NBR Vista Tips and Tweaks Guide

is this about the defrag the boot when idle in the batch file?

just downloaded last night, but it didn't do anything ?
so i just close the command prompt

 

Yes, the batch file contains all the instructions to run the defrag. There is no noticeable effect when running the batch file, only that "Defrag" and "DefragNTFS" will appear in the task manager for a while to indicate that it's actually running.

Make sure you run the batch file as an administrator. See all the instructions here: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=2737834&highlight=gary#post2737834

 

Then you didn't follow the instructions, did you? Go back to the link in my signature line below and follow the instuctions, including opening Task Manager so you can see that in reality it WAS doing something.

Gary

 

I've got a quick question about UAC's virtualization. If I turn it off when i first get my computer, then it shouldn't be a problem, should it? There shouldn't be any files created that can only be accessed by virtualization, and everything I do from then on should be accessible without UAC. Is that correct?

 

Yes, it shouldn't be a problem, but I recommend you keep UAC on. It does a lot of good things and rarely gets in the way.

 

OK, I guess UAC is a thing I'll have to get used to anyway. Its one of the things that turned me off to Vista though, but it's managable. Is it coming back in Windows 7?

 

Yes it's in Windows 7 as well, although it's a little more customizable, so you can configure it so you get less prompts.

In Vista though I usually get a lot of prompts after I reformat my computer (changing computer settings, installing programs, etc), but after everything is set up, I practically never get a prompt.

 

do the tweaks and tips in post no.1 still apply to windows vista SERVICE PACK 2?? i mean i have vista sp2 so should i apply those tweaks?

just wondering as that post was made before SP1 AND SP2 (i think)

 

Yep, do all that you wish. You can still do many of them in Windows 7, if you really wanted.

 

I have one to add.

Go to "start menu" and then "msconfig". Then go to "boot" and click on "advanced options" and where it says "numproc" or "number of processors", change it to the maximum amount of cores or cpus you have. (For example, a quadcore, change it to 4... a dualcore is 2, etc.) I noticed it's a bit more snappier starting up as both cores are used to relay the info to and from the HDD / SSD.

Note: this tweak also works with windows XP.

Jason

 

This tweak does NOTHING. It is well documented that this option exists to REDUCE the number of cores used for testing purposes. The default setting will ALWAYS use all available cores.

Gary

 

My bad... I didn't know it was documented

Jason

 

Yup; the poster seems to not have noticed that the /numproc switch in the boot.ini file tells Windows how many processors to use for the entire boot session, not just how many to use at boot. If it really were necessary to set this switch in order to take advantage of all the processor cores of your CPU, most people would have noticed by now that they weren't using all of the cores they'd paid for. Since that hasn't happened, it necessarily follows that this switch is a limiter, not an enabler, and that by default Windows will use all the processors it can discover in your hardware.

 

Is that all the tweks on the first oage or are there some good ones in the pages, because it might take awhile to go through all the pages and find them.

 

Just follow the one' in the first post from Les - they are as good as it gets.. Of course, there might be some in the subsequent pages, but I think the one' from Les cover everything up pretty well. I followed just that and been happy with my system ever since, to be honest.

 

Start a new thread! This has NOTHING to do with the tips and tweaks.

Gary

 

Many thanks to Les for the brilliant guide on page 1. Took a while to go through it all but Vista certainly now works alot better! I have a question now though post Vista tricks and tweaks....

I have 32bit Vista on an Acer Aspire 6530, AMD x2 2.0Ghz 1MB cache, ATI Radeon 1791MB HD graphics card, 4GB RAM, 250GB HDD etc etc.

Now that i have my Vista set up how I like and optimised etc etc, should I now be looking to back up my system, so that in the event I ever have to re-install windows or something, I dont have to go through all the tweaks again? How do I do this?

When I first got my laptop, started windows, one of the first things it got me to do was create a 'system recovery disc' (presumably to act as a Windows installation CD), which I did - now is the same thing as I want to achieve in my first question above?

So what im asking basically is, should I now create new system recovery discs to supersede the ones I first did, in order to back up the tweaks I have made?

Many thanks

 

You can't create new "system recovery disks" per se, like you did with the initial tool you used. But you can use something like Acronis to create a backup image of your C: partition just as it is right now. It will copy EVERYTHING on the C: drive.

Gary

 

Help!! I have went through all of the tweaks, and everything seemed fine, but when I tried to put my XD card into my HP dv5, it doesn't even register that the card is inserted. does anybody have any idea what I need to do to correct this????

 

I didn't read through the 202 pages, but for the disable/turn off uac/security center notifications, there's a better tweaks that only disables the notifications for the turned off uac. It's a little reg file to "elevate without prompting" for uac.

http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/wind...r-account-controluac-for-administrators-only/

 

do the tweaks in post#1 apply to windows 7 rtm?or only vista?

 

I suppose it would depend on specifics.

Certain ones will be possible in Vista and Win7 (possibly even XP) others are better done on in Vista, etc.

I'd say this is aimed primarily at Vista - so be careful in Win7.

Also, why tweak? There is no need for it - some "tweaked systems" are worse afterwards than before...

And if you have a specific Win7 query, do ask for tha specific tweak.

 

well i know that 7 is faster than vista ..but do we need to tweak win7 also to make it even more faster? like disabling the search indexing

 

From persnal experience I'd even say do not tweak Vista.

Search indexing cn be very useful - leave your computer idling a ouple of hours, and once it has finished indexing it won't cause any slowdowns any more.

 

This is not a Win7 tweak thread although I will say that I have gone ahead and done many of these tweaks within Win7.

Having said that, I definitely do not recommend you treat this as if it was a Win7 tweak thread. In my opinion, Win7 is plenty faster than Vista ever was...

 

Hi guys.

I've turned off Indexing and I've got a app named "Everything". Since I've turned off Indexing in C drive and disable search in Services - will "Everything app" work?

Also when I turned off indexing in C drive It gave me error memtest.exe, so I ignored all of them- is it ok?

 

Can someone explain to me how to reduce or eliminate the disk cache? I have two boxes when I do it, max and min, and don't exactly know what to do. Forgive me, I don't know much about this and don't wanna risk crippling my system. I need to imporve my performance to make sure that PPro CS4 runs at it's best.

 

Don't change your cache. It's a bad idea if you're running a RAM intensive program and you want it to run, not crash. If you eliminate your disk cache, the program may not get all the memory it needs and will crash without saving any of your work.

 

While running Vista....I turned disk cache/pagefile off completely and had 4gb ram as well. I run the heck out of my system and it had never once crashed...sometimes playing several videos.

This is a touchy subject but there is a menu to shut it down for a reason. If you have the resources and you find that you will not exceed them, you should want to get the most out of them that you can; specifically your ram.

The best thing to do is to install a usage monitor and watch what you are using....

Pagefile is a funny thing and many don't understand but, it will always be in use unless it is shut right off and has a certain level of priority over the ram which can be seen when you are using very little resources. You will see plenty of free ram yet the pagefile still being used.

Again...all info here is from personal experience and the assistance of many here, not simply opinion derived from what should be because it is read somewhere... After all, the world used to be flat you know.

 

Ok thanks both of you, but when I'm using the usage monitor (Would task manager or the windows sidebar widget work?) Well I never use right now more than 44%, actually it always stays at 44% at web browsing that's from sidebar. In task manager it says I use 1.47 GB and says Physical Memory: 36%.
I haven't received PPro yet so I can't tell.
Thanks guys

 

It's a touchy subject when someone has a program crash and they loose all of the data they were working on. ALL, I repeat, ALL of the real experiments where someone has compared the performance with and without a pagefile have shown that any performance increase is infinitesimal. The folks who claim otherwise are relying on anecdotal "it feels faster" evidence.

Yes, without question the machine will run faster without a pagefile. But you will not be able to measure that difference with a stopwatch. So the bottom line is this, is it really worth that very very tiny improvement in performance weighed against the risk of possible data loss?

Sorry, Les, but we have disagreed about this before and will continue to. Your experience of not having any crash is not a good indicator of what might or might not happen to someone else. (BTW, Viewing multiple videos is not something that is going to tax the virtual memory system.) And I would be very curious to see the MEASURE of performance improvement rather than the "personal experience". As I said before every time I have see any attempt to actually measure this, the numbers do not show a significant advantage.

Someone might take this advice and turn off the pagefile and run for weeks without a problem, then the one time when Vista is unable to handle a memory request from an application and that application crashes taking several hours worth of work with it, the user is not going to be very happy.

There is a reason why the "menu to shut it down exists", it is there so you can move the pagefile to another spindle. It is not there so you can eliminate the pagefile altogether.

You are right about one thing: "Pagefile is a funny thing and many don't understand". The folks who understand the internals of the operating system, the purpose of the pagefile and risks associated without having it, leave it alone.

Gary

 

anyone?

 

Sorry, but I don't think anyone understands either of your two questions.

Gary

 

Sorry...

I turned off Indexing C: drive as it was written on guide.

But I've got program called "Everything" which indexes files. So will "Everything" work correctly after turning indexing off (C: drive)?

 

That depends on whether "Everything" uses its own index or the Vista one. You really will need to test this yourself or ask the "Everything" authors, unless someone else here uses that app.

Gary

 

I have turned off the Search Indexing, and the program Everything still works like a charm.

 

Thanks!

 

Ok, so what should I be looking for when I use the usage monitor? (Does Task Manager or the windows sidebar widget work or what?) When I had the widget it always stayed at 44% and in task manager it says Physical Memory: 36% and also says 1.47 GB on the performance page out of 4 GB. This is just using Firefox as I have not received PPro yet.

 

What you should be looking for is another tweak. How many ways do we need to say that disabling the pagefile will not gain any human measurable performance increase? No one who has ever been challenged to prove otherwise has been able to produce real numbers to back up this ridiculous claim. No one. Not one single person. All you ever get is, "well it feels faster" or "it is doing less work so it MUST be faster". It's all BS. The only thing you will ever gain by disabling the pagefile is a few milliseconds of performance difference (can YOU measure a few milliseconds?) and the possibility of lost data should an application crash because of a failed virtual memory request. Are a few milliseconds worth that risk?

Gary

 

Ok, sorry. It looks like I've done almost every other tweak. Thanks!

 

No need to be sorry. I didn't mean to sound like I was jumping on your case. I just get annoyed at the supposed experts trying to tell folks how to configure their machines as if they knew more about the underpinnings of operating systems than the folks who wrote them. There are several self proclaimed experts here and elsewhere on the internet, who seem to fit this description. Before you jump to the wrong conclusion, I do NOT consider Les to be in that category. Les is a good guy, we just don't see eye to eye on this one particular tweak.

Gary

 

You said this right "Yes, without question the machine will run faster without a pagefile."

We seem to have lost track of where system cache/pagefile was created. It is there to assist systems with low memory. This is written in just about every article which explains the purpose of pagefile. Would I recommend it for 2GB systems? Nope... Conversely, is there any need whatsoever for systems with 8GB ram to use it now...none.

I have never had a system crash, slow down of any type or anything of the sort and am happy with the fact that my system is tweaked to its absolute top potential and is as solid as a rock. I have 4GB ram....and an ssd so, really, my logical need to do this is even less so than one with a HD.

Similarly, I have never once heard of a negative effect of someone who has followed the discussion and done this with a clean install with adequate memory available...not once. These are the two conditions that must be present.

 

Come on Les, you selectively quoted what I said. The COMPLETE quote is shown above. I still await the PROOF that there is any real world benefit to turning off the pagefile. And I am not alone in that request for proof as witnessed by these two requests in another thread here:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=4287609&postcount=30
and
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=4287003&postcount=10

I haven't lost track of why the pagefile exists, let's turn to someone who is an expert in such matters, shall we:

http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2008/11/17/3155406.aspx

Here is another discussion on the subject by some folks who understand the issue: the folks at the Tom's Hardware forum are alot more attuned to the technical intricacies of these sorts of discussions than most (I said MOST, not ALL) other folks.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/236298-44-disabling-windows-page-file

Finally, here is a blog that does a lot to debunk performance myths surrounding various Windows tweaks:

http://radub-tweaker.blogspot.com/2009/02/windows-performance-myths.html

Les, there are some very narrowly focused specific cases where it does indeed make sense to run without a pagefile. But those cases are in server farms which run a fixed set of applications with absolutely no variability in their resource needs. That hardly describes a notebook user.

But for me the bottom line to this discussion is SHOW ME THE MEASUREMENT. I have never, ever seen anyone produce any sort of benchmark measurement that shows proof of this alleged performance improvement. I am sure you can show me a wealth of discussions of folks recommending this tweak all reporting no issues. But can you show me just one with some measurements to back up the performance claim. Show me one and I will shut up about this. Until then, I think it makes no sense to suggest anyone to do this tweak because I see a risk with no benefit. Yes with 8 gigs, the risk is small, but even so if there is no MEASURABLE benefit is it worth the potential risk? Why tweak something that isn't going to make the machine faster?

Gary

 

Do not turn-off all the pagefiles. This can lead to system unstable/failure/malfunction and sometime you can't even access the Windows.
I would leave my pagefiles there(default). I know how to change it and what can it do(not detail but about speed). Too much of pagefiles(Last time I tried about 10GB), the system become slightly slower. Too low pagefiles or non-exist, system unstable and malfunction. So, choose a standard and good pagefiles value for your system wisely.

 

Or, just stick with the default settings and don't mess with it - that's what I recommend.

 

Can I get an AMEN, brothers and sisters?

Gary

 

I'll give you the Amen but I can't say that I agree wholeheartedly with telling people it can lead to instability/malfunction etc unless one has experienced this personally.

If you run sufficient ram, there is no need for pagefile which is an antiquated function on newer systems that can make use of the 64 bit OS and additional ram.

Scud, you, as well, sought only to find sources which support your viewpoint but, at the end of the day, the sole purpose of pagefile is to enhance the total ramcount for more intensive applications.

I have run with 4Gb for just about 2 years now and no pagefile, first on Vista and now Win7...never a problem, never a loss, never a malfunction or crash.

The ONLY negative effects I have heard of was once with people making the switch on systems that have been in use for awhile and then losing stored cache files (game) when they made the switch...ONLY. This is why I suggest it be done only with new systems.

I know there are many who don't agree but, simply put, real world experience trumps theory and opinion based on 'what should be'

K....sorry...lets stop this now.

Would you believe I have this same arguement on my motorcycle site in a different topic? I run a car tire on the back of a VTX 1800 and swear by it. In fact, everyone who has ever switched to a car tire on bigger bikes swears by them and would never go back. So...there is the car tire side of those who know first hand and the opposite end of those who have never tried but say that this can't be...

eheheheh gotta love debates.

EDIT... And lets remember, this is a 'tweaking thread', one thats popularity has expanded to at least 4 different languages quite unexpectedly. This is a tweak. If we are going to stick with default settings, we wouldn't even be here now would we???

 

I have to agree. I have no pagefile and I must say overall response feels improved upon. Maybe just barely, but I'm pretty sure it's there. Especially when saving a larger file.

 

What do you mean by "system response"? Saving a large file doesn't have to do anything with the page file.

 

I guess the no pagefiles tweak only can apply(stable and no bug/boost speed) for x64 OS with at least 4GB of RAM? or maybe at least 5GB of RAM?
x32 OS only can use up to 3GB to 3.5GB of RAM. This sucks. LOL.

Experiment conducted:
I have disable all pagefiles. I didn't have the system unstable this time. I am glad. I wonder what happen last time. LOL.
But something strange here, even I disabled the pagefile on all my partition. The pagefile do exist when I check the dxdiag.