CC4 workstation speed

[Jamo]

We are evaluating the possibility of moving from CC3 to CC4 at the moment. Is there a performance hit with CC4 compared to CC3 at the workstations? Some of the pcs here are pretty slow already and obviously the leaner the software the better!

[Michael]

There are lots of discussions on RM CC4 and not just on workstation speed.

 

From the comments and observations I have made, RM CC4 is more resource intensive than RM CC3.

[Jamo]

Ive been browsing for that info for a while, can only really find people giving it grief!!

[Theblacksheep]

Ive been browsing for that info for a while, can only really find people giving it grief!!

 

You have your answer... doesnt matter if your workstations are slow when most other stuff is broken/takes a year to get working properly.

[Oops_my_bad]

Why do you want to move from CC3? Most seem to be recommending to stick with it until CC4 is finished

[CHR1S]

CC4 still has its bugs... hold off until its all sorted. There are the cold logon times of 5 mins + etc.

 

Resource wise, its no different, if it was slow before it will be slow after lol. We have some old celeron 1.6/1.7 GHz PCs that run fine, obviously not as good as a new Core 2 Duo but thats to be expected.

[Tallwood_6]

CC4 will kill your older stations and is still my biggest complaint, 600mb plus memory footprint before antivirus and any programs loaded, if your machines have less than a gig of ram 5 minute startups turn into 10-15 from cold. SR1 doesnt seem to offer any solutions to this either, we've been told it is something they are looking into sortly after however.

[webman]

Are these clients XP or Vista though?

[Tallwood_6]

XP, Vista on CC4 is pretty appalling but amazingly cold boot is slightly quicker on the same hardware.

[PiqueABoo]

Late last year I tested a 'clean' vanilla domain XP against a 'clean' CC4 XP with identical VM hardware (512MB RAM) on a very speedy host machine with a very speedy connection to the server when there wasn't any significant contention for server attention. Everything was as fair and objective as I could make it.

 

Vanilla/CC4 PF usage was 125/560MB and CC4 took three times longer to boot & logon and get to a usable desktop. In other words I got very similar results.

[Jamo]

The clients are XP, a lot of "RM Ones" running celeron 1.7's /w 256MB RAM got another 1GB ram to put in them over the hols though so should make a big difference to performance for logon we don't have any Vista stations yet and probably won't be getting any. (Windows 7 looks like its worth waiting for) Thanks for the replies so far.

[soapyfish]

I would suggest that CC4 on a celeron processor is a very bad idea. I understand that every station runs some kind of database to manage the CC4 parts of the system and I expect that is a significant part of the reason for the sluggish performance of even quite hi spec machines.

 

in addition if you "upgrade" your network to CC4 and the login times go from 5 mins to 15 mins the users will NOT think of it as an upgrade in any way !

[Michael]

Running vanilla Windows Vista on a Celeron generally wouldn't be recommended either. As it stands, vanilla Windows Vista should have 2GB of system memory available to run at any decent speed. Memory is cheap these days, so I see little reason (unless it's a system limitation) why machines shouldn't have 2GB+

 

every station runs some kind of database to manage the CC4 parts of the system

 

If that's true it would explain a lot and it would be a major design problem. It would also explain why the users on here that use CC4 see their memory all used up even before opening any applications. With a lack of memory, the page file or virtual memory would be used constantly which in reality is going to mean rubbish performance.