Let me stipulate at the outset that I am not familiar with most of the products they tested... the only one I know/use is CCleaner.
There was no indication as to HOW they used CCleaner... presumably, they used it only for its "cleaning" capabilities (i.e., for removing files it considered "temporary" or easily replaceable). But CCleaner also offers the ability to "clean" one's registry... did they use it for that as well? Without an indication as to what aspects of the program they invoked... and whether they simply accepted the default settings or "tweaked" them, it's very difficult to judge their results.
[Having mentioned registry cleaning, let me stress that I do NOT recommend anyone routinely use registry cleaners... there's much more potential for harm than good in doing so.]
It should also be noted that, relatively speaking, there's very little that CCleaner actually removes. In the picture on page 2, it seemingly boasts an amazing 230 MEG that it will clean up. But if that's on a 250 GIG drive, we're talking about gaining-back less than one-tenth of one percent of the drives capacity! And even if we were to consider a user who uses only a minimal disk configuration --- on my laptop, I'm only actually using 41 GIG as I write this --- we're talking about gaining back just a little more than 1/2 of one percent of my USED space. Think of it this way: If I were to enter a library (looking for a book), where the books were randomly placed anywhere in the library, and the shelves were only 99.5% full, would my search really be that much easier than if the shelves were 100% full?
Speaking in human terms, it "feels" like much more would be gained by sorting the books in some useful manner... grouping-together books on the same topic... and by "featuring" the most popular books (Harry Potter, anyone??) up front where people could more-easily find them. In computer terms, this would correspond to defragging files (bringing all its pieces together into one contiguous unit) and "optimizing" the disk (arranging the files in a strategic order, such as placing those needed for booting "up front"). So I indeed use a disk defragger/optimizer. HOWEVER, given the speed at which modern computers run, while our intuition (human understanding) says this will speed up things, the simple fact of the matter is that it's often very difficult to perceive any such actual improvement... if my system now boots in 59 seconds (rather than 60), was that an actual improvement? --- or "experimental error" in my timing??
What CAN help is using a startup-manager (like WinPatrol), to disable all the "garbage" that insists on starting every time you boot-up your system. [Not only do you save time on bootup, you also save RAM that's wasted by these "ever-present" unnecessary programs.]
So yes, I may do some things to try to make my machine run better. Some things MIGHT help. But most won't. Of course, since I only use FREE products, there's no question that I'm getting my money's worth :emotion-5:
I would not pay $ 40 for a cleaning software program while CCleaner ( Free ) is around. The article is clearly directed to people starting to handle PCs so they do not fall for " We will make your system go faster ".
Years ago, ages really, I used them, I even had PC Tool Registry Mechanics in my Win 95 and 98, and you Know what ? They never made any of my machines go faster. Like the article said; " It is a placebo ". The most I got was a 5 Sec decrease in my boot time, and this was only for a couple of boots.
A few years ago I discovered CCleaner, Win Patrol, and the Black Viper services list and I have used them in my Win 2000 and XP. They have shorted my boot time around 20 Sec. So keeping a few progs and services out of boot and running activily in my PC, have made my comp a lot simpler and faster.
David, Joe. I read a post in Spywarehammer where you two tried Soluto. None of you follow through with your experiences and findings about this program. Do you still use it ? I have encountered a few posts in different forums where it is recomended, and other forums where it is producing BSOD in Win XP. What are your thoughts about it ?
Soluto is a "mixed bag". I've tested it out (actually, some older versions) on three or four machines.
first, let me stress that soluto was (and i believe still is) in BETA. it is a "work in progress". Yes, I've blue-screened with it at least once (on an XP system)... so after rebooting, getting some data/info from it, I uninstalled it on that one system. My wife, however, has it installed on her two machines, likes what she sees, and continues to use it.
for those who don't know about it, Soluto is a program that tries to analyze your boot-up, telling you how much time (to the nearest tenth of a second, if memory serves me) each start-up program/service takes. It further attempts to classify your startup programs as "no brainers" --- which it suggests you can easily remove; essential programs --- which it suggests you NOT tamper with; and everything in between --- which are either optional "user choices", or sometimes things that Soluto just doesn't know about.
So if, for example, it reports a "no brainer" (or an optional program) that takes 20 seconds to load, you can decide to either disable OR TO DELAY that program's auto-startup. [By delaying --- a feature also available in WinPatrol ---- you can allow all the critical programs to start-up first, without "interference"; and only afterwards, permit the optional programs to load when things have "calmed-down"].
Some earlier versions of Soluto didn't recognize such basic programs as Avast! anti-virus, considering it an unknown/optional program! So the user really needs to be careful when using it.
on my system(s) that blue-screened, I rebooted to take note of Soluto's suggestions. I did find one program which could take reasonable advantage of the delayed start. But (since I was already disabling the more notorious candidates via WinPatrol) Soluto didn't offer me anything much of significance --- and to worry about some programs that used less than a tenth of a second (each) would be paranoia. So, because of the Blue screen, I uninstalled Soluto, but DID implement its delay suggestion via WinPatrol.
Newer versions of Soluto now look for additional features, such as IE add-ons, that might slow down your system.
Because of the blue screen potential, and its BETA status, I do *NOT* recommend that "average" users try it. But for "advanced" users, whose goal it is to tweak-away every millisecond of bootup time that's possible, and who are willing to risk the potential blue screen, it's, shall we say, "interesting". Hope that answers your question.
P.S. the Black Viper services lists are indeed very useful, and I like them a lot.
Has anyone tried the PC Health Check from the new owners of Super Anti-Spyware? I would be curious if it finds any problems on a system that has been running CCleaner, WinPatrol, etc.. regularly. Does it tell you that you are doing a good job keeping your system clean and running smoothly, or will you be referred to their remote assistance/paid help "experts"?
My experience with Soluto was similar to ky's. An interesting program, but ultimately of no extra value. It gave me no problems, but I uninstalled it (as a beta, on general principle).
I recall using jv16 PowerTools (a free version of this registry cleaner) many years ago, on my Win 98SE system. It never sped up anything either. In retrospect, I'm surprised that it didn't trash my system.
I thought CNET used support.com, the promoters of PC Health Check, for their remote PC assistance. If CNET editors are not giving it good reviews, I must have it confused with something else.
Thank you for your views about Soluto, and a late thanks for the other post I did not get to thank you.
Looking back I was also lucky Registry Mechanic did not mess my systems too. I would not dare to use a registry cleaner program now a days.
David.
I also thank you for your detail explanation. I agreed. Being my comp XP, soluto a beta program, and the consequences that implays. It is not worst it. Besides, I know of my three or four programs that I still can hold during booting to squeeze 10 more sec out of my machine.
To whom ever did not know about the Black Viper list. keep in mind that the Tweaked, and Bare bone list will give red alerts and yellow warnings in Windows event viewer.
BB.
PC Health Check does not have good reviews by CNET editors´. Although some user´s reviews give it 4 stars. Also, and I think you know this, WOT have Download dot com yellow all across its values .
Shame on SAS. Money talks and the rest is .....garbage :emotion-7:
Hernan wrote: "To whom ever did not know about the Black Viper list. keep in mind that the Tweaked, and Bare bones lists will give red alerts and yellow warnings in Windows event viewer."
Let's elaborate a bit more, for those who have not "discovered" this resource. Black Viper offers a list of almost all the Windows services that are available under each operating system. They tell you what the default setting was for each service... and then offer 3 sets of variations that users can consider:
1) a "SAFE" configuration, which they claim should work correctly [with little or no side-effects] for about 95% of all users.
2) a "TWEAKED" configuration for "power users", noting that some things might not work if you follow this setup.
3) a "Bare Bones" configuration for "super geeks", noting that many things might not work if you follow this setup. But if it does work, it should offer optimal bootup.
