Language Pack slowdown with Windows 7

Topic

New Reply

Good note from ch100: On Windows 7 Ultimate and Enterprise, there are currently 34 Language Packs on offer as Optional Updates. I’ve often made the cl
[See the full post at: Language Pack slowdown with Windows 7]

Reply | Quote

Replies

Don’t a lot of updates say they will need to be reinstalled after a language pack is installed? For example, https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3146706 That’s another reason to avoid them.

Reply | Quote

That is just (once again) bad programming practice. Language packs should not have ANY noticeable impact, no matter how many you install.
Of course it would also be nice if you could UNinstall them more easily, like for example Australians can do without US English (which is the default on installation).
If I want spelling check capabilities in Windows, I need to install four languages that I frequently use (English [AU AND US], Japanese, German). Honestly, Microsoft, it’s not rocket science, it’s Windows 7, not 2.0…

Reply | Quote

I would take issue with ch100 over the advisability of applying all Recommended and Optional updates (now exclusive of language packs). Many of those are clearly irrelevant to functions that my system performs I have no interest in Silverlight or Skype, for example, and one of MS’s recommended printer updates had nothing to do with any of my installed printers. And for driver updates, I would much prefer to go to the manufacturers’ websites than to trust MS.

Why install updates that perform no useful functions, and which have the potential to cause problems?

Reply | Quote

@Michael As you mentioned Australian use of Language Packs, Windows 7 is fine with the use of US English and Australian Locales. Windows 8 and later though, pushing for using the UK English Language Pack for Australia, while resolving few GUI spelling issues, creates much bigger problems.
In Windows 8 and later, UK English has its own Language Pack. However the problems become obvious when the UK English Pack starts changing keyboards randomly from the US keyboard layout (the “good” standard for Australia due to the use of Dollar instead of Pound as currency) to the UK keyboard layout which has the special characters changed to suit the UK Pound symbol. This creates huge issues with the passwords containing special characters.
My recommendation, this is against Microsoft’s official recommendation which I think needs to be revisited, never use UK Language Pack for Australia. Use Windows Australian Locales, Office Australian English, but not the Windows UK English Language Pack.
Spell Checkers have nothing to do with Language Packs. The Language Packs change the Windows interface (GUI) language where available, although there are few leftovers and incomplete translation ocassionally defaulting to US English.

Reply | Quote

Very true and inconvenient.
There is sometimes an example quoted as typical for US where there may be different people using the same PC, prefering either (US) English or (Latin American) Spanish. There is the United States – International keyboard which is not well known, but can be used for both languages with the correct spelling. For those situations, there is no need to install more than 2 Language Packs making the update task more manageable.
Saying that, I have seen one PC which had all 34 Language Packs installed by someone following written instructions to install all updates after building a new PC! And the PC was presented to me because it was running extremey slow!

Reply | Quote

I concur, ch100. Good of you to bring it up.

I’ve always hidden all the unneeded language packs here. That almost just goes without saying.

-Noel

Reply | Quote

Hmmm, interesting. This could explain why one of the computers I have is so slow sometimes.

I always thought it’s because it has two user accounts (admin+standard), but I never thought it could be because they’re in different languages (2 languages total installed).

Reply | Quote

Aren’t installations using non-“en-US”-ISOs installing two languages by default?

If yes, does that mean they’re all suffering from speed-issues just because the OS isn’t running in en-US locale?

Reply | Quote

@Marty There is a misunderstanding. Those updates which you mentioned are not part of Windows Update, but Microsoft Update which is an extension of Windows Update for other Microsoft products, e.g. Skype, Silverlight, MSE. Drivers are a category in itself which is not generally discussed in the context of Windows Update.
I maintain my claim that current Windows Important, Recommended and Optional updates should ideally be installed by most users immediately before the next major Patch Tuesday, which is at the same time with Woody’s MS-DEFCON recommendations for the current month.
It is obvious that the updates which have clear issues and I guarantee that Woody would not miss any of those problematic updates, should either be installed with caution or not installed at all.
I have been following Woody’s posts regularly since August 2014 and I can confirm that none of the patches later retired by Microsoft and/or replaced was missed. And Year 2014 was somehow special in this regard.

Reply | Quote

2 languages should not make a huge difference, but this varies depending on the CPU, RAM, Graphics, Disk performance. Above 2 languages though, you may feel an exponential decrease in perceived performance. If you don’t need the second Language Pack, ideally you should uninstall it, but if you need it, by all means keep it there and use it. It was mentioned in another post that some updates require a Language Pack update. Windows Update should take care of this requirement if this is the case.
The number of user accounts is certainly not an issue as they are normally loaded one at a time with very few exceptions.

Reply | Quote

As far as I know, there are about 5 main ISO distributions , which are supposed to be “equal” in all ways to the US distribution. If this is the case, I have doubts because of inter-dependencies on other software and not so much because of Windows. It is a personal point of view though that the most versatile version still remains the original US version as any other version is more or less an adaptation of the original.
If I had a choice and need to use another Language Pack, I would install the US version initially and the other LP on top of it. By doing this, I would always be able to uninstall the additional version and stay with the US version supported in all scenarios and by all applications. Saying that, it is possible and I did it, although unsupported, to swap between versions just based on downloaded Language Packs by manipulating the registry and pretending that the other version installed was the original installation. They are completely inter-changeable and a Language Pack plus the core files is equivalent functionally to an ISO in one of the other languages.
More, I actually simulated installed versions which do not exist in reality using the same procedure. Basically I installed the US version, installed an additional Language Pack, changed the Registry keys to suit the additional Language Pack and uninstalled gracefully the US Language Pack, ending with a version which officially does not exist. It was obviously a test as there is no guarantee that such a version is stable enough for most purposes, although it appeared to be for the limited time for which I used it.

Reply | Quote

The problem really is that you absolutely cannot know that a particular update is de-coupled with the rest of the system. It’s a good idea for Microsoft to make every update completely modular, but NOTHING COMPELS THEM TO DO SO…

As an example, let’s say a Skype update needs to do something new and really tricky with networking – and that requires a patch to the Base Filtering Engine (firewall) to work. Let’s call the new BFE function “Plugh” for the sake of argument. So Microsoft includes the “Plugh” change to the innards of the BFE along with the rest of the Skype-specific stuff in the update.

Then later, let’s assume the OneDrive feature needs to use that same BFE “Plugh” feature for something it wants to do. At Microsoft headquarters, the functionality of the BFE in the OS includes the “Plugh” API, so they just use it.

Let’s further assume you take the update to OneDrive, even though you’ve hidden the prior Skype update…

What does it do to your system, on which you have hidden the Skype update and so the “Plugh” functionality isn’t anywhere to be found, with regard to OneDrive working?

It’s possible Microsoft never thought to test that particular combination, and thus it might fail badly. It’s not like they’re doing much testing at all any more. Not to mention documentation.

My point here is that if you mix and match operating system components per your own whims, you’re taking on risks that may not seem obvious to you.

An operating system is an INSANELY complex thing, and defies being oversimplified into compliance with your desires.

Because it is a closed system, no one outside Microsoft could possibly know all those secret couplings. So the only safe course is to try to follow what Microsoft uses in THEIR facility to develop further patches with, which is almost certainly a fully updated system.

-Noel

Reply | Quote

Much wisdom here, and now that MS is no longer throwing Get Windows 10 bombshells, it’s time for me to rethink my opposition to non-security patches. ch100 would agree.

Reply | Quote

P.S., Even in light of the above, I have personally hidden a few selected updates from my most critical systems. They were things like the GWX update and its cousins, and increases in telemetry gathering/sending.

I understood the risks by seeking out other people’s accounts of what happened, and weighed them as best I could against the risks of taking Microsoft’s new functionality into those systems, and I have made the decision with my eyes open.

So far, knocking on wood, given these decisions to hide I haven’t yet been bitten by an unexpected incompatibility.

-Noel

Reply | Quote

Reply | Quote

You are absolutely right Noel, although I think that there is a loose degree of modularity when it comes to Windows Update (only Windows related updates) vs Microsoft Update which include Skype from your example. However the borders tend to be not so clear as expected and it is entirely possible that a scenario like the one you presented to happen in practice.

While not directly addressing your post, it is useful to say that Skype from Microsoft Update tends not to be in sync with the official product and should NEVER be downloaded from Microsoft Update, but from the official download sites. This is not by design, but rather due to poor maintenance for Skype updates. Using Microsoft Update for Skype is a lot worse than using Windows Update for keeping drivers up to date.

Reply | Quote

Like in everything, common sense and a dose of moderation is useful, especially when there is good reason to make a selection. In your case there are exceptions well documented from the rule which make corrections easy if needed. It is one thing to select 10 updates which are well documented and their behaviour monitored and another thing to avoid let’s say 100 updates for which it is not even known what they do – good or bad and trying at the same time to keep a consistent functionality of the system.
Saying that, it is perfectly acceptable and within the documented supportability to install only what is considered Important by Microsoft and not to install any of the Recommended and Optional updates. This is much in line with Woody’s current and cautious approach to install only Security updates which are the vast majority of the Important updates. Let’s not forget that while each of us can maintain our own systems in the way we want, Woody’s advice is followed by a huge base of followers and thus his approach is targeted to that audience of mostly non-technical users in order to minimise any potential risks and disruption for those users.

Reply | Quote

And it’s a bad thing to combine app updates with OS updates. Am I the only one to think that the way to go is to modularise the OS compoments in blocks and update them as blocks? Then the “Plugh” BFE update would just be a prerequisite to anything using it?

Also, that’s what Service packs are for: make a new base level. Not that Microsoft could make a good one anymore…

Reply | Quote

A few notes:

If I remember correctly, a language pack should be installed immediately after installing the base OS. Only install those needed, and before any update.

Don’t confuse the OS language packs with Office language packs. OS language packs are for the OS GUI “translation”, while Office packs are for the Office GUI, dictionaries and language related features for Office.

Also, the OS needs a “base” language, often US-English, as language packs might not translate everything. What’s not available in the language pack will be in that “base” language.

Reply | Quote

Excellent notes and all absolutely correct. The main article did not touch the Office Language Packs but your post clarifies it for everyone interested.
Only one observation about the base language. Strictly speaking there are about 5 distributions which are base language in themselves without needing the US pack. But I have to agree based on experience that having the US Pack installed as the base provides the most reliable experience and is the very best practice.

Reply | Quote

Ideally everything should be modular and independent. Unfortunately this good practice is now considered obsolete (why?) and everything has become interdependent.

Reply | Quote