On Jan 30, 2008, at 8:29 AM, MB Software Solutions wrote:
>> Windows could use UNC, but it was terribly inefficient, at least as
>> of WinXP, the last OS I tried to use it with.
>
> What do you mean "inefficient" ? I'm trying to understand if you mean
> from a organization POV or what. (Surely not a performance POV, as I
> don't see how that would have bearing on this?)
Yes, performance. I had done several tests comparing speed, with the
only thing changing was referencing the path via UNC or drive letters,
and the UNC version was significantly slower. My guess is that the
reference was being internally resolved continuously, or it was
checking the network, or something, but it was definitely slower.
-- Ed
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
