptying the recycle bin. It does nothing to address the other issues I spoke of.

In another thread you asked if anyone wanted to know about alternative programs you use. I replied with my email address, but I got no response from you. Please?

Jon

[cnewtonne]

sorry.
Please email me to cnewtonne[at]gmail[dot]com

[Jon Polish]

Originally posted by cnewtonne
I really do not understand why there is an undo when emptying trash bin. We already have a chance to change our minds when deleting items to the trash bin.

I am not sure and, because of the performance issues I have discussed perviously I do not have the time/patience to try this, but would it help to empty the recycle bin using the following method?

1. Highlight all items in the recycle bin.
2. Use SHIFT+DELETE to permanently remove the items.

I suggest this work around because this does not allow for any reversal (undo). I suspect this reduces any overhead caused by the undo feature. I have no idea how much it would improve the performance on my end. Kinook can confirm.

I should explain that many of my databases have to be "distrbuted" to other colleagues who rely on UR's viewer. Kind of like a very structured pdf file. This is why I need to copy (and sometimes export) large numbers of items into new databases. The time and effort it takes to accomplish this is a killer.

Jon

[zargron]

I'd like to express my interest in the UR performance issue.

I humbly state that I always assume software vendors and developers exaggerate the performance capabilities of their software. I don't have an empirical measure as to the factor by which I divide the claimed performance. I simply add to my existing IT experience with facts about the software infrastructure, functionality the software is claiming to offer and a feeling about the vendors quality of workmanship. I took all this into account before choosing UR.

I already have separate UR databases for different major topics and an archive strategy that keeps the size of my live data files at a reasonable level. I'm too fresh to UR to contribute real life quantification of UR performance. I would love to see half-a-dozen or so experienced UR users with large databases use this forum to offer their real life accounts regarding how far you can push UR version 3.xx.

[wordmuse]

how large is a large database for you? One of my smaller ones is 7MB. I have another close to 30MB.

Performance is NOT like greased lightning with either one. But the wait time isn't enough to irritate me.

I find it difficult to tease out what is URP3 from what is Windows and other overhead functions (virus protection, firewall, etc.).

Again - seems reasonably fast - at least for my needs.

Regards,
Bal

[zargron]

Originally posted by wordmuse
how large is a large database for you? One of my smaller ones is 7MB. I have another close to 30MB.

Sorry Bal, you're right, i should have been more specific. I'd be interested in hearing from users with databases of 100MB+, with and without stored documents, running WinXP, and using a reasonably modern system (1GB RAM, 2Ghz+ CPU)

Thanks for your feedback BTW.