V3 IFW faster

User discussion and information resource forum for Image products.

V3 IFW faster

Postby mjnelson99 » Tue Aug 16, 2016 6:01 pm

It is taking just under 20 minutes to image & B_F_B.
Also, it seems like Phylock does not hang hardly at all.
YEA!

Will download the new version tomorrow.
Mary
mjnelson99
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:24 pm

Re: V3 IFW faster

Postby Bob Coleman » Wed Aug 17, 2016 2:42 pm

I have a gut feeling that maybe it's faster, but haven't collected a lot of proof. When I tried to do that, I found too much variation to feel I could substantiate any conclusion, but still have the git feeling.
Bob Coleman
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:58 am

Re: V3 IFW faster

Postby DrTeeth » Fri Aug 19, 2016 10:52 am

On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 14:42:18 PDT, just as I was about to take a herb,
Bob Coleman disturbed my reverie and wrote:

>I have a gut feeling that maybe it's faster, but haven't collected a lot of proof. When I tried to do that, I found too much variation to feel I could substantiate any conclusion, but still have the git feeling.
>
I have also noticed that PHYLock does not hang around like it used to.
The latest version should be faster and in the changlog it says (from
memory) that they have given more threads to the compression of the
backup image.

OT:- I preferred the old interface as I could get things set up
faster.
--
Cheers,

DrT

"If you want to find out what is wrong
with democracy, spend five minutes with
the average voter." - Winston Churchill
DrTeeth
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 11:58 am

Re: V3 IFW faster

Postby Bob Coleman » Fri Aug 19, 2016 12:13 pm

DrTeeth wrote:

> OT:- I preferred the old interface as I could get things set up
> faster.

It's not something that's worth a lot of complaining, but, yes, I preferred it also. However, it seems that what we have now is consistent with the current trend to have giant sized UI elements everywhere.
Bob Coleman
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:58 am

Re: V3 IFW faster

Postby TeraByte Support » Fri Aug 19, 2016 1:55 pm

the command strokes are basically the same and you can still double click an
operation to auto select it. So don't know where the difference is?



"Bob Coleman" wrote in message news:12205@public.image...

DrTeeth wrote:

> OT:- I preferred the old interface as I could get things set up
> faster.

It's not something that's worth a lot of complaining, but, yes, I preferred
it also. However, it seems that what we have now is consistent with the
current trend to have giant sized UI elements everywhere.

TeraByte Support
 
Posts: 2281
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 3:37 pm

Re: V3 IFW faster

Postby DrTeeth » Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:40 am

On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 13:55:17 PDT, just as I was about to take a herb,
"TeraByte Support" disturbed my
reverie and wrote:

>So don't know where the difference is?

It's psychology. Which is why, I suppose, a (pointless) GUI change
was 'needed' to emphasise that v3 is a new version.

Before we had radio buttons. After years of conditioning we know that
after selecting one, we have to do something else to complete the
action. Now we have (proper) buttons. We are conditioned that when one
presses a button, something happens. So there may be no operational
difference, but we are expecting something to happen before it does.
--
Cheers,

DrT

"If you want to find out what is wrong
with democracy, spend five minutes with
the average voter." - Winston Churchill
DrTeeth
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 11:58 am

Re: V3 IFW faster

Postby Bob Coleman » Sat Aug 20, 2016 11:46 am

DrTeeth wrote:

> Before we had radio buttons. After years of conditioning we know that
> after selecting one, we have to do something else to complete the
> action. Now we have (proper) buttons. We are conditioned that when one
> presses a button, something happens. So there may be no operational
> difference, but we are expecting something to happen before it does.

We're probably both giving this more attention than it deserves, but I agree 100% with that.

I was actually confused the first time I clicked one of the new buttons and nothing happened.

On the other hand, I'm getting used to it. I suppose we will and then won't care anymore.
Bob Coleman
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:58 am

Re: V3 IFW faster

Postby mjnelson99 » Sat Aug 20, 2016 12:10 pm

If I am doing a full Image of C I just click twice w/o moving the mouse
and I am where I want to be. No problema.
Mary

On 8/20/2016 1:46 PM, Bob Coleman wrote:
> DrTeeth wrote:
>
>> Before we had radio buttons. After years of conditioning we know that
>> after selecting one, we have to do something else to complete the
>> action. Now we have (proper) buttons. We are conditioned that when one
>> presses a button, something happens. So there may be no operational
>> difference, but we are expecting something to happen before it does.
>
> We're probably both giving this more attention than it deserves, but I agree 100% with that.
>
> I was actually confused the first time I clicked one of the new buttons and nothing happened.
>
> On the other hand, I'm getting used to it. I suppose we will and then won't care anymore.
>
>
mjnelson99
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:24 pm

Re: V3 IFW faster

Postby TeraByte Support » Sun Aug 21, 2016 12:03 pm

they are "push buttons" much like a radio button. The newer windows style
doesn't show that as well as the older style which I think causes some of
the confusion. But did leave double click there to select and next as well.


"DrTeeth" wrote in message news:12225@public.image...

On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 13:55:17 PDT, just as I was about to take a herb,
"TeraByte Support"

disturbed my
reverie and wrote:

>So don't know where the difference is?

It's psychology. Which is why, I suppose, a (pointless) GUI change
was 'needed' to emphasise that v3 is a new version.

Before we had radio buttons. After years of conditioning we know that
after selecting one, we have to do something else to complete the
action. Now we have (proper) buttons. We are conditioned that when one
presses a button, something happens. So there may be no operational
difference, but we are expecting something to happen before it does.
--
Cheers,

DrT

"If you want to find out what is wrong
with democracy, spend five minutes with
the average voter." - Winston Churchill

TeraByte Support
 
Posts: 2281
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 3:37 pm

Re: V3 IFW faster

Postby Bob Coleman » Sun Aug 21, 2016 2:48 pm

And now back to the original subject of this thread:

I went to my log and reviewed several months of history of the elapsed times of a weekly backup and byte-for-byte validation of several partitions including the OS partition. There was quite a variation, but the time seemed to always be at least 40 minutes, often 50, occasionally an hour or a little more.

The only two examples I have with V3 are both under 30 minutes. Small sample size to be sure, but I think it's noticeably faster.
Bob Coleman
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:58 am

Next

Return to Image for DOS/Linux/Windows