How do I enhance my computer's performance?

[Riff88]

Hi.

I have a Vista 32 bit operating on an Acer Aspire computer. I have recently improved my ram from 450mb to 1 Gig ram. it's a lot faster than usual but...

How do I improve my computer's performance, not just on it's own but also it's connection to the Internet? Are there programs that will help me?

THanks.

[DJ Bobo]

Working with Vista will be even more comfortable if you upgrade to 2GB. Looking at how low the memory prices are right now, it's really the easiest thing to do.

There is nothing you can do about the speed of the internet connection though, it doesn't depend on your computer, only on your provider and the server you're downloading from.

[Adub]

The usual (and guaranteed) ways are hardware upgrades. However, there are some programs that help to speed up your computer. For one, make sure that you scan for spyware and malware on a regular basis (I am partial to Spybot Search and Destroy, free). Another option is to remove all of the "crap" left over on your computer from a variety of sources. For this, I recommend CCleaner (CrapCleaner, free). Those will definitely help, plus they are free.

You won't see as big a performance boost as you would with, say, more ram or a faster processor, but it is much easier to achieve.

[leeperry]

kill all useless services! Vista is over the top on that point..

[nfm]

Upgrade to XP, Vista is utter crap. If you prefer GNU/Linux, I would go with Archlinux / Gentoo / Slackware.

[DJ Bobo]

Upgrade to XP
*looool*
That one was good :)
No, seriously, the only annoying thing about Vista is UAC, you disable that, you get yourself a better-than-XP system. With a well dimensionned system, Vista actually feels lighter than XP! The magic word here is: transitions! Vista has well made transitions, where XP's interface would still feel heavy even on a 2x3GHz system with 4GB memory!

[nfm]

*looool*
That one was good :)
No, seriously, the only annoying thing about Vista is UAC, you disable that, you get yourself a better-than-XP system. With a well dimensionned system, Vista actually feels lighter than XP! The magic word here is: transitions! Vista has well made transitions, where XP's interface would still feel heavy even on a 2x3GHz system with 4GB memory!Vista is still slower than XP, and this is what matters to me, Win 7 isn't and won't be any faster since it's just rebadged Vista. Sure Vista feels lighter because you are tricked by fading effects of using aero which renders windows by utilizing gpu's processing power.

[DJ Bobo]

It may be slower on the paper, but as said, it feels faster. I tried the Windows 2000 interface on Vista, it feels like my computer has become slooooow. Back to the Aero interface, it feels like... magic. Everything just... flows! :)
Tricked or not, it just works :)

[GrofLuigi]

It may be slower on the paper, but as said, it feels faster. I tried the Windows 2000 interface on Vista, it feels like my computer has become slooooow. Back to the Aero interface, it feels like... magic. Everything just... flows! :)
Tricked or not, it just works :)

It *feels*, but at what cost... The HDD light doesn't turn off ever.... :scared:

Also, have you tried actual Win2000? I agree that Vista's "classic interface" feels slower, but who knows whether it is delberate?

GL

[DJ Bobo]

A friend of mine actually still have a P3 with Windows 2000 on it.
I think Microsoft just didn't see it fit to optimize the old engine.

And that HDD light that doesn't turn off is probably due to indexing. If you don't care about search speed, you may disable it.

[GrofLuigi]

And that HDD light that doesn't turn off is probably due to indexing. If you don't care about search speed, you may disable it.
No, it's WMI, prefetch/superfetch, logging/auditing (much much more logging of everything than in previous versions of Windows) - things that cannot be disabled easily without big performance penalty.

I don't count autorun and indexing and everything that can be disabled.

GL

[DJ Bobo]

Then I don't know what you're talking about. My HDD light is off most of the time (I didn't disable prefetch and the other stuff)

[Sharktooth]

then something is wrong with your installation... :p
using biblical terms, vista is a behemot... it's overcomplicated, heavy on system resources, slower and despite the M$ ads, no more secure than xp with the latest updates.
there are few good points for vista too... but i dont think they are worth the trouble. wait for windows 7 and in the mean time stick to XP or do the jump and switch to GNU/Linux.

[burfadel]

It *feels*, but at what cost... The HDD light doesn't turn off ever.... :scared:


Thats purely and utterly got to do with application superfetch. All your systems RAM is used as cache, but programmes see it as free RAM. When you load a programme, if it isn't already in the cache (or the data opened in the programme isn't in the cache) it loads it, removing something that is in the cache. Problem is, when memory is free'd by a programme there's actual free RAM left, so Windows loads data back in to the cache. This is particularly bad if a progammes memory use changes constantly!

DO NOT EVER disable the superfetch service, that information on the internet is wrong. Superfetch service also controls standard prefetch as well as application & boot superfetch. The only superfetch you don't want is application superfetch.

To disable, run regedit from the start menu (type it in), and navigate to the following:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\system\currentcontrolset\control\session manager\memory management\prefetchparameters

And double click on 'Enablesuperfetch' in the right pane. Set this to 2. The options are 0=disabled all, 1=application only, 2=boot only, 3=application&boot.

