I'm a new Mach4 user.
I've installed the demo version on one of my PC's and on that one it only takes a couple of seconds to start Mach4.

On the laptop that I'm using to run my milling machine I have the licensed version and one that PC it takes almost 30 seconds to start Mach4.
8Gb Ram
SSD Disk
i5-3230 CPU

No other applications on the pc starts this slow.
I've tried to reinstall Mach4 but that didn't improve it.

This starts to get annoying.

It's always taken a long time to start on my PC, which is a 6 core i7 with 32Gigs of RAM, and an SSD.

I just timed it, and it took 23 seconds the first time. Closing it and restarting only takes about 1/2 as long.

If the program hasn't started in a while, Windows Defender will do a scan on it first, thus increasing the startup time.  There may be some settings that one can tweak to alleviate the pain, I don't know.

Steve

You can add exclusions to Windows Defender, if that's what's causing the slowness.

It is the real-time scan feature that seems to do it.  And I don't think it follows the exclusions.  I may be wrong though.  But I noticed it when I went from 7 to 10.  It is disk speed related because I moved to a SSD and the issue is not nearly as noticeable.  Mach is not a particularly big program.  And it is all C++ and doesn't use .NET stuff that has to be "assembled" at run-time.  So all things considered, it really should load fast.  I will say that there is nothing that we are doing to make is load slow.  Of course, the more screen elements that exist in the screen set, the longer it takes to load.  No getting around that. 

I can make it load slower by compiling a new GUI executable.  This makes the signature of the program change.  And at that point, Windows goes into slow load mode for the first time I run the new GUI.  But after the first load, it loads quickly.  It may also have something to do with the PC/processor's memory and/or disk cache.

Steve

As I said, I have a very fast PC, with more memory than most. Most programs start in 5 seconds or left. Mach4 is the exception, and takes far longer to start than any other programs. I'll try adding the exceptions tonight, and see if it helps.

Hi,
my laptop is a 2GHz i7 with 16 GB and it takes about 8 seconds to load and draw Mach4. Its hardly a powerful or fast machine by todays standards. I don't
have ANY anti virus loaded or running. I personally am of the opinion that anti-virus software IS A VIRUS!. I have been running that way since I got it about five years
ago. Every once in a while I my have to go and dig out some malware but have not had any issues otherwise.

My little dual core Atom that runs my mill loads and draws Mach4 in about the same time. It doesn't have or need anti-virus either.

Craig

Yeah, on Win7-32, my Atom board loaded Mach quicker than my 8 core Win 10 machine (4GHz w/ 64Gb RAM plus dual GPUs) did with spin disks.  The SSD addition to my desktop reduced the time significantly.  It will load Mach in less than 10 seconds (wx4.set) even with the initial load hit, About 5 seconds being the norm.  The initial program is loaded very quickly with the most amount of time being spend loading the GUI elements.  We track a LOT of things, so I know why that takes a time hit.  I wish I could find a way of loading the screen set more quickly.  

The Atom does, however, suffer when loading bigger G code files.    But that's fine.  So I KNOW it is something on my Win10 machine that slows the initial load down.  I haven't tried to put my finger on it completely yet and have really just assumed that it was Windows Defender real-time scanning.

Like Craig, I don't run any anti-virus on my "production" Atom board.  But I do run Defender on my development desktop just because I touch the dirty internet with it.

Steve

Crikey smurph,

because I touch the dirty internet with it.

I literally roll-in-it, revel-in-it and yet haven't had any major problems.

What really annoys me about anti-virus is that it assumes that anti-virus is THE MOST IMPORTANT task in the world and thinks nothing of stopping
your machine, or worse crashing it to go about its task. I think the manufacturers of anti-virus software are delighted to have all their customers report in
on a regular basis...part of that 'ongoing mutually profitable relationship' no doubt.

Worse is that all the various software manufacturers have us absolutely dependent on software updates. I mean if a piece of code works OK today it should
without change work OK tomorrow shouldn't it? There was a thread on this forum just a wee while ago where a guy had got the latest build of Mach4, I think,
only to find it screwed up his working system. When I asked him why he updated...because it was recommended....why? It added no new features that he
needed or wanted nor did he require it to fix something that was broken, just Pavlov's Dog reaction to a later build. Sorry, one of my pet peeves, you may have thought
of me as sane, I'm not!

Craig

LOL!!!!  Yeah, anti-virus is a lot like the TSA, I seem to get my bung hole stretched with either.    And both are the wrong ways to approach their respective problems. 

When I was an IT manager for a global company, we used Cisco routers, switches, and firewalls to keep the viruses OUT of our networks.  None of the workstations had a need for anti-virus software!  They all ran fast like they were supposed to.  But sadly, that kind of equipment is far too expensive for us mere individuals.    But I will say this...  all that expensive Cisco stuff was cheaper than signing up for virus software/definition updates for all of the workstations.  And it was really nice not having to worry about it.  Even if someone brought a virus into the network internally, the switch would detect the malicious activity and shut down the port of the offending workstation and prevent others from being infected.  Really really nice stuff! 

But right now...  I'm trying to figure ways to speed up the screen load process.  Because 99% of our users have to have some sort of virus protection.  It is a fact that most just have to live with.  I haven't been infected since the late 90s when all of the MS Outlook "preview" exploits hit the scene.  I started running MS Security Essentials because, at the time, it was light weight, and I figured it might protect me from future Outlook holes.  And sure enough...  no infection.  One of the problems with my Win10 upgrade was that I had Security essentials installed on my Win 7 machine.  And it left it there on the upgrade but it was incompatible with what it had morphed into with Win 10 (Defender).  And the time I spent undoing all of that mess was akin to the time spend removing a virus!  So yeah...  I tend to agree that anti-virus is a virus unto itself. 

BTW, sanity is a relative thing.  Just like paranoia is.  Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean you are not right.  And just because you may think you are insane, doesn't mean you are! 

Steve