NBR Vista Tips and Tweaks Guide

All you want to know about indexing:

while your computer is idle, indexing keeps your hard drive from going idle and starts searching every file on your computer and builds a tag into the file on the allocation table level and into the file system.

This is bad for laptops because while searching is faster, it constantly increases your system demand while idle...with the hard drive not able to idle, it will burn your battery faster.

The errors people see while changing it falls into the same category as trying to defray or change opened system files...you simply cannot modify them. Index writes information tagged to every file and it cannot change the system files. You have to either hit ignore or keep all the tags to the files and just disable the indexing service.

ERL: I read briefly your posts and this reminds me of an nVidia problem with drivers...sometimes some versions will not install right. nVidia is also know as one of those drivers that will not install over an older version correctly. The crashing of games and slower performance (seems like hardware lag, but windows will slow down through graphics...especially vista) seem to point to this. I'm totally shooting in the dark here, though. You can try running the boot defrag option with the -b switch, though it will not move anything to the outer edge of the disk.

 

Apparently it has to do with how Vista handles programs attempting to store data in the "Program Files" folders. It tries to prevent this by creating the "C:\ProgramData\" folder and then within it Vista creates folders for apps trying to write data to the corresponding "C:\ProgramFiles" folder for the application.

The only specific instance I have heard about thus far were with some games, but I suspect there may be other apps affected as well. There appeared to be no data lost when swiching modes, just that the apps were unable to LOCATE the missing data after the change. Changing back cured the issue. This is all anecdotal, I have NOT played with it myself. (I leave UAC on and intend to do so. I see no need to get rid of it. The minor inconvenience is well worth the protection it gains me.)

Gary

 

I have read of this before and, unfortunately, I cannot tackle each and every issue brought up. When I received the above notice, coincidentally, I read another article that stated the same as what I had believed. Turning off UAC forces the system to store files in a different locale than is done when UAC is turned on. It doesn't say that it, in any way, negatively affects the performance and, in fact, turning off UAC is one of the better tweaks in the long run and is on the top of the lists on several sites.

I appreciate your help as i am dealing with another matter as well and, if you can find documented evidence that turning off UAC slows or damages your system in any way. Ide appreciate it.

 

Thanks Try uninstalling and reinstalling your video cards, laptopvideo2go's version would be preferred. Do not install over...uninstall. When the installer is finished, look at the very last screen it gives you...read it. My past problems involved me not looking, the driver looked to install correct, but I didn't see the last screen saying that nVidia did not change anything...please reboot. I ended up stuck on VGA drivers and that was a pain to fix and will slow your system down horribly, more if it's vista.

 

Yea. Maybe they didn't install correctly. laptopvideo2go.com has drivers with modded infs that work well and great tutorials on how to install them.

 

True, BUT... the indexing of any given file ONLY occurs once. It may be re-indexed if the modification date changes on the file. And indexing only occurs on certain types of files. So a system file like the registry that is changing constantly is not re-indexed. Also indexing occurs when the processor is idle. So the bottom line is, yes it eats up the battery as it initially indexes your drive. (Plug it in while that is happening.) Then it runs in the background only coming alive when a new file is added, when one is deleted or when a file has been modified (and then ONLY if it is of a type that indexing cares about).

It is a resource pig for the first couple of hours or even days, depending on how much idle time it finds. But after that there is a minor hit in performance. There is ONE place I definetely don't like the indexing service and that is it's integration with Outlook. For me it didn't work worth a damn. I disabled it in Outlook, but ONLY in Outlook. It works great for all other search needs.

Gary

 

Turning UAC off increases performance. I did not state anything to the contrary. I was saying that there can be negative effects. They may not be "damaging", but can cause an inconvenience. I think it's noteworthy to state. Nothing in life is free.

It's possible these problems may be fixed with SP1, but who knows?

 

SP one...right around the corner....lol

 

I didn't say a word about turning it off affecting performance. I am just verifying what another user told you, that turning it off my cause an unsuspecting user to think that suddenly some data may have disappeared. When in reality it may not have disappeared at all and turning UAC back on will "restore" the "missing" data. If you don't think it's important to note that in the tweak list. Fine. I think it would be good to add it as a footnote to the tweak, lest some poor soul have a coronary when their saved Halo3 game session suddenly disappears.

Turning off UAC may be on the top of many tweak lists, but it is negating a very important part of the scheme Vista uses to protect the users from malware. It's a personal preference. But I think it's a bad idea to suggest it as a tweak without warning folks as to the possible consequences. I see no problem suggesting it as a twek, don't get me wrong. I just think a word of caution should be included, that's all. There are lots of "newbies" out ther blindly installing every tweak they see from every source. Turning off UAC does not damage your system, but it does open it to potential damage.

I am not happy with the way Vista has implemented UAC, personally I think it needs a "don't ask me again about this program" option. So if we do the same thing a lot we don't get interrupted by it ecah time. I also think there is a certain amount of "dialog box fatigue" introduced by it to the point folks will not pay any attention when it DOES warn of something nefarious. Sort of like the "boy who cried wolf" fable. But I am willing to live with it. It doesn't impede the performance of any application other than the one with the current focus, background taks are unaffected. It's somewhat like the Unix systems approach to requiring privledged level access to certain functionality.

Gary

 

I totally agree with you. As I just said to flamenko, I can see some poor person having a coronary when suddenly their saved Halo3 game session is "gone".

As to it increasing "performance" I guess that depends on your definition of performance. Since it doesn't change the speed at which any application runs, and only affects the application with focus, I don't see it as a performance tweak. I'd categorize it as an annoyance tweak. Because without a doubt UAC is an annoyance! But admittedly, I am quibbling semantics here.

Gary

 

My feelings exactly.

It's referred to as a performance tweak because it decreases start-up time.

 

You don't make any sense. Which is true?

 

I am not trying to discredit you, don't take it personally. I am trying to understand whether of not you knew/know of this issue and if so, why you don't state in your first post the known potential consequence(s) of disabling UAC.

 

On most tweaking sites I have looked at they recommend doing the tweak after a clean Vista install or immediately after receiving the computer, thus avoiding the aforementioned problem. Then again, I haven't looked at hundreds of tweaking sites so my sample set of sites I have looked at is small in comparison.

Because they put disclaimers on their site. It is generally implied that tweaking can affect your system both positively and negatively. So, most tweaking sites have disclaimers stating that you "proceed at your own risk".

 

Gidday guys

I am hoping someone can help with this one. I installed TuneXP following all the directions, waiting until the 2 defrags dissappeared off the list, and gave it a whirl. My boot times seemed to have increased up to about 1.30, so despite numerous reboots to see if it came good, as others claim, I decided to do a system restore. However, now it will not recognise any of my restore points, coming up with "Restore has not worked. An unexplained error ocurred during the restore process" or something similar, no matter what restore point I use. Any suggestions?

Regards to all.

 

Ok, how about this document? Microsoft Webinar on UAC at about 22:15 in the presentation he explains in detail how UAC virtualizes the "Program files" subdirectories. And that this virtualization is only in effect while UAC is running. Remove it and the ability for a program to access the data it stored earlier for a user goes away.

Just to show you we are not making this up:

The Windows PERL BLOG
A closer look at windows Vista See the section on Virtualization.
User account control and data in the program files folder

It is CLEAR from this if someone uses a program while under UAC and the program saves data, later if the user revokes UAC the data will disappear. It is not gone, it is not missing, it is just unavailable to the program until the user invokes UAC again.

Is that enough "proof" for you?

Again you are taking this discussion as folks trying to discredit you. We are merely trying to point out KNOWN FLAWS in this tweak. I can't answer as to why other tweak sites don't mention this. They sure should. But there are so many self appointed experts posting all manner of tweaks without a clue as to what they REALLY do. This stuff has taken on a life of its own. One "tweak master" sees something new tries it for all of five minutes and proclaims they have found the Rosetta stone to better performance, without a care or concern for what might REALLY happen to a user who tries this stuff out.

That's why I recommend to folks that they seek out sites like Anandtech where they can be assured than any tip has been fully vetted and any potential downsides are clearly published.

My point to you flamenko, is you want to attain the same sort of stature as Anandtech, you need to do two things. One do NOT assume that EVERYONE who questions a tweak you publish is trying to discredit you. And two, stop dismissing any such question just because YOU haven't seen similar results. Your dismissal of a challenge to a tweak with "I don't have the time to check out every..." is disingenuous. If you have the time to search out these tweaks and publish them as gospel then you either need to take the time to check out the possible downsides OR take counsel from the folks who have uncovered possible downsides instead of brushing them off as someone out to get you.