Boot only should be selected (aka 2). Leave enableprefetcher set to 3. If the settings aren't set to these, change them! If you go there and you find one of them isn't set to 3 by default, means its been changed by an installed programme to 'boost' performance. The setting of enablesuperfetch to 2 and ensuring enableprefetcher is set to 3 and that the superfetch service is running is one of the biggest things you can do with windows.

If you had 8gb of ram and hardly any progs, leaving it set to 3 would be ok, as everything would fit in the cache and the programmes wouldn't need to push it out. Even 4gb is NOT enough for this consideration though!

Also turning your hdd off by default with the normal power management settings isn't good either, its only good on a drive that you hardly access. Its bad on a system drive, but unfortunately its not on a drive by drive basis. I have seen system drives turn on and off constantly because they're set to turn off after 5 mins, and then you have the disk thrashing with application superfetch, coupled with incorrect airflow = premature drive failure :S

[GrofLuigi]

Thats purely and utterly got to do with application superfetch...
I know all that, believe me. I've tinkered with Vista a few months before I decided it's not worth it. It wants to do it their way and period.

Superfetch service can be disabled, but not the cheating* XXXfetch driver (ecache.sys). <-dont try this at home, instant bsod.

I could write pages and pages about my observations with Vista, but this is not the time or place. To keep it short, I'll quote the age old saying:

"What Intel Giveth, Microsoft Taketh Away". :D

And to keep it on topic, that's what I've been trying to tell the OP: there's nothing you can do except install (another) normal operating system. :(

GL

* the whole prefetch idea was born when microsoft were overwhelmed by complaints that Win 2000 boots slowly.

[burfadel]

Disabling supefetch and disabling the superfetch service are too different things, doing the latter actually decreases performance!

[Sharktooth]

anyways, XP is still faster and linux is well... you know... ;)

[DJ Bobo]

I would say, don't touch anything. Vista works great the way it is. That HDD light that doesn't turn off is only for a few minutes after the start and it seems to be working in low priority since it doesn't interfere with the running applications.
And who wants to work with Linux??

Just get 1 or 2GB extra (don't cost even 20 bucks) and live happily ever after :D

[swaaye]

It's refreshing to see people admit that Linux is a pain in the ass outside of using it as a freeware server or just as a web/email browser box. :)

[Sharktooth]

i use it everyday on my desktop and it's not a pain in the ass. at all.
there is also a subforum (http://forum.doom9.org/forumdisplay.php?f=63) here full of ppl that will not agree with you...

[stax76]

Few months ago I've installed Ubuntu as web box for my mom, jesus was it performing slow, it was a old box but XP would run smooth on such a box. My sister said she buys a XP copy otherwise I would have checked if it just needs some tweaks or if it's really that painful slow.

[Sharktooth]

i dont know about ubuntu, i mean, i know it performs a bit slower than other distros, but i saw it running (and pretty well) on old PCs with sub-gigahertz CPUs and ridicolous amounts of ram.
there are surely other distros like Puppy or DSL that are lightining fast even on "prehistoric" PCs (in the era of Pentium-1 or even 486 CPUs).
i really cant believe ubuntu can be slower than xp in any case...

EDIT: just in case... http://www.tuxradar.com/node/33

[DJ Bobo]

@ Sharktooth
As long as you have to open the console to get things done in Linux, it will be a pain in the ass.
I may miss the old DOS days where I had to change the autoexec.bat file to get a game work with 8MB memory, but that's simply not efficient and a waste of time and nerves.
So it's not like he's going to be any more productive when moving to Linux.
Linux may be able to run smoothly with 512MB only, but as said before, who cares now that memory prices have sunk so low, that nobody has an excuse for having less than 2GB RAM?!

[stax76]

The UI was the problem, maybe just a bad driver but it was a HP box probably popular at that time, something that should be expected to work out of the box.

[Sharktooth]

@ Sharktooth
As long as you have to open the console to get things done in Linux, it will be a pain in the ass.
I may miss the old DOS days where I had to change the autoexec.bat file to get a game work with 8MB memory, but that's simply not efficient and a waste of time and nerves.
So it's not like he's going to be any more productive when moving to Linux.
Linux may be able to run smoothly with 512MB only, but as said before, who cares now that memory prices have sunk so low, that nobody has an excuse for having less than 2GB RAM?!
you need the console only if you want to use the console.
so, if you still think linux is all about a "console" you're stick to some years ago...
do yourself a favour and get a user friendly distro like linux mint (http://www.linuxmint.com/) and startup the livecd... then get back to windows and see...

@stax: hardware support in linux is different from windows. however there are distros that come with a kernel that supports more hardware than others, as well as other distros that come with the ndiswrapper or proprietary video drivers preinstalled.
fact is, sometimes some hardware works bad on windows (using its drivers) and perfectly on linux (without "drivers")...
applications, is a completely different thing. some of them (even the ones you use everyday) were meant to run on linux (xvid, x264, mplayer/libavcodec... for example) and then ported to windows thanks to mingw (minimalist GNU for windows)...
others just born to be run only under windows, but most of them can be used on linux thru wine.

[swaaye]

you need the console only if you want to use the console.

That's not really true though. With Linux, you may need to load up the terminal for any number of reasons. That's the biggest issue with the OS IMO. You just can't ask the general populace to get into a terminal to configure conf files.....

Don't get me wrong, I think Linux is cool. It is an absolutely awesome server OS. Its flexibility is endless assuming you are willing to dig into its depths. The free desktop distros are great for leftover comps that aren't worth buying a Windows license for. It can be extremely useful as a basic OS for a user who stays within the safe boundaries that have been set up. But if you stray outside of the apps that are easily accessible or have some peripherals/hardware without native support, oh wow can things get really nasty quick.

Some of the problems are caused by people being too familiar with the Microsoft way, but I think that most of it is just caused by the various desktop-oriented distros being very immature yet and lacking any meaningful industry-wide backing. There's too much fragmentation in the Linux world. Too many distros in general....

Ubuntu is probably the most impressive step Linux has taken yet with getting awareness of Linux's potential out to the commonfolk ;). But it's not even close to being on the same footing as XP/Vista for ease of use. It isn't really particularly fast or lightweight either, although it's certainly not bad at all. I have an old Athlon XP 1700+ with 512MB and a TNT2 M64 running it as a web browser machine at work. It's just about perfect for that.

[DJ Bobo]

you need the console only if you want to use the console.

I think swaaye answered that perfectly.
Don't try to fool yourself ;)

[Sharktooth]

you can edit the .conf files with your default "graphical" text editor.
there is really no need of using the terminal. however the shell is usefull if you know what you're doing. even microsoft understood that and made the power shell for windows (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technologies/management/powershell/default.mspx)...
about the hardware, you're sadly right. the real problem is there are too few hardware manufacturers that actively support linux. but even with that handicap, the linux kernel supports most of the hardware out there.
concerning the apps, well, there are tons of apps. sure those are not windows apps, nor windows games, but still there are apps for all the needs and even more. plus there is wine... and wine3d (yep, i know, they're a bit tricky to set up... but they work).
fragmentation is the real weak point of linux and other opensource OSes. however LSB (Linux Standard Base (http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/LSB)) exists... it's only a matter of time.
the point is the users are used to windows platform and, as we know, humans do not like changes. it's in their nature. but once you make your step into the "new" platform you dont want to come back. i really dont know any user that adopted linux and wished to come back to windows.

[_DW_]

Bah. Linux is userfriendly, its just more picky about who its friends are.

[DJ Bobo]

Bah. Linux is userfriendly, its just more picky about who its friends are.
*looooooooooooooool*

[leeperry]

Linux is user friendly, its just more picky about who its friends are.
http://forum-images.hardware.fr/images/perso/julm3.gif

[stellargellar]

Upgrade your ram to 2gb or 4gb if you want a faster computer

[davidmoore]

I bought 2x2gb sticks for my laptop running vista and that was an excellent decision. Especially running dual channel afterward. As long as you have enough RAM vista will be smooth and get the job done. Superfetch does use a lot of ram, but it does so so that applications will load faster. Which is what ram is for. Just make sure you disable services you aren't using and keep your processes low.

[Blue_MiSfit]

As long as you have enough RAM vista will be smooth and get the job done. Superfetch does use a lot of ram, but it does so so that applications will load faster. Which is what ram is for


This.

Provided you also have a reasonably quick dual-core CPU and a decent GPU to run Aero, then yes - that's quite correct! Otherwise, putting Vista in classic mode works great. 2GB is really the minimum for good performance though IMO.

~MiSfit

[davidmoore]

This.

Provided you also have a reasonably quick dual-core CPU and a decent GPU to run Aero, then yes - that's quite correct! Otherwise, putting Vista in classic mode works great. 2GB is really the minimum for good performance though IMO.

~MiSfit

Also, there is a registry entry to enable Superfetch only for boot files so applications won't be prefetched. With this setup, I would suspect it would use a little bit more RAM than XP. If you wanted to do that.

Also, if you want to keep Superfetch how it is an do some spring cleaning. Click on Start and type in prefetch. These are all the pointer files that Vista uses to prefetch applications. Delete ALL the files and reboot the computer and it will start the file acquisition again. I went from 70% RAM usage to 24% after reboot.

It's also ridiculous to see how much faster applications open because of Superfetch. After deleting the prefetch files and rebooting, go and open a program, time how long it takes to open, then close it again and reopen. Hot damn!

[Sharktooth]

that's called caching... and has nothing to do with prefetch.
prefetch is used to open the apps faster the FIRST time after a system boot (or the first time you launch them).
what you observed is also valid for XP, linux, BSD, or any other existing OS.