"Tampering" with your services is NOT something for the faint of heart. Keep in mind that even the so-called "safe" configuration may have unintended consequences for 5% of users... and what's to say your system may not fall into that 5%?? While I have not tested/invoked everything, I have implemented SOME of their suggestions. Users who wish do so should fully realize they are proceeding at their own risk.
Out of curiosity, I also decided to test Support dot com's PC-HEALTH... and my experience was essentially the same as Alexandra's.
my e-mail address was REQUIRED during installation. and the program installed a service.
Like Alex, my disk usage was rated "poor", due to the (alleged) presence of many junk files and/or large cache space allocated to/by my browsers. The junk files were supposedly there, despite my having run CCleaner to remove whatever it found.
Quoting Alex, "Was disappointed that A) there is no choice of what you want to fix - it just does everything, and B) there is no "undo" I could find". It ran its fixes, and subsequently asserted my system was now "good". There was NO charge to run the program, perform the diagnosis, nor to implement its "fixes". They did offer their phone number, in case I was interested in seeing if anything more could be done, but nothing was pushed.
Not knowing what exactly they "fixed" [STRESS THIS: I WOULD **NOT** SUGGEST ANYONE ELSE RUN IT FOR THIS REASON], I don't know that I've noticed any obvious consequences (neither good nor bad). Perhaps time will tell. Suffice it to say I promptly uninstalled the program, as i saw no reason to keep it around after my "test".
I did run it recently just to see what it would do on XP. Basically 6 parts: Junk files, optimization, disk space, security status, data status, and system status. Mine came out "Poor", but mostly because I had 200MB or so of "junk", and 7 services/settings that could be "optimized" - actual performance was perfectly fine.
So for the sake of curiosity I went ahead and hit the "Fix". Was disappointed that A) there is no choice of what you want to fix - it just does everything, and B) there is no "undo" I could find. But now it says my PC Health is "Good" - knock on wood, nothing actually got broken. No pressure to call in for service.
The program is written in .XML, and it's possible to go through each line individually in the Program Files folder to see what it does - even has description lines for most of them. From what I can see it's not very aggressive - i.e, no registry cleaning - just some service tweaks (like Black Viper's), cache size settings, etc.. Someone better versed in XML could comb through it and see.
I wouldn't give it any gold stars, but I didn't see any of the problems from the CNET review. Whether it's been updated or I'm just lucky, don't know.
As I see it there are three issues; boot-time, processor usage, and disk I/O.
Boot-time - unless you are doing a reboot every ten minutes does a few seconds really matter? When I worked nothing was ever turned off, we did do power saving. Now at home I reboot about once a month unless an update requires a reboot, or we have a power failure.
Processor usage - I have yet to see any PC where the most used process is not the system-idle process. Therefore the only rational conclusion is that there is always cycles available. Also, if you were to examine processes in the task manager you would discover that many processes do not accumulate every on second in a day.
Disk I/O - it is assumed that a file a complete file is read all at one time, from disk to the application and that during that operation nothing else is happening. Those assumption, I believe are false. The disk is read by physical blocks into a buffer and then de-blocked into the user's application. Generally there are multiple buffers so as one is emptied another is filled. Of course if the file is opened for random I/O there is no need for read ahead.
Try this mental experiment. A file of 250 megabytes, is contagious on disk. The disk transfer rate is one gigabyte per second. You wish to send that file to a friend via the internet. You and you friend have a 100 megabit link. That makes the link speed one hundredth of the links speed. How would you accomplish the transfer?
Now that is 5 year old info, but I've not seen anything more current to refute its findings. And I haven't seen any need to tweak any services in Win 7.
Even in my older, slower XP desktop, I only changed a few services from "automatic" to "manual" (and avoided "disabling" any). That way they don't load at startup, but are still able to be invoked if a program needs them. And I always backed up my registry with ERUNT before making any changes.
I must confess I never noticed any significant improvement in bootup time after any of these tweaks. I suppose there are exceptions to this, possibly for older and lower end systems. But I think limiting unnecessary programs from loading at startup will yield more dividends than disabling services.
Rather than using Black Viper's recommendations, I used the WinPatrol PLUS info when researching specific services. Not quite as extensive a list as BV's (and for some services, no info at all), but it has not lead me astray to date.
I guess there are power users who will always want to eke out every last cycle from their CPU. But for the average user, I agree one should avoid messing with services.
That's been my experience with XP as well, Joe. Good enough is good enough.
Actually for me, memory usage is a bigger deal than boot time, processor usage, or disk I/O - though there could be a slight relation to disk access speed if there's too much usage of virtual memory. Throwing in another stick of memory took care of most of that problem (though too cheap to get enough to install in dual channel, just single channel, but don't tell anybody or I'll lose my novice geek badge)......
This phrase in the article pretty much sums it up: There are no one-size-fits-all PC fixes. But that's what a lot of people seem to be looking for - and where there's demand, there will always be a supply. Reminds me of a song I learned as a kid - "there was an old lady who swallowed a fly".
ky331
3 Apprentice
•
15.6K Posts
0
June 27th, 2011 06:00
Let me stipulate at the outset that I am not familiar with most of the products they tested... the only one I know/use is CCleaner.
There was no indication as to HOW they used CCleaner... presumably, they used it only for its "cleaning" capabilities (i.e., for removing files it considered "temporary" or easily replaceable). But CCleaner also offers the ability to "clean" one's registry... did they use it for that as well? Without an indication as to what aspects of the program they invoked... and whether they simply accepted the default settings or "tweaked" them, it's very difficult to judge their results.
[Having mentioned registry cleaning, let me stress that I do NOT recommend anyone routinely use registry cleaners... there's much more potential for harm than good in doing so.]
It should also be noted that, relatively speaking, there's very little that CCleaner actually removes. In the picture on page 2, it seemingly boasts an amazing 230 MEG that it will clean up. But if that's on a 250 GIG drive, we're talking about gaining-back less than one-tenth of one percent of the drives capacity! And even if we were to consider a user who uses only a minimal disk configuration --- on my laptop, I'm only actually using 41 GIG as I write this --- we're talking about gaining back just a little more than 1/2 of one percent of my USED space. Think of it this way: If I were to enter a library (looking for a book), where the books were randomly placed anywhere in the library, and the shelves were only 99.5% full, would my search really be that much easier than if the shelves were 100% full?
Speaking in human terms, it "feels" like much more would be gained by sorting the books in some useful manner... grouping-together books on the same topic... and by "featuring" the most popular books (Harry Potter, anyone??) up front where people could more-easily find them. In computer terms, this would correspond to defragging files (bringing all its pieces together into one contiguous unit) and "optimizing" the disk (arranging the files in a strategic order, such as placing those needed for booting "up front"). So I indeed use a disk defragger/optimizer. HOWEVER, given the speed at which modern computers run, while our intuition (human understanding) says this will speed up things, the simple fact of the matter is that it's often very difficult to perceive any such actual improvement... if my system now boots in 59 seconds (rather than 60), was that an actual improvement? --- or "experimental error" in my timing??
What CAN help is using a startup-manager (like WinPatrol), to disable all the "garbage" that insists on starting every time you boot-up your system. [Not only do you save time on bootup, you also save RAM that's wasted by these "ever-present" unnecessary programs.]
So yes, I may do some things to try to make my machine run better. Some things MIGHT help. But most won't. Of course, since I only use FREE products, there's no question that I'm getting my money's worth :emotion-5:
iroc9555
2 Intern
•
1K Posts
0
June 27th, 2011 09:00
Interesting article.
I would not pay $ 40 for a cleaning software program while CCleaner ( Free ) is around. The article is clearly directed to people starting to handle PCs so they do not fall for " We will make your system go faster ".
Years ago, ages really, I used them, I even had PC Tool Registry Mechanics in my Win 95 and 98, and you Know what ? They never made any of my machines go faster. Like the article said; " It is a placebo ". The most I got was a 5 Sec decrease in my boot time, and this was only for a couple of boots.
A few years ago I discovered CCleaner, Win Patrol, and the Black Viper services list and I have used them in my Win 2000 and XP. They have shorted my boot time around 20 Sec. So keeping a few progs and services out of boot and running activily in my PC, have made my comp a lot simpler and faster.
David, Joe. I read a post in Spywarehammer where you two tried Soluto. None of you follow through with your experiences and findings about this program. Do you still use it ? I have encountered a few posts in different forums where it is recomended, and other forums where it is producing BSOD in Win XP. What are your thoughts about it ?
Regards
ky331
3 Apprentice
•
15.6K Posts
0
June 27th, 2011 10:00
Hernan,
Soluto is a "mixed bag". I've tested it out (actually, some older versions) on three or four machines.
first, let me stress that soluto was (and i believe still is) in BETA. it is a "work in progress". Yes, I've blue-screened with it at least once (on an XP system)... so after rebooting, getting some data/info from it, I uninstalled it on that one system. My wife, however, has it installed on her two machines, likes what she sees, and continues to use it.
for those who don't know about it, Soluto is a program that tries to analyze your boot-up, telling you how much time (to the nearest tenth of a second, if memory serves me) each start-up program/service takes. It further attempts to classify your startup programs as "no brainers" --- which it suggests you can easily remove; essential programs --- which it suggests you NOT tamper with; and everything in between --- which are either optional "user choices", or sometimes things that Soluto just doesn't know about.
So if, for example, it reports a "no brainer" (or an optional program) that takes 20 seconds to load, you can decide to either disable OR TO DELAY that program's auto-startup. [By delaying --- a feature also available in WinPatrol ---- you can allow all the critical programs to start-up first, without "interference"; and only afterwards, permit the optional programs to load when things have "calmed-down"].
Some earlier versions of Soluto didn't recognize such basic programs as Avast! anti-virus, considering it an unknown/optional program! So the user really needs to be careful when using it.
on my system(s) that blue-screened, I rebooted to take note of Soluto's suggestions. I did find one program which could take reasonable advantage of the delayed start. But (since I was already disabling the more notorious candidates via WinPatrol) Soluto didn't offer me anything much of significance --- and to worry about some programs that used less than a tenth of a second (each) would be paranoia. So, because of the Blue screen, I uninstalled Soluto, but DID implement its delay suggestion via WinPatrol.
Newer versions of Soluto now look for additional features, such as IE add-ons, that might slow down your system.
Because of the blue screen potential, and its BETA status, I do *NOT* recommend that "average" users try it. But for "advanced" users, whose goal it is to tweak-away every millisecond of bootup time that's possible, and who are willing to risk the potential blue screen, it's, shall we say, "interesting". Hope that answers your question.
P.S. the Black Viper services lists are indeed very useful, and I like them a lot.
Bugbatter
3 Apprentice
•
20.5K Posts
0
June 27th, 2011 12:00
Has anyone tried the PC Health Check from the new owners of Super Anti-Spyware? I would be curious if it finds any problems on a system that has been running CCleaner, WinPatrol, etc.. regularly. Does it tell you that you are doing a good job keeping your system clean and running smoothly, or will you be referred to their remote assistance/paid help "experts"?
joe53
2 Intern
•
5.8K Posts
0
June 27th, 2011 12:00
My experience with Soluto was similar to ky's. An interesting program, but ultimately of no extra value. It gave me no problems, but I uninstalled it (as a beta, on general principle).
I recall using jv16 PowerTools (a free version of this registry cleaner) many years ago, on my Win 98SE system. It never sped up anything either. In retrospect, I'm surprised that it didn't trash my system.
Bugbatter
3 Apprentice
•
20.5K Posts
0
June 27th, 2011 14:00
I thought CNET used support.com, the promoters of PC Health Check, for their remote PC assistance. If CNET editors are not giving it good reviews, I must have it confused with something else.
iroc9555
2 Intern
•
1K Posts
0
June 27th, 2011 14:00
Joe.
Thank you for your views about Soluto, and a late thanks for the other post I did not get to thank you.
Looking back I was also lucky Registry Mechanic did not mess my systems too. I would not dare to use a registry cleaner program now a days.
David.
I also thank you for your detail explanation. I agreed. Being my comp XP, soluto a beta program, and the consequences that implays. It is not worst it. Besides, I know of my three or four programs that I still can hold during booting to squeeze 10 more sec out of my machine.
To whom ever did not know about the Black Viper list. keep in mind that the Tweaked, and Bare bone list will give red alerts and yellow warnings in Windows event viewer.
BB.
PC Health Check does not have good reviews by CNET editors´. Although some user´s reviews give it 4 stars. Also, and I think you know this, WOT have Download dot com yellow all across its values .
Shame on SAS. Money talks and the rest is .....garbage :emotion-7:
Regards.
ky331
3 Apprentice
•
15.6K Posts
0
June 27th, 2011 16:00
Hernan wrote: "To whom ever did not know about the Black Viper list. keep in mind that the Tweaked, and Bare bones lists will give red alerts and yellow warnings in Windows event viewer."
Let's elaborate a bit more, for those who have not "discovered" this resource. Black Viper offers a list of almost all the Windows services that are available under each operating system. They tell you what the default setting was for each service... and then offer 3 sets of variations that users can consider:
1) a "SAFE" configuration, which they claim should work correctly [with little or no side-effects] for about 95% of all users.
2) a "TWEAKED" configuration for "power users", noting that some things might not work if you follow this setup.
3) a "Bare Bones" configuration for "super geeks", noting that many things might not work if you follow this setup. But if it does work, it should offer optimal bootup.
"Tampering" with your services is NOT something for the faint of heart. Keep in mind that even the so-called "safe" configuration may have unintended consequences for 5% of users... and what's to say your system may not fall into that 5%?? While I have not tested/invoked everything, I have implemented SOME of their suggestions. Users who wish do so should fully realize they are proceeding at their own risk.
the Black Viper Services list for (32-bit) XP SP3 systems: http://www.blackviper.com/2008/05/19/black-vipers-windows-xp-x86-32-bit-service-pack-3-service-configurations/
the Black Viper Serices list for Vista SP2 systems: http://www.blackviper.com/2009/05/31/black-vipers-windows-vista-service-pack-2-service-configurations/#more-2991
the Black Viper Services list for Win7 SP1 systems: http://www.blackviper.com/2010/12/17/black-vipers-windows-7-service-pack-1-service-configurations/#more-2975
iroc9555
2 Intern
•
1K Posts
0
June 27th, 2011 16:00
BB.
Indeed. The review is for V. 2. June 2009.
A couple of things to highlight:
"It trigered CNET antispyware and installed program links without permission"
http://download.cnet.com/PC-Health-Check/3000-2086_4-10904966.html
However, PC Health Check is not being offered as of now in CNET Downloads.
Only programs offered in CNET by Download dot com.
http://download.cnet.com/windows/support-com/3260-20_4-6312788.html
Unless this new PC Health Check is so new that they have not updated thier web page.
Regards
ky331
3 Apprentice
•
15.6K Posts
0
June 28th, 2011 12:00
Out of curiosity, I also decided to test Support dot com's PC-HEALTH... and my experience was essentially the same as Alexandra's.
my e-mail address was REQUIRED during installation. and the program installed a service.
Like Alex, my disk usage was rated "poor", due to the (alleged) presence of many junk files and/or large cache space allocated to/by my browsers. The junk files were supposedly there, despite my having run CCleaner to remove whatever it found.
Quoting Alex, "Was disappointed that A) there is no choice of what you want to fix - it just does everything, and B) there is no "undo" I could find". It ran its fixes, and subsequently asserted my system was now "good". There was NO charge to run the program, perform the diagnosis, nor to implement its "fixes". They did offer their phone number, in case I was interested in seeing if anything more could be done, but nothing was pushed.
Not knowing what exactly they "fixed" [STRESS THIS: I WOULD **NOT** SUGGEST ANYONE ELSE RUN IT FOR THIS REASON], I don't know that I've noticed any obvious consequences (neither good nor bad). Perhaps time will tell. Suffice it to say I promptly uninstalled the program, as i saw no reason to keep it around after my "test".
Alexandra_P
3 Apprentice
•
2.6K Posts
0
June 28th, 2011 12:00
RE: Support.com's PC Health Check.
I did run it recently just to see what it would do on XP. Basically 6 parts: Junk files, optimization, disk space, security status, data status, and system status. Mine came out "Poor", but mostly because I had 200MB or so of "junk", and 7 services/settings that could be "optimized" - actual performance was perfectly fine.
So for the sake of curiosity I went ahead and hit the "Fix". Was disappointed that A) there is no choice of what you want to fix - it just does everything, and B) there is no "undo" I could find. But now it says my PC Health is "Good" - knock on wood, nothing actually got broken. No pressure to call in for service.
The program is written in .XML, and it's possible to go through each line individually in the Program Files folder to see what it does - even has description lines for most of them. From what I can see it's not very aggressive - i.e, no registry cleaning - just some service tweaks (like Black Viper's), cache size settings, etc.. Someone better versed in XML could comb through it and see.
I wouldn't give it any gold stars, but I didn't see any of the problems from the CNET review. Whether it's been updated or I'm just lucky, don't know.
Bugbatter
3 Apprentice
•
20.5K Posts
0
June 28th, 2011 13:00
Very interesting. I don't like this, though:
I know that you guys run CCleaner religiously. I wonder why PC Health Check found extra junk. Thank you so much for giving it a try. :emotion-15:msgale
2 Intern
•
2.5K Posts
0
June 28th, 2011 14:00
My view/alternate view.
As I see it there are three issues; boot-time, processor usage, and disk I/O.
Try this mental experiment. A file of 250 megabytes, is contagious on disk. The disk transfer rate is one gigabyte per second. You wish to send that file to a friend via the internet. You and you friend have a 100 megabit link. That makes the link speed one hundredth of the links speed. How would you accomplish the transfer?
joe53
2 Intern
•
5.8K Posts
0
June 28th, 2011 19:00
I just wanted to reinforce what ky said about tweaking or disabling "unnecessary" services.
My understanding is that with most modern processors, you are at best only saving a few seconds of bootup time, and little if any gain in performance:
Ref: thepcspy.com/.../what_really_slows_windows_down
Now that is 5 year old info, but I've not seen anything more current to refute its findings. And I haven't seen any need to tweak any services in Win 7.
Even in my older, slower XP desktop, I only changed a few services from "automatic" to "manual" (and avoided "disabling" any). That way they don't load at startup, but are still able to be invoked if a program needs them. And I always backed up my registry with ERUNT before making any changes.
I must confess I never noticed any significant improvement in bootup time after any of these tweaks. I suppose there are exceptions to this, possibly for older and lower end systems. But I think limiting unnecessary programs from loading at startup will yield more dividends than disabling services.
Rather than using Black Viper's recommendations, I used the WinPatrol PLUS info when researching specific services. Not quite as extensive a list as BV's (and for some services, no info at all), but it has not lead me astray to date.
I guess there are power users who will always want to eke out every last cycle from their CPU. But for the average user, I agree one should avoid messing with services.
Alexandra_P
3 Apprentice
•
2.6K Posts
0
June 28th, 2011 20:00
That's been my experience with XP as well, Joe. Good enough is good enough.
Actually for me, memory usage is a bigger deal than boot time, processor usage, or disk I/O - though there could be a slight relation to disk access speed if there's too much usage of virtual memory. Throwing in another stick of memory took care of most of that problem (though too cheap to get enough to install in dual channel, just single channel, but don't tell anybody or I'll lose my novice geek badge)......
This phrase in the article pretty much sums it up: There are no one-size-fits-all PC fixes. But that's what a lot of people seem to be looking for - and where there's demand, there will always be a supply. Reminds me of a song I learned as a kid - "there was an old lady who swallowed a fly".