Gary

 

well i finally got around to timing my boot

from POST - initial desktop load (background icons and task bar): 1 min

from there until i feel its safe to do stuff (firewall finally loads): 3 1/2 min from POST.

my current configuration is with the services as close to what they were when i first installed vista (mostly from blackviper's service list under Ultimate), but i added a few other things so i could use media center on my 360 (way cool btw), however instead of avg free edition and zone alarm ( ad-aware, spybot, avg antispyware & avg anti-rootkit are all ondemand items now), i chose to go back to onecare since i am paying for it already. index and system restore are off.
My computer is quite responsive compared to before when i was messing with everything...

thanks to all who contributed in this thread is quite informative

 

I've made many of my own tweaks including some you listed here, but I don't know how I missed the TMM when I disabled most of those default tasks. Thought it's the way it is and lived with it. SO much nicer now without the 3 second flicker when returning from sleep!

Thanks for the tip on disabling TMM! Rep for you!

 

To address this issue once and for all, I found that there are 3 processes that run as proof through this screenshot. I took ownership of both defrag.exe and dfrgntfs.exe and moved them out of the system32 folder. Then I ran tunexp's ultraboot again. It still initiated the first defrag...this is the process that moves the boot files onto the beginning of the partition. The program could not access the other two, which is just a standard defrag, not with the -b command as tunexp has already run it's own command from within tunexp. It functions very much like a registry defrag...it empties the space required, copies the targeted files to that section, and then tags the old boot files for deletion after the next boot.

I will see what files it moves there later when I have more time. You can reproduce this if you would like.

 

that doesn't address the issue once and for all - contacting the original programmer will, and i've been unable to do so.

to answer the rest of your posts - right now there's no indication what switch the program is calling when it launches windows' defragger. it stands to reason though that since it's performing a boot optimization that it's also, obviously, calling the boot optimization switch on defrag.exe

that TuneXP does something else is interesting, but it's meaningless without tests to prove that what it does is actually useful. it's the same principal as in pharmaceutics - there are active ingredients that actually do ****, and inactive ingredients that are nothing but filler. the only answer at this point is to run tests as what tuneXP's 'magic' does sans defrag, and compare that to what it does post. from my experience, and my experience alone, running defrag.exe with the -b switch is more than enough to keep all my systems (a mix of Vista and XP) booting in well under a minute.

and let's not get into authoritative explanations of what X program is doing (copying files to this section, tagging files for deletion, etc.) unless you've reverse engineered the process by sniffing the HD traffic or IO read/writes.

 

Your screenshot shows Defrag.exe and Dfrgntfs.exe existing in TMP. Can you show us a taskamanger output while this other "defrag" is running? What is the process name that it is running? Better yet use one of the Sysinterals process monitor tools (actually Microsoft tools now and free) they can identify the task AND where it came from on the hard drive.


Gary

 

I just installed Tune XP and it does not seem to install another defrag.exe application. Here are two screen shots. One is from the Tune XP directory. The second is a search for DEFRAG.EXE on my entire C: drive. There are two entries one is in the C:\Windows\system32 directory the other is in the windows cache C:\windows\WinSXS.

I am also confused that if it runs this other "defrag" first to move the files to the edge of the hard drive and then it runs the defrag.exe and dfrgntfs.exe that these last two are not going to leave the files in a particular place. There is no switch to accomplish this. I also looked over the documentation and I am not sure if its a typo or not, but it says it moves the bootfile not bootfile s to the edge of the hard drive. Could it be we are totally misinterpreting what it is doing?

I have an old XP machine lying about. I can run BootVIS on it to see exactly where the boot files and then run TuneXP and watch it with a process monitor to see what tasks it spawns. Then run BootViS again after the fact and see where the bootfiles are then. Unfortunately BootVIS won't run under Vista. Also unfortunately I won't be able to do this until Monday. I am leaving town for a couple of days.

Provided this entire thread hasn't imploded by then, ...big ol' grin... I'll report back the results on Monday.

Gary

 

I just got back from work and was about to write something along these lines but you spared me from it.

Flamenko, what you are doing is not bad and we are not saying that you are trying to screw people up. We are simply stating ways to improve upon information that you have in ways that are in the best interest of the majority of people that look at your thread. That's all. This is not a personal attack on you, your knowledge, or your character. I hope that's clear.

 

This is a good guide Flamenko, but I agree that that the UAC section definitely needs a little editing. You focus on it as an annoyance, but fail to mention even once that it MS considers it an integral part of system security in Vista. Personally I believe that most basic users should strongly consider leaving it on. You're correct that most tweaker's guides list it, however if you've really done your research you'll see that theirs also many sites that say you shouldn't disable it. I haven't personally encountered the folder problem, however after a simple google search it appears there are many people posting about problems with this, so it might be a good idea to include a footnote about it. Any tweak you list should probably include at least a brief note about the known problematic side affects, I believe.

 

Edited after finding a number of google complaints. Can I ask Crash and Scuderia to review and let me know if I have it right in my description?

 

Good, simple, and concise description. I'm not sure it affects things like Word files, but you were just using that as an example so I think that's ok. Perhaps you may want to state at the beginning of that tweak "Best to do after a clean OS install"? Your call on that one.

Thanks for editing the first post. I think it was necessary.

 

Good point..

 

Your list is getting better and better by the day

 

So, I went back last night and played NWN2 for about 2 hours. I didn't get a video driver crash until the very end (well, it became the very end because of the crash and I stopped playing for the night). I hit a couple buttons at once right after it came back from a quicksave, so maybe that had something to do with it...I don't know.

One thing about the tweeks that I may have totally imagined, as I didn't write down the numbers, but I think when I disable Indexing, I gained about 2gb of HDD space. If I'm not mistaken, I went from 32gb to just under 30 used.

 

Damn! dude my PC fast As hell Now Wow* boot up time 15sec not bad at all,

 

How are you all getting 15sec on a laptop? (or is that a desktop?)
Mine takes 2min from a cold start.

 

i have a desktop

 

Gladly!

Here is what you have:

Here is what I suggest you change it to:

There needs to be a word of caution in turning UAC on and off. There is a process called virtualization that, when UAC is 'on' saves program data files (things like INI files, configuration files, saved game files etc.) within a totally separate area for each individual user. If you then turn UAC off, there have been reports that certain programs may be unable to find that saved data. The truth, in fact, is that the data is still there but only visible to the program in this 'virtualization folder' once UAC has been turned on again.

An example is... If UAC is on and you install some game, and the game then saves files to that program's main directory and subsequently you turn UAC off. Those files may appear to the game that they have been deleted when, in all actuality, they are stored in this folder and only accessible through virtualization when UAC is on.

Leave this if you must: I have never experienced this But drop this part: and I believe most users would never experience this as files are automatically saved in their own folder, created by Vista. I suggest you drop that last part because Vista does not do this. Any folders (except the virtualized ones) are created by the applications themselves. If you want to say something like this maybe use: I believe many users would never experience this, because most applications do not attempt to save files in the "Programs Files" folder. That is more technically correct.

The substantive charges are in red. I did some other minor editing to replace some pronouns to make things a bit clearer. (I helped write some technical manuals and my training say NEVER use pronouns, that way there is never an ambiguity as to what "it" is.)

Thank you for stepping up and making this change! This small effort goes a long way toward showing that YOU, unlike some of the "master tweakers" on the internet, have care and concern about the folks who are applying these tweaks.

Well done. Well done!

Gary

P.S. I switched from Word to "some game" because the most widely reported instances of this are with games and Word does NOT have this issue at all. It understands the whole virtualization thing. It BETTER it is a MS product after all. ...big ol' grin...

P.S.S. Feel free to use my suggested edits without attribution.

 

No more screenshots of this. There is no new defrag.exe or dfrgntfs.exe installed. Taskman shows that neither process will run anymore. As for when I was helping test this a few years ago, the process that runs that moves the files into the first part of the disk is tunexp, not defrag, not dfrgntfs. The programmer stoped development of this a long time ago, but you may still be able to contact him...I'm not sure though. As for tests...read the first page of this thread on with how many people are seeing a huge decrease in start time.

If you hate the idea of booting faster or this program being able to do so, don't install it, I'm not twisting your arm. Quit looking a gift horse in the mouth.

 

Thanks for clarifying that it was tuneXP itself that is supposed to be moving the files to the edge. I was confused by earlier explanations that there were two separate defrag operations. I understand now that was referring to the two components doing the one defrag operation after tuneXP had done its thing.

Calm down. It is precisely because the developer has quit work on this and that the app has a lot of other stuff in it that is not usable (and possibly detrimental) in Vista, that I am pursuing this. I am not denying it has improved folks boot time. It is obvious it has. I am trying to get to the heart of what it does, in hopes I can build something that duplicates it and has none of the superfluous stuff attached.

I do like the idea of booting faster. I don't like the idea of folks having to use a four year old unsupported app to do so. Especially one designed specifically for a different OS.

Did you happen to notice if the TuneXP process terminated before the two defrag processes did? I am curious about that because, I would think the order of operation SHOULD be to defrag the files and THEN move them to the edge. Because if you do it in the reverse order there is no way to predict or control WHERE defrag will place the files. You only know it will align all of the blocks into one contiguous stream.

As I mentioned to someone else here I do have an old XP machine here. That will let me examine what tuneXP does in its native environment AND with a tool (BootVIS) that will let me see where it winds up placing things.

Sorry you are misconstruing my intentions here. I am not trying to discredit the fact that TuneXP is doing something and doing it well, I am trying to get to the bottom of WHAT it is actually doing.

BTW efforts have been made to contact the original author but to no avail at the moment.

Gary

 

flakenko,

Thanks for using my suggested edits. I think now folks will have a clear understanding as to what could happen and how easy it is for them to recover if it does.

Gary

 

If you want it stickied you need to PM a mod or admin.

 

Thanks so much! My gf now has some competition...lol, just kidding. But it makes my T61p so much more awesome.

 

Apologies in advance if this has been asked before but I've noticed my hard disk space slowly going down day by day (by large chunks of roughly 500mb) despite me not installing anything new etc. Is this something Vista is doing? Should I be worried?

Thanks in advance.

 

Disable your system restore...

check this post http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=165834

 

I wouldnt suggest disabling system restore completely...quite yet. It is probably the culprit and I will explain how to fix things but for now...tx HaOkepa for revealing one of my planned tweaks; you will get appropriate credit.

It comes with consequence however and thats because, its a nice feature to have right now while everyone is fine tuning with these tweaks. Need to create the safety net for all before I put it up in the tweaks.

Victor...

Go to Start/computer/right click on C:/properties

There you will find the utility used to clean the hard disk. If you go to the advanced options, you will se the bottom of the two tells you to clean up all but the last restore point.

Do that and then report back on how much you have gained.

Im sorry I cant tell you EXACTLY the proper terms but Im at work presently on an XP system.

Good Luck and tx again haOkepa.... tweak thief!!! (lol)

 

First of all good initiative Flamenko!

Here are my suggestions to your list of tweaks. I use them myself and they work like a charm. I suggest people to read through the articles which describe the tweak, without rushing straight to the tweak itself.

1) System Restore. Many people are not pleased with the fact that it by default takes up to 15% of the hard drive's capacity. You can however control how much space System Restore can use by following the instructions in this link:

http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/reduce-system-restores-disk-usage-in-vista/

I have personally set it to 5 GB.


2) Faster Shutdown. For all of us notebook users on the go, we would often like Vista to shut down quicker than it does by default. This tweak really makes a significant difference:

http://itsvista.com/2007/02/itsvista-tip-34-force-vista-to-shutdown-faster/

I have set it to 5000 (5 second wait) and my shutdown time is consistently below 13 seconds. No crashes or instability whatsoever.

Happy tweaking to everyone!

 

great post, i used both tips and it improved my system, the system restore size limiter one was excellent, nice to cap that space hog finally. I can't believe it wanted to use 30GB as its default maximum size, i set it to 3Gb instead.

 

i installed tunexp 1.5 but no 'defrag' or anything similar appeared on taskmanager? help!!

 

Thanks, flamenko. I am sure other users will benefit from this!

 

Wow!!! What a day!!!

First we, and I say we because this thread is moulding itself through collective efforts of all, became a sticky and then...

we were blessed with first page presence where we, once again, have been recognized!!!

http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=3945

Thanks all!! Lets keep it going!!!

 

Turning off UAC is silly... as are complaints about it. Windows should have been confirming this stuff before and they fixed an oversight. Mac OS X and Linux/Unix ALREADY DID THIS STUFF. I find it silly that people complain about it while espousing the virtues of OS X. News flash, Windows is fixing their old mistakes.

 

Dude if you want it On live It On But some people like it Off so let it Be

 

Thanks for providing all of this! This has really helped my computer.

 

Wow what a monumental effort! Awesome.