Recommend some Vista tweaks

[Dr.Khron]

My mom bought a new laptop, and I'm going over her house tomorrow to help her "set it up", whatever that means.

Unfortunately, I have almost no experience with Vista... When I built my latest box, I installed Vista, fooled around with it for like 10 minutes, and then made an image of it and installed XP over it.

Are there any basic tweaks you guys would recommend?

I would imagine that the magic I work with XP swap files is pointless under Vista.

Also, I usually put SpyBot on people's PCs, does that still work under Vista, or is it redundant to the built in security?

[Sharktooth]

Format C: and install XP is the most recommended tweak.
However, if you cant do that at least disable superfetch in favour of the old and good prefetch (google for the registry tweak). it should stop the usual vista disk trashing.

[dat720]

Why are people still so scared of Vista???

It's not a hideous monster that is going to chew your computer up and spit it out!

I made the swap to vista Feb 07 and haven't looked back!!!

That being said the majority of programs that work under XP work in Vista, allot fo teh tweaks work as well, just try what you would normally do!

Vista is pretty good out of the box all i do is install the usual *requirements* and turn off UAC... (don't do this for somone who doesn't know what they are doing)

[Sharktooth]

scared? it's utter crap. why should ppl install it? it's slow, memory hungry, CPU hungry, video card hungry, plagued by app and hardware compatibility... even microsoft doesnt recommend companies updating to vista and wait for the next windows version. they do not tell that to private users coz they (M$) need to sell vista.
it's not finished :search: to know the other reasons.
vista is NOT GOOD for NO ONE. if you self convinced yourself of the contary then you're the typical blind user affected by ads.

[dat720]

ROFL!!!! That is the funniest thing i have ever heard!!!!

Vista is pure bliss and anyone that says XP is better has never used Vista for longer than an hour!!!!

There is no task this computer can't do faster and better than a XP machine.

If you like old product's stick with XP.

I find Vista to be more stable, easier to use, easier to install, and just plain nicer to look at!

And the reason corporate user's haven't taken up Vista is because it is allot of effort to make sure everything works in their enviroment it takes vast amounts of time and testing, beleave me i work in a IT team that maintains around 9000 computers in Australia and about another 2000 scattered around the world, it would be a massive undertaking to change over to Vista.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Addressing the original question, why not just let your mom use it as it comes out of the box and if she runs into problems and/or wants to tweak it then do it? After all, applying bizarre and obscure tweaks in the registry etc to eek an extra few frames per second for encoding MPEG2 stuff probably isn't of much benefit to her. Features such as prefetch etc have been optimized for people who use their computers in a traditional way - surfing, email and office stuff.

The only "tweaks" I ever do to Vista are disable UAC and turn off the sidebar. But I'd hardly call those tweaks. For most users, the UAC issues is moot. I've been running Vista since Nov 2006 with just these two settings changed without any problems (few than with XP, in fact).

[Sharktooth]

superfetch kills the performance. the superfetch->prefetch tweak is needed for ALL installations of vista coz:
1 - removes the disk trashing
2 - higher the sytem performance
3 - your Hard drive will live longer due to "1".

[dat720]

The gain from turning off superfetch would be minimal if anything, and the life of the hard drive is not really a issue, hard disk's last for imense amount of time these day's, i have never had a hard disk fail due to it's life span being up... tho i have lost a 320gb drive when i knocked it off a table!!!! I find myself upgrading drives for more space/higher performance before they fail.... is that the best you have against Vista?

[burfadel]

The method for disabling superfetch thats all over the net (at last time I looked), its wrong! DO NOT disable the superfetch service, this will make things much worse. Instead, you can either go manually to the registry key as outlined below or copy it to a file named, say 'superfetch.reg', and run it, which will set it for you. This is the same for x86 (32-bit) and x64 versions of Vista.:

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management\PrefetchParameters]
"EnableSuperfetch"=dword:00000002
"EnablePrefetcher"=dword:00000003

Ensure 'Enableprefetcher' is set to 3, and 'Enablesuperfetch' is set to 2. Now the reason for setting it to 2 is that it will still use superfetch for boot, which is faster. Once in Windows Superfetch will be disabled and normal prefetch will be used instead. A setting of 0 disables it, 1 is for applications only (bad for superfetch), 2 is for boot only, and 3 is for applications and boot. The same settings apply for normal prefetch.

The reason why you DO NOT want to disable the superfetch service is that it also disabled Prefetch.

Under XP, prefetch comes under the Task scheduler service (strange I know), disabling task scheduler will also disable prefetch making performance worse not better under xp!

[Sharktooth]

infact i said superfetch->prefetch.
also HDD overheating reduces the disk life exponentially from years to months or even weeks.
the disk trashing is the major Vista issue. doing what burfadel said will remove almost completely the issue and will give a major performance boost for systems with up to 2 or 3 gigz of ram and expecially notebook (which have slow hard drives).

[dat720]

HDD over heating is caused by inadequete cooling in the case.....

I really don't think modifying superfetch is going to be of much use for his mother, if she needs somone to set the computer up for her do you think she is going to notice a performance increase of a few ms?????

And besides according to Toms Hardware Superfetch is very benificial to system performance.

PS 30 seconds after Windows startup my system is sitting at between 0 and 4% CPU usage and 20% Ram Usage with 56 processes running.

Intel Core 2 Duo E6300
4gb Samsung 667mhz Ram
Intel D33 Motherboard
Vista Ultimate 64bit

[Dr.Khron]

Addressing the original question, why not just let your mom use it as it comes out of the box and if she runs into problems and/or wants to tweak it then do it? After all, applying bizarre and obscure tweaks in the registry etc to eek an extra few frames per second for encoding MPEG2 stuff probably isn't of much benefit to her. Features such as prefetch etc have been optimized for people who use their computers in a traditional way - surfing, email and office stuff.

Duh, I wasn't asking for performance tweaks like that. I know better then to install that stuff on anyone's PC but my own.

The only "tweaks" I ever do to Vista are disable UAC and turn off the sidebar. But I'd hardly call those tweaks. For most users, the UAC issues is moot. I've been running Vista since Nov 2006 with just these two settings changed without any problems (few than with XP, in fact).

THIS is what I was looking for, little things that most people turn off. Thanks.
Anything you do to change the stock settings is a "tweak"; you don't have to be souping something up to call it that.

Also, are there any simple settings can use to make it look more like XP?

[burfadel]

If its the task manager thats showing that you're using 20 percent, then superfetch is definitely disabled! Superfetch basically keeps you ram filled with programme cache, so this shows up under task manager as 0 or onyl a few kb's free. This may not happen straight after the first install as your computer needs to know what to load. To programmes, this cache is essentially free space, and they displace the less used programme cache to operate. The main disadvantages with superfetch is that as soon as that programme closes, or the memory environment changes, superfetch tries to fill up the space changed by that programme with cache again. This process leads to more disk access than normal and can lead to disk thrashing. Superfetch isn't power friendly either due to the increased disk activity and can reduce laptop battery operating time. Note that normal caching and prefetch with the method I outlined above is still enabled. If you close off a programme and load one it up again later, and the memory has not been refilled with other data, it will still load quickly (like Acrobat reader for example will still load instantly)

Sites that show superfetch to be beneficial typically use the common disabling the superfetch service for the comparison, which as I stated is NOT the correct way of doing it and will lead to worse performance since you are closing off prefetch etc as well. Now under the method I outlined, task manager over time can still show 0mb free due to programme cacheing, the main difference is there isn't the constant cramming (and subsequent associated disk thrashing) involed when the superfetch.

On a side note, RAM 'defragmenters', 'cleaners' etc do not work either. They may free memory but in most cases this penalises performance not gain performance. This is because programmes have to reload the data that was 'freed' with the programme. The term defragmenter for these programmes is completely inaccurate, they do not in any sense defragment the RAM. There was a programme ten or so years ago that truly defragmented the ram, but that is kinda pointless...

That said, there is one programme that I do recommend as a RAM cleaner, and it doesn't work in the traditional sense. It literally does not take any RAM normally as it runs as a task through task scheduler, and not in the memory! It uses an internal memory function in windows to work, so it doesn't even do the job itself (just activates this feature). The advantage of using this programme is that is doesn't take memory and the computer continues to run as if it has had a fresh reboot.

Cleanmem v1.2
http://majorgeeks.com/Cleanmem_d5972.html

Just thought I'd mention this since its a great feature, and relates well with the superfetch tweak. Remember to select 32 bit or 64 bit depending on what you are actually running. The programme itself is 32 bit, the selection just relates to setting the programme in the task scheduler.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Also, are there any simple settings can use to make it look more like XP?

You can disable Aero and select a desktop theme that looks like Windows 2000.

[RunningSkittle]

infact i said superfetch->prefetch.
also HDD overheating reduces the disk life exponentially from years to months or even weeks.
the disk trashing is the major Vista issue. doing what burfadel said will remove almost completely the issue and will give a major performance boost for systems with up to 2 or 3 gigz of ram and expecially notebook (which have slow hard drives).

Do you have any sources to backup these outlandish claims?

[dat720]

As Johnny said the only 4 theme's that come with are Windows Vista Basic, Windows Vista Aero Windows, Standard and Windows Classic, Basic and Aero are virtually the same except Aero has transperancy, the standard and classic theme's look much like Windows 2000, you can also change the start menu to Classic which looks like the Windows 2000 start menu, in my opinion both are a step backwards, leave the Vista Theme and Start Menu there, and decide if Aero is needed based on the hardware specs, you can install other visual styles but this requires hacked files which is probably not such a good idea for a non power user.

If its the task manager thats showing that you're using 20 percent, then superfetch is definitely disabled! Superfetch basically keeps you ram filled with programme cache, so this shows up under task manager as 0 or onyl a few kb's free.

That is certainly not the case, Task Manager, all sidebar gadgets i have tried and any System performance program all report the same thing, my PC is currently using 34% memory which is 1.33gb on a 4gb system, also on the tempreture front i have 2 hard disks in this machine, the C: is running at 40 degrees and the D: is 45...... another theory blown away there, I'm with RunningSkittle on this one, please provide some evidence to back up your claims, as a experienced Vista user i have not noticed any such issues.

[burfadel]

As Johnny said the only 4 theme's that come with are Windows Vista Basic, Windows Vista Aero Windows, Standard and Windows Classic, Basic and Aero are virtually the same except Aero has transperancy, the standard and classic theme's look much like Windows 2000, you can also change the start menu to Classic which looks like the Windows 2000 start menu, in my opinion both are a step backwards, leave the Vista Theme and Start Menu there, and decide if Aero is needed based on the hardware specs, you can install other visual styles but this requires hacked files which is probably not such a good idea for a non power user.



That is certainly not the case, Task Manager, all sidebar gadgets i have tried and any System performance program all report the same thing, my PC is currently using 34% memory which is 1.33gb on a 4gb system, also on the tempreture front i have 2 hard disks in this machine, the C: is running at 40 degrees and the D: is 45...... another theory blown away there, I'm with RunningSkittle on this one, please provide some evidence to back up your claims, as a experienced Vista user i have not noticed any such issues.

That was my mistake :) Its true the physical memory used by applications will say for example, 20 percent, but the actual physical memory free will be 0 due to the cacheing. I misinterpreted what he meant by the free memory rating.

In any case, superfetch for applications does thrash the disk, there are many even with 4gb or more that agree with that statement! I also have found the computer is faster with superfetch for applications disabled as per the registry modification. If you look at the principal of it alone, as soon as free memory becomes available the disk has to be access to load and fill up the free memory! If you're using an application that changes its memory usage consistently, superfetch will constantly load and unload data from the cache, and the data doesn't even have anything to do with the programme you are in. You could be doing an image processing application and word and excel essentially part load and unload constantly in the background, apps you aren't using!

[dat720]

Personally i do not think it makes that much if any of a difference, besides do you think his mother will really notice?

Superfetching learns as you use the computer, it prefetches based on what it's learnt.....

Many people tend to think of RAM as some sort of resource, and when it starts getting used up, they believe that they have a problem. In reality however, RAM is more like a cache. If your system is only using a small percentage of your cache is a huge waste. Imagine how your processor would work if its L2 cache never used more than 25% of its capacity. L2 cache is a small amount of high-speed memory that allows for high-speed access to the system's most commonly accessed data.

The average user is going to see more of a advantage by leaving superfetch on, the people that want to feel like they have heaps of memory free should disable it, as should the people that beleive it's a problem, and even if superfetch is utilising 100% of the system memory, it flushes what ever it feels it needs to as a program request's memory!

[burfadel]

The algorithm used by superfetch needs to be improved. I'm not complaining about the principal, however since the memory use changes consistently having superfetch load and unload data just to have that cache filled consistently is the problem. Actually consider encoding with x264! Depending on the settings that can take up to a GB or more of memory. When the encode finishes and its being muxed, superfetch fills the cache with a GB of data straight away. When it starts on the next encode it has to clear that GB of cache. That is pointless! The other thing is that when the memory requirements of programmes change, such as video editing, you end up loading and clearing much more stuff from superfetch cache just because the memory requirements of the programme change. Superfetch is not good for a consistently changing memory environment, which is common!

[dat720]

And the time it takes to do this is miliseconds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can we move away from this? you clearly beleave it's evil, let's leave it at that....

[burfadel]

I never said its evil, just that it may not be ideal. Its definitely a bad thing for laptops as it reduces batter life! I never said completely disable it either, just one part of its many functions which is currently not as efficient as it could be! I'm sure its something that will be improved upon with windows 6.1 (aka 7), and possibly Vista sp2. Likewise copying and the USB performance is something which would hopefully be improved as well. If it works for you then thats good! Remember that I didn't say to completely disable it, actually I recommended against that! Disabling the superfetch service will make performance worse, I'm not saying it won't! I just recommended to disable one feature of superfetch which can cause disk thrashing! The disk thrashing issue isn't really a thrash per se, its just a noticeable increase in disk activity. Programmes under the normal settings for superfetch don't really load any faster than just having that small part of the feature disabled anyway! - and this isn't just my thoughts on it.

Anyways, there aren't too many tweaking things that you can do with vista that is beneficial, only disabling thing that you don't need (which of course, varies from user to user).

[JohnnyMalaria]

The other thing is that when the memory requirements of programmes change, such as video editing, you end up loading and clearing much more stuff from superfetch cache just because the memory requirements of the programme change. Superfetch is not good for a consistently changing memory environment, which is common!

Well, why not just do away with the processor's L2 cache by the same token? :)

[Sharktooth]

do you have any sources to backup these outlandish claims?
sure, the whole internet. Use google.

Well, why not just do away with the processor's L2 cache by the same token? :)
Superfetch is faulty and lowers the performance, L2cache is not. or, better, is much less faulty also rams have no moving mechanical parts and are much faster than hard disks.
your comment is quite unrelated to the issue and inadequate, also your provocative behaviour is not needed at all.

@dat720: the disk has mechanical parts, the more they move the more it heats up. also notebooks, for example, do not have any cooling for HDDs and cant have it due to restricted space. sill they're pre-loaded with vista and superfetch enabled. uhm.....
can you see the point?

[Shakey_Jake33]

I'm no Vista hater, but I certainly agree with the suggestion to disable Superfetch. I understand why it's a nice idea conceptually, but it results in the computer spending a few minutes caching files, only for you to run a completely different program and flush that cache. It will also decide to kick in while I'm playing a game, causing massive thrashing (and thus, major game stutters). ReadyBoost also causes this. I've found Vista a much more enjoyable experience once I disabled these technologies.

[Sharktooth]

im not a hater too. i just constatate facts. it IS crap... and bloated.
the idea behind superfetch is good but the implementation is worst i've ever seen. that means there is A LOT of room for improvment, but we all know how M$ thinks, it will be in the next windows relese, not in Vista.

[burfadel]

The main thing is to disable it by setting it in the registry to '2' instead of '3'. That way you still have prefetch and accelerated boot. Its just the application part of superfetch which causes problems, the rest of it is good :)!

[JohnnyMalaria]

your comment is quite unrelated to the issue and inadequate, also your provocative behaviour is not needed at all.

Time for you to look in the mirror.

*You* were the first to reply to Dr. Krohn's question and *you* opened it with your side-splitting:

"Format C: and install XP is the most recommended tweak."

It is so predictable, so unhelpful and so provocative. Why do you do it? It's like a schoolboy who heard a dirty joke and is still telling it 25 years later.

Time to tell your high horse to stop and dismount.

[RunningSkittle]

So if there are so many benchmarks proving your accusations on the "entire internet", you wont mind posting a link to JUST ONE.

concerning laptop drives: 2.5" drives use MUCH less power, and dissipate MUCH less heat than a typical 5.25" drive.

When was the last time you heard of a drive dying because of excess heat in normal operating conditions? I seriously think your just making this up by the seat of your pants.

[foxyshadis]

This thread has just become another rehash of threads that were done to death months ago, along with thousands of others across the internet.

It's not really something that's that hard to try for a week on and off to see if it makes any difference in your life.