1. Computer problem? Tech Support Guy is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations. Click here to join today! If you're new to Tech Support Guy, we highly recommend that you visit our Guide for New Members.

Driver Heaven Tune XP 1·5 to speed up your computer's performance.

Discussion in 'Tech Tips and Reviews' started by RAM-PAGE, Feb 17, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement
  1. Elvandil

    Elvandil

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2003
    Messages:
    51,988
    Spelling.
     
  2. Skivvywaver

    Skivvywaver

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2001
    Messages:
    13,947
    Wow, You got some mean stuff going on there. I feel inadequate.
     
  3. Elvandil

    Elvandil

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2003
    Messages:
    51,988
    I'll have to confess that I use less than 10% of it. Most was installed just to try it out before recommending to others and just never uninstalled. One of these days....
     
  4. RAM-PAGE

    RAM-PAGE Banned Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,355
    I think that you are right to be sceptical other than my system is running better. You have to know that some of these adjustments put things back the way they should be. Optimise Prefetch, for example. Sure enough it is now set at 3 just te way Microsoft intended it to be, and I note, on another site that you should indeed have it set at 3 if you have 512Mb of RAM, or more.

    I am not to keen on having defraggers order files by 'last access', as I don't see the validity of doing so.

    Unloading DLLs (AlwaysUnloadDLL) was present in '98se. I think that if a DLL is to be unloaded then it uses up less space which might be a good thing, that it may need to be loaded again doesn't really matter as long as the program using it is performing well.

    With a sufficiency, or even with an overabundance, of physical memory there is less need to spend a lot of time tuning.

    So I agree completely that using memory optimisers are a TOTAL waste of time, when adding more RAM is the better option and improves the computer's overall ability substantially.

    I have been there with a memory optimiser called, naturally, RAM-Page, I think it was version 1·6, and it did help when burning CDRs as I only had 256Mb of RAM at the time as that was all this Windows 2000 machine was supplied with. (Although built for Windows 2000, according to the front panel label, it had ME installed, a sort of Microsoft Edsel version of '98se)

    Jim Foley (the Elder Geek) makes a reference to driving a Ferrari with a Ford Pinto engine. Well this was more like driving a Ford Pinto with a rubber band. You had to stop and wind it up again by rebooting.

    It could equally have been a Ford Pinto with a Nascar engine, in that it was wildly unstable on a 60Gb drive, until it got partitioned to get the partitions down under 32Gb.

    CD Burning? I wouldn't do that as you might need them both, the MS system and your own Burning program.

    Clear Pagefile on shutdown. Why not? You get a fresh one on start up, and if the old one is fragmented there may a better chance of getting an unfragmented one in its place.

    Start-up and shutdown are faster, even with the clearing of the pagefile. Certainly if data in use is not written back to the drive in time you could get data loss. Something that was a problem with ME and Microsoft released an update to cure the problem on IDE drives, if I remember correctly.

    Dare I mention, the one-time use of Frag-Shield to pad the MFTs was necessary on my drives as the MFTs were too small.

    It seems that the system couldn't manage them correctly before this operation, but does now. How this works I don't know, but it seems that the correct size is computed according to the files on the drive and the drive size. Thereafter the MFTs are maintained at the right size in relation to both, and I wonder if the initial use of Frag-Shield enters information into the defragmenter to maintain the MFTs. (I really don't know, but I do know that it has improved running and reduced fragmentation.)

    I did notice that manually padding the MFT on the C: drive (because Frag-Shield failed to adjust it to its recommended size, although it did the other three drives OK) allowed Frag-Shield to pronounce the new setting to be alright, and was followed by frag-shield running defrag automatically as soon as this occured.

    Thereafter on opening Frag-Shield again I see that the setting has been reduced automatically from the 200,000 which I set it at, to clear the hold-up, down to 70,048. So it is now running as it should do.

    Also the green hatched areas are now appearing in the defrag window, which they didn't do before.

    Overall, the main 'argument' centres on the amount of RAM available for use. It is clear that the true minimum for the correct functioning of XP is really 512Mb so that all the original Operating System settings may be retained.

    So I had a look in the shops yesterday at new computers for sale. Oh Oh! 256Mb with shared video RAM. Bah!

    Better models had 512Mb or 1024Mb of RAM installed with NO video sharing and are certainly worth the extra outlay, or capital expenditure.

    Now when Microsoft is making recommendations it could have recommended that computers sold with Windows XP should not be sold with less than 512Mb of RAM. That would make everyone's life just that bit easier, in my esimation.

    Maybe there is a problem with Windows, in that it is also 'having' to cater to low-end hardware, or is it that it just chooses to do so?

    Big Brother, the Porno Pope, and the three monkies, ordained by the devil and satan, like to know and SEE what you are doing, especially on Big Brother's computer.

    A rather sickening game of catch as catch can, and holy (sexual) entrapment, a very unworthy reason to keep these idle, and evil, fools in slippered elegance within their Palaces, whilst the poor go hungry, in my estimation.

    NERO Burning? The Fiddler on the roof? Whilst Rome burns people alive?

    Doubtless some sort of criminal conspiracy.

    Now THAT is more to the point.

    Not for me, thank you, I have work to do.
     
  5. Bob Cerelli

    Bob Cerelli

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2002
    Messages:
    22,468
    Rampage,

    From a previous post you noted a "Each tab produces a nearly imperceptible increase in performance,".

    What were these increases. Boot time? Time to load apps? shutdown time?
    What were they before any changes were made?
    What were they after?

    When it comes to performance, over the years I've learned not to trust what we want to see but actually measure it.
     
  6. Bob Cerelli

    Bob Cerelli

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2002
    Messages:
    22,468
    But Elvandil continues to make the point that there are so many of these programs available. And like with other ones mentioned, either they or the information has been out for a long time. It's really no big deal advertising these tweaks since the information or utilities to let you make then has been around for years.
     
  7. RAM-PAGE

    RAM-PAGE Banned Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,355
    Bob,

    Boot up and shutdown times are substantially improved. No point in my quoting figures here, as it will depend on the individuals hardware and software in all probability.

    They will have to do before and after testing for themselves.

    Applications are loading just that bit faster and the entire system seems to be performing better than before, however I have a problem with my firewall conflicting at the moment, so it is difficult to give a subjective statement, especially as other people will not be using the same software.

    Better they try it out for themselves.
     
  8. RAM-PAGE

    RAM-PAGE Banned Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,355
    Maybe we could dispense with advertising altogether. That would be a good idea in my estimation as it costs very little to 'advertise' the Armed Services.
     
  9. RAM-PAGE

    RAM-PAGE Banned Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,355
    Very! :D
     
  10. Elvandil

    Elvandil

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2003
    Messages:
    51,988
    The defraggers that use "Last Access" to order files do not order them by last access. Rather last access is monitored so that the more frequently used files, those with more recent access dates, are placed toward the center of the drive where their future access will cause the least fragmentation.
     
  11. RAM-PAGE

    RAM-PAGE Banned Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,355
    Thanks, that is interesting. What other methods are employed by defragmenters?
     
  12. Elvandil

    Elvandil

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2003
    Messages:
    51,988
    "Last Access" is probably more appropriate to a server than a workstation.

    "Last Modified" is a popular one. Then, files that are not modified are placed on the outer edge of the disk for faster access (exe's, dll's, ocx's) and those that are often modified, placed nearer the open space where their size changes cause the least amount of fragmentation to the drive. I had one included with V-COM suite that put all exe's on the outer edge.

    Others place boot files first on the disk and then use some other method for the rest. O&O and Diskeeper put file attributes, metadata, and folders first on the drive.

    "Fast" defraggers usually just consolidate space with little regard to file placement.

    I'm sure there are many others, none perfect, each appropriate to a particular type of machine use, and all better than nothing and not that much superior to one another.
     
  13. Bob Cerelli

    Bob Cerelli

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2002
    Messages:
    22,468
    Rampage,

    I am not asking what other people might be experiencing.

    Again...

    From a previous post you noted a "Each tab produces a nearly imperceptible increase in performance,".

    What were these increases. Boot time? Time to load apps? shutdown time?
    What were they before any changes were made?
    What were they after?

    When it comes to performance, over the years I've learned not to trust what we want to sense but actually measure it.

    What are your measurements on your computer for what performance gains you obtained.
     
  14. Big-K

    Big-K

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    6,052
    I actually do do quite a few tweaks, but they are all manually done and almost always cosmetic or preventative. Preventative is things like a modified host file.
     
  15. Stoner

    Stoner Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2002
    Messages:
    44,931
    I have also done many tweaks.
    I also learned, early on, the value of drive imaging.. LOL!__:D_:D


    There's a super tweak for 98se called something like.... 98se SP1. I tried it on a fresh install with nothing installed but 98se and no other tweaks.
    The first boot was a blue screen :D_:D
    And the second............LOL!
    Ah.....:)....the benefits of DriveImage :):)

    Some work, some don't.....By the time I commit to XP full time, I expect you guys will have thoroughly tested all the tweaks for me............(j/k..:D )



    smilin' Jack :D
     
As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 733,556 other people just like you!

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Short URL to this thread: https://techguy.org/331597

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice