NBR Vista Tips and Tweaks Guide

OH, wait!!! Are you saying you had not rebooted it after your last device driver was installed? That WOULD be an issue, here is why. As Vista boots up it keeps a log of the drivers, services and apps that it loads as part of the boot process. It is this log that the defrag processes use to determine the order of the files needed. This specialized defrag process puts those files into a sequence on the hard drive to optimize their retrieval during boot up. If that log file was never created (because the machine had not been rebooted) it might explain the anomaly you saw. But I find it unlikely that you had not EVER rebooted before you tried the defrag steps, right?

Gary

 

No...def had restarted my comp, i'de say 1 or 2x, but still just sat there and lagged for a while. Shut down again for last time and let it sit overnight, in the morning restarted comp and the defrag batch file ran perfectly. I didnt do anything diff than i did in the past with it. I had a copy on my ext hdd, but deleted that, and redownloaded the zip again from your page..made sure everything was fresh and ready to rock.

 

Probably the shutdown/restart process did not 'completely complete' the driver / or whatever updates or installs???? as In (I don't know, I may be wrong) but sometimes where there is some updates / new installs, the system reboot' automatically for the installation / update to be completed and after restart the update / install process is being completed.... So is it possible that as soon as you restarted the laptop, you started Gary' defrag process while the system was still finishing/cleaning up the installation process in the b/g?????

Just thinking.... and learning at the same time too from these wonderful discussions

 

is there a guide like this for XP or will it work for xp as well?

 

many, most - if not all - would work for XP as well. Go slow.

cheers ...

 

Hey, I just found this guide.
It's incredible, and helped me take control of my new laptop (1st time using vista)
I just have one question
I turned off TMM, but the screen still flashes on and off at start up before the vista icon appears, and this is slowing the startup

Any ideas why??
Thanks

 

you are comfortable with computers...turn UAC off as it is probably the worst thing in Vista. Press Start, click on your picture...turn UAC off and restart.

 

Please provide more than just a statement for such a blanket sweep suggestion.

Where's your proof that this does more good than bad.

Do you understand UAC?

Remember, people who know very little, but nonetheless feel "comfortable" may be relying on your statements.

 

Hey Les, I hate to be nitpicky, but on tip #1, you forget to state that you have to be in classic view to see the option for "Administrative Tools" (my comp says Tools, not options)

Alternatively, you can type in taskschd.msc into the run command and get the task scheduler.

EDIT:
Also,tip #13 and #14 probably need to be rearranged, as #13 references disabling UAC as the previous tweak, even though it is #14)

 

You don't need to be in Classic View, but if you're in non-classic (regular) view, then the path is Control Panel > System & Maintenance > Administrative Tools > Task Scheduler.

However, I usually run it using Start > All Programs > Accessories > System Tools > Task Scheduler. Doesn't really matter though.

 

True, but according to the guide, the path Les mentions is through the classic menu.

 

Hi, this is a great guide, will be mega usefull when i get my new laptop.

Can anyone tell me before the manual defrag by ScuderiaConchiglia what programs were recommended as i would like to use on my xp system.

thanks

 

Can you please be more specific??? thanks

And by the way, Scuderia' defrag application is only a boot defrag / optimizing utility. Its not for the whole disk... Its great though. For me, it did speed up / optimize the boot time in a big way and I am happy.

For the full defrag, there have been numerous reports of the Vista' built-in defrag utility itself working fine.. but I myself use the JkDefrag which is nice as well.. it defrag' n optimizes.. you could check out in their site faq for more info if you wish.

In general, it was suggested to me that I do this towards the end, after doing things like disk cleanup (from within windows), delete files from recycle bin and such, etc.....

But still, its not clear as to what you want... So, if you could kindly let us know more specifically about what you were looking for or were you looking for general clean up utilities or if you were looking for a defrag utility or something, it would be nice Good Luck and Cheers.

 

...which types of programs? If you are referring to Defrag programs, then use jkdefrag. But it is not a replacement for Scud's manual defrag.

Defrag programs are typically intended for your hard drive. Scud's rearranges your boot files for optimal boot-times. You would need to use both, though, you wouldn't use scud's regularly like you would a disk defragmenter.

Paz

 

sorry, i meant the tune up program, the one for xp.

thanks

 

The command window has been open now for 40min now and the blinking line beneath has since disappeared. Am I correct in thinking NOT to close the cmd window?

 

Yes. Don't close it.. let it finish.. the time taken depends on how much fragmented it is.... So let it finish like Gary says...

 

can these tweaks and tips be done by vlite, the 1.2 version???

great tips though, thankx for much

 

Most of them can, my vlite did

except it cant disable TMM or defrag lol, of course...

 

Hi, i have a question regarding #22.
i just got a T400 with 3 gigs of ram.
It says Total paging file size for all drives:2819
min:16mb
recommended is:3778mb
current:2819

I'm not sure what to put for min and maximum. Also what does it do exactly? Should I just directly disable it since I don't even know what it does to begin with.

 

It's better to let Vista handle the paging file, and why would you disable something just because you don't know what it does...there is something called Google.

 

Then just leave it on "automatic" and let windows manage it.

Gary

 

ok thankss

 

i figure if i disable UAC from right after a reinstall, then any problems would be minimal and surely less annoying than constantly having to override the thing. i know people who have messed up programs installs because they forgot to run things "as administrator", and everyone who has disabled UAC has told me that they haven't looked back.

 

I have done this before, didn't have any problems. But, ultimately, I resorted to a clean install with UAC on.

It's there for a reason, and I don't know the possibly far-reaching implications that result from turning it off...I figure a few clicks could save my identity. =]

 

Turning UAC off right after a clean install shouldn't mess up anything. I used to do this.

I have had UAC on since my last clean install 10 months ago. After the initial set-up, I rarely get a UAC prompt. I basically only get one when installing a program or changing a setting (which I rarely due now).

However, each person has their own computer habits and having UAC on might be terribly intrusive for them. For "normal" personal use, you'll rarely see a prompt.

 

Turn off System Restore and clean up.
Is it possible to do this, when i have Windows Home Server Running ?

I mean i have backup there .. but can i do this and would WHS still work ?

 

blegh

I just re-formatted from xp pro to vista ultimate x64, to utilize the 4gb of memory (i was getting OOM errors a lot, heavily intensive programs)

now I know vista's a huge resource hog, but isn't 1gb of physical memory usage just after booting insanely large?

I've followed this guide each and every step, plus tunexp, but my start up times are still around 1:15-1:20 at best (with all the tweakage already applied)


I switched over to utilize all my available ram, but it seems like I now have less than before! i'm running 38 processes and a little over 1gb of physical ram right off the boot...

any suggestions? or comparisons?

thanks

EDIT: I would like to add that my shutdown is a mere 9 seconds... its that startup i would like to change, along with the memory usage...

 

your startup is a bit long, especially with your rig.

Mine is around ~40s even with all my programs, firewall, and A/V installed.

Do you have any network drives mapped at startup?
Are you using any crazy software that may be affecting boot?
Does RAID slow down boot (clueless here)?

Re: RAM, x64 uses more out of the box.

Lastly, not sure if this would help, but I've found that the order I install made a difference in my boot-up times. My install CD doesn't have sp1 integrated. Whenever I clean install I make sure I do minimal installation of programs/drivers until after I have installed all Windows Updates (most importantly SP1). So if you have to upgrade from before SP1, you might give that a try.

Last, if you're running Vista don't bother using TuneXP, just use Scud's boot defrag and can that archaic business.

 

No, not at all. Vista works under a different memory mangement model, "unused memory is wasted memory". So it keeps track of the things most used and loads them into memory before you even need them. BUT, and this is the key, it will instantly give up that memeory if so other app needs it. So bottom line, this is NOT a bad thing to be seeing at all.

Gary

P.S. and yes DUMP TweakXP. It has some very DANGEROUS functions when used on a Vista machine, not the boot defrag stuff but some of the OTHER functions. The Defrag batch file I created does EXACTLY the same thing TweakXP does. See the link in my signature line below for details.

 

I had a long debate with some kid at school who felt Vista sucks because of it's RAM usage when IDLE. Had a tough time explaining that it was a good thing lol...

 

great thanks for the replies,
so I have everything checked in tunexp, should i just uninstall it or uncheck everything first?

it's actually down to around 50s startup, but still


the one think i noticed is that the first time i see the vista side scrolling bar is around 30, the bios screen and raid configuration utility take most of the time in the startup

anyone else with a 9262 in raid notice this?

 

You should NOT use TuneXP with Vista. This has been discussed many times, but basically, you shouldn't use it because...

• It was designed for XP, not Vista
• The "fast boot" option just uses Vista's defrag utility. Gary wrote a batch file that does the exact same thing and documented it. See this.
• The author does NOT document what the functions in TuneXP do internally.

 

I recommend System Restore off.

I did it two months ago, and my Vista is much more faster and I don't hear frequent work of hard disk when laptop is idle. Plus, I have more hard disk space .

 

I recommend system restore on because...

• If you run in to some problem where you can't boot properly anymore (from a bad driver install or whatever), system restore can easily and effectively restore you back to a working state.
• It's shadow copies saves files in their state as is so you can revert back to previous versions of a file in case you need to.
• Taking up hard drive space isn't an issue unless you really need the hard drive space.
• I haven't noticed an issue with hard drive activity or thrashing with it on.

I'd like to see some data on your claim that Vista is "much faster" with it off. I seriously doubt it is.

 

I work with large .rar files. Every time I unpack .rar files (I talk about over 80 .rar files and each has 100 MB), Vista starts to create restore point, and always do it, so I got machine on which I can't do anything as physical memory is full and hard disk works as crazy. I don't want every time my laptop came in almost freeze state because of system restore!
The same happen after I install large games.

So, it's faster as hard disk doesn't work any more after installation or unraring files.

Btw, my friend has some MS certificate, he build new computers for retail (works in one of the largest IT companies here) and he always put system restore off. And he's the not only one who suggests system restore off .

P.S.
I really don't care if Vista broke, I would recover it again, as all my data are in other partition, plus I can save everything always from Linux .
Peace.

 

AFAIK System Restore is supposed to kick in while your computer is idle. I've never experience a system-halting slowdown when installing large games on my laptop. I can't comment on the large .rar files since I typically deal with (relatively) small Office and Notepad files.

That's great for your friend. I guarantee I can find people with MS and/or IT credentials who argue for both sides. Ultimately, it comes down to the user and how he/she plans to use the computer and what kinds of backup protection they're using. If a user doesn't back up their personal data to an external HDD, then they should keep system restore on to avoid losing their data in the event of a big problem.

Again, you might not care if Vista "breaks" because you adequately back up your data and know how to recover it (although an external HDD is still safer). However, this guide is for the average user, and the average user does not back up their data to another drive frequently or at all. Therefore, I still recommend that system restore remains on because it will save more people than it will harm.

Even though all of my data is backed up daily to an external HDD, I keep system restore on because I do not want to have to reinstall Vista if there is some kind of big problem. It takes too much time; I would have to change and adjust all my settings, directories, tweaks, etc.

 

^^^^^^^^ Agress with every word Crash put in there.... and I am for System Restore Being Kept On!!!!!

 

For example, this person's problem (and others like it) might easily be fixable with system restore without having to go through the pain of backing up data and reinstalling Vista: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=309111

 

Oh yeah... for me, I have used System Restore on many occasion since I got this laptop to get back to working condition without having to reinstall or whatever... and its helped a lot. As Crash said, for the average user (and also for advanced users, as I have seen here) this System Restore has 'only' helped rather than screw anything up....

As for the hard disk space, IMHO, I won't accept the argument that System Restore is a useless thing just for the space it consumes.. because, you could always delete all but the most recent restore point (I do it once a week, as part of my weekly maintenance!) or you could even reduce the size of the volume shadow copy (default is 15% of the total space, I think!)... so there...

 

Unpacking a RAR file will not trigger a system restore UNLESS you are unpacking them to an area that System Restore is attempting to protect. I suggest you need to check how your system is configured and look into unpacking them to a more appropriate place.

Wow, you friend must really be so much smarter than the rest of us here. He actually builds computers for a large IT firm? Wow, that must make him so much more knowledgeable about software than those of us here who actually WRITE software for Fortune 100 companies. ...shakes head...
A blanket suggestion by your friend that a typical Vista should automatically turn off system restore is WRONG. For his IT firm, that decision might make perfect sense, since they most likely use a common software image for all machines, and provide an off machine backup of all data. In that case System Restore is superfluous. For a typical user such is NOT the case.

Look at all of the of the "Vista Tweak" lists that make that suggestion without a caveat of the potential dangers of doing so, and you will find they are either copying their lists from every "source" they can find (without finding out how good the source is) or prepared by someone who THINKS they know more about operating systems than the folks who actually write them.

Before you continue to promote such a FOOLISH suggestion, I think it would behoove you to look into how System Restore ACTUALLY works. You will find it does periodic scheduled backups of user data and as needed backups of system files triggered by installation or updates of software components. As for the amount of space it consumes, again if you had BOTHERED to educate yourself, you would find it is very easy to tell System Restore how much disk space to set aside for its use.

Gary

 

^ LOL, Gary..... chill!!

Though I must agree fully with what Gary said! As simple as that.

And to the OP.. poor thing.. watch out mate, there are *lots* of hardcore pro's out here on NBR!!

 

Maybe I should, but I get so tired of folks making these claims and then when confronted with FACTS make some counter claim about they or some friend knowing better without a shred of PROOF.

I guess I don't suffer fools very well. ... big ol' grin ...

Gary

 

Oh yeah.. I can understand. being mistaken *ourself* is one thing, but backing it up *with a friend of mine had been there, did this, said that* is totally another..

But yeah.. I wish people do a *little bit more* read up on the information *themself* .. the web is full of authentic information in places like here in NBR.... Phheewww..

And Gary I am sure this is not going to stop here.... its only gonna keep coming from more people...

 

Gary is the NBR crusader! GO FIGHT WIN! =)

 

Sorry for the double-post, but this is completely unrelated to the last.

Les, this program might be worth adding to the guide, supposed to reduce the UAC annoyance. But I'm hesitant to load it up lest it ruined my setup...it IS made by norton:
http://www.nortonlabs.com/inthelab/uac.php

Also, I wanted to get the opinion of some of the gurus...any idea how much over-head this will cost?

Tx!

 

Though Norton has been improving these last few months, I am STILL very hesitant to install anything on my PC with the Norton title. Also the UI looks horrific.

 

It does look horriffic...but if I don't have to see it as often as the other, it would be worth it

 

That is true. If it does "annoy" you less than UAC does then its somewhat plausible...however I'm still VERY reluctant to try a Norton product out in this day and age.
I'll just stick with Vista UAC.

 

Hah, I'm in the same boat, unless I hear an educated opinion otherwise =)