NBR Vista Tips and Tweaks Guide

trebuin and flamenko,

As promised, once I got back from camping and the sports car races, I unearthed my trusty old laptop which still had WinXP on it so I could do some sleuthing around TuneXP. I was able to get to the bottom of the mystery surrounding what it does and found some interesting tidbits on how it performs it's magic. First it did make a big improvement on the boot time of my laptop. I'll provide stats on that latter in this post.

First and foremost, I found out that TuneXP itself does not write a single byte to the hard drive. It does invoke two other processes that do so (more on that latter) but the only disk interaction coming from the TuneXP executable itself is read access to the hard drive. To determine this I used Sysinternals Filemon application. This little gem allows you to view every single read and write to the hard drive. It is very specific about which process generated the I/O and what file was being accessed. With it, I could observe TuneXP reading some files but never once did it write to a file.

Now to the processes that TuneXP does use to optimize the boot time. To determine this I used Sysinternals Process Explorer (aka ProcExp). It allows you to monitor all processes, even those that are able to hide themselves from Task Manager. It also allows you to see which processes spawn other processes even exposing the command line they use to do so.

The first thing TuneXP does is to invoke: "Rundll32.exe advapi32.dll,ProcessIdleTasks" What this process does is immediately tell the operating system to process any and all processes that are waiting for the processor to be idle. One of those processes is the one that Vista and XP both use to process the C:\Windows\Prefetch directory and create a new layout.ini file. This layout.ini file is used by defrag to determine the order in which the bootfiles are being accessed. With FileMon, I was able to observe the process reading the contents of the PreFetch directory and write a fresh Layout.ini file.

Once that task is complete, TuneXP then runs defrag.exe. This is where things get a bit interesting. It uses the command line: "c:\windows\system32\defrag.exe -p 480 -s 000005CC -b C:" This, of course, is the standard Windows defrag utility. But the command line contains two undocumented parameters. We know about the -b switch, it tells defrag to use the layout.ini to put the bootfiles in a particular order on the hard drive. (As an aside the TuneXP documentation makes this claim: "First, it moves the bootfile to the edge of the drive". That is a bogus claim. It does no such thing. BUT that is a MINOR and I mean MINOR discrepancy. The difference in having the bootfiles in the correct order on the EDGE of the drive and anywhere else on the drive is negligible. So negligible that NONE of us would ever be able to measure the difference in speed at all.) Again, I am certain of my assertion. I was able to observe all of the I/O and the only time anything was written to the hard drive was when the new Layout.INI file was created and when the defrag operation was done. There are NO other writes at all.

I have tried to determine what the other two parameters are, the -p and -s ones are not documented anywhere. I am a "Microsoft Certified Partