Skip to main content
Start a Conversation

Unsolved

This post is more than 5 years old

T4

25 Posts

61584

January 17th, 2005 01:00

Optimizing Windows XP: Hints & Tips

 
 

msgale

2 Intern

 • 

2.5K Posts

January 17th, 2005 03:00

I do have another idea, don't bother.  As an example, if the changes recommeded in one of the links improves boot time from forty-five seconds to twenty nine seconds, which not as a percentage but is as a real number is sixteen seconds, are those sixteen second really that important.  How many time in a day do you reboot your PC.  If you reboot your PC once a day in one year you will save about one and one half hours.  Of course, if the modifications took longer that one and one half hours you haven't saved anything that first year.  I reboot my home PCs except for my laptop about once a week. 

T4

25 Posts

January 17th, 2005 04:00

Right, it will save you little time rebooting if you only boot up once a year...

But optimizing your system is still helpful (if not important) to increase performance that is "while you’re actually using your computer" and running applications, browsing the Internet, managing your email, playing software games, etc.

 

msgale

2 Intern

 • 

2.5K Posts

January 17th, 2005 12:00

Totally unconvinced.  I responded the way I did only because one of your links made an issue of boot time.  As I write this response there are fifty-four processes running.  The average CPU usage is under five percent  The commit charge is high, about six hundred megabytes, but that is because there is a blocked grid process, like SETI @Home, that runs instead of a screen saver.  But since my commit charge is less that my real memory, one gigabyte, it has no impact.  In conclusion, since my commit charge less that my real memory and my CPU utilization is under five percent, removing any startup processes will have essentially no effect on overall performance.  I will, later, comment on your other links   

T4

25 Posts

January 17th, 2005 17:00

msgale, Have you ever tried optimizing your system or just keep everything as is using only default settings?

I think it may surprise you what a little tune-up can do to increase performance and handling.

I've been running through a series of tweaks and adjustments, and I'm still seeing improvements in how my system runs during different tasks.

It's worth taking a look at the first link (it's not about just loading your pc faster).

http://www.fixyourwindows.com/optimizewindows.htm

 

msgale

2 Intern

 • 

2.5K Posts

January 17th, 2005 18:00

Actually I have, and I feel that the possible gain are not worth the risk.  For one thing the information providers who attempt to determine what each and every start up task and service do, in some cases "haven't a clue."  One example a poster made a long and detailed explanation why removing entries from the registry would speed up performance, unfortunately the explanation was based upon the extra time necessary to perform a linear search.  According to all of my research the registry is searched using a hashed access method.  Removing unused programs as recommended in the link provided has absolutely no effect on performance, it like having an extra book in my library, there is no additional cost unless I have to buy another bookcase.  Again the same for "annoying sounds."  I am at a loss to understand why "having automatics updates enabled" is a performance issue, in fact the author states,
 
"I prefer manual updates simply because it gives me a greater control over my computer. I don't like when my box does things without my explicit permission. Besides, some updates (at first) create more problems than solve"
 
I fundamentally don't agree with the author reasoning, but that aside, nowhere does he claim it as a performance issue. 
 
Enable Windows firewall and disable Windows Massager, are both stated as security issues not performance issues.  
 
The author also makes some very bold and what I consider dangerous statements, in the section called "Clean Startup and hidden Startup (Start menu and Registry Editor"
Clean Startup and hidden Startup (Start menu and Registry Editor)  The following recommendation is made "Your Startup should be empty", how without knowing or understanding what items are there can such statement be made?  The author does state "You may have antivirus or firewall application listed here. If so, don't delete it, as it may disable system autoprotect." 
 
The author then recommends removing unnecessary items from the “run” registry keys, while carefully ignoring what is an “unnecessary item”.  Again quoting the author “Removing items from the Run folder will not remove the corresponding program from your computer. It will simply prevent the program from loading automatically, and running in background, consuming valuable resources.”  A blocked program/service consumes almost no resources.  If your commit charge is less than you real memory, saving memory will have no effect, and a block process consumes no CPU cycles.

msgale

2 Intern

 • 

2.5K Posts

January 17th, 2005 20:00

Are you trying to say that firefox is the answer to performance problems.  Last time I look firefox was being push as a security solution.  If you disagree with me the maybe reply to the issues I raised and not switch topics.

100mph

1.2K Posts

January 17th, 2005 20:00

Good idea.

Found this:
http://www.mozilla.org/support/firefox/tips

You could move it to your original post to truncate the chatter.

Thank you!

NS_MaNiAc

117 Posts

January 20th, 2005 21:00

Automatic updates for WindowsXP can cause online procedures to slow down. A very excellent example of this is an online game where "Ping" is the most important the factor, like Counter-Strike. If my computer is downloading an update from Microsofts servers then a good deal of my bandwidth is being used for this download. Some downloads are incredibly large and force my ping to spike between 100-400 when its usually steady at around 40. Also, it is widely known throughout the PC community that many Windows Updates have created more issues than they actually solved. Magazine like PC World / Maximum PC / CGW have all stated this at one time or another. The author most likely does not list what is an unnecesary service because only the end-user can in all reality know what they do and do not need. 

100mph

1.2K Posts

January 20th, 2005 23:00

To NS_MaNiAc:

Absolutely!
In the default Windows XP SP1 installation there are 37 unneeded Services:

http://www.fixyourwindows.com/optimizewindowsservices.htm

that can be safely disabled on any standalone home desktop computer + DNS Client (+ some more, if anything besides Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) installed in the Local Area Connection Properties:

http://www.fixyourwindows.com/optimizewindowsnetwork.htm).

I consider this to be a HUGE GLOBAL WASTE.

They did disable (mostly switched to Manual) some of them in SP2 ... but just some.

msgale

2 Intern

 • 

2.5K Posts

January 21st, 2005 00:00

"In the default Windows XP SP1 installation there are 37 unneeded Services" this statement reminds of a line in the "Manchurian Candidate", it is said by Angela Lansbury and directed to James Gregory.  No one without knowing what you are doing nor which services are running, can determine if there any unneeded services and if so what they are.

I further contend that the “unneeded services” are typically inconsequential, since most are blocked waiting for a triggering event.  My PC has been running about two days.  Currently there are fifty-nine items in the process list as reported by the Task Manager, twenty-eight have each has accumulated less than one second of CPU time.  Unless the memory they uses causes the committed memory to exceed your real memory the services will not effect performance, except in one case, boot-time will be longer with the extra tasks.  Last time someone measured the boot-time for me the improvement in was sixteen seconds, as we said in my youth “Big Deal”.

 

NS_MaNiAc

117 Posts

January 21st, 2005 13:00

Again you are incorrect. Though I do understand your point of view you are missing the point of "Freeing up Resources" While it does speed up boot times etc.. thats not the main purpose. While your system may run fine if you try to run a more demanding application you will take a serious performance hit. The purpose of the article is to have users free the resources on boot so that if they do run a more demanding application they will not need to configure their PC. When Windows loads a program at boot it sets aside resources that the process/service/task will need. Even by disabling these manually windows still reserves some of the resources for it. For example I have program A. B. and C. running in my task tray. Lets just say that program A. uses 10% of my systems resources if I exit out of program running in the task tray I will not get all 10% of those resources back. Depending on the program you may not get any of back, it all depends on the code of the specific program. By disbabling those on boot Windows never reserves them so I have no need to try to free up the resources. Now, lets just say I start Program A. manually then exit it, there is still a chance that it will leave processes running in the background consuming what could possibly be valuable resources to me. I simply reboot the system and those resources are now free. It can make life alot less of hassle for many users... consindering that the majority of computer users only have 256 - 512 MB of RAM. When using so little anything you can shave off is precious. I like you use a 1 GB of Dual Channel DDR, but I unlike you run very intense graphic applications which can at times use everything I can throw to them. In this scenario having my resources free at first boot can save me not only valuable time but as well as money spent on migarine medication because I just can't figure out why system isn't running at Peak Performance.

It just makes sense.

RichardLusignan

269 Posts

January 21st, 2005 19:00

Please, msgale,... if the thread is of no use to you, refrain from posting in it. It will be better for everyone else, unless you can prove that the information is false, in which case I give you the right to reply and correct the information.

Here's my *useful* comment on the subject, a link to Black Viper's Supertweak website section:
 
 
Regards,
 
Rick

msgale

2 Intern

 • 

2.5K Posts

January 21st, 2005 20:00

Basically I resent your comments, for two reasons.  One, as long I/anyone complies with Dell's, Terms of Service, I/anyone can post anything they want and those are the rules.  Two - why are you afraid of someone who disagrees with you, since it is obvious that you do not agree with me on technical issues?  Question, what makes the original post correct and my comments incorrect?  Question, why must I prove my statements while others are not required to prove theirs?  And lastly, I will walk on dangerous ground and say I will stand up my credentials with anyone posting to this thread, and remember the owner of the much quoted site http://www.fixyourwindows.com has posted his resume.  P.S. Remember technical issues are not resolved by a vote, but by facts.

T4

25 Posts

January 23rd, 2005 17:00

If you need help troubleshooting Windows XP try this link:

http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com/xp.htm

 

scoobydooby

2 Intern

 • 

495 Posts

January 25th, 2005 00:00

I found this discussion interesting.

I would think that whether you can really enhance the performance of windows by any combination of tweaks - that this could be measured using hard numbers.

The fact that no such numbers are given on any of the sites advising such enhancement tweaks,  leads me to believe that these tweaks offer no or at most insignificant increases in performance.

But as to boot-up time, turning off unnecessary programs at startup - the increase in speed appears real.
 
Even though 16 seconds saved on boot time is really inconsequential in the overall scheme of things (ie time saved per year) - actually sitting and waiting those extra 16 seconds for the computer to boot up (at least for me) - somewhat diminishes the computer experience (I don't know how else to express it).

Was this post helpful?

View All

0 events found

No Events found!

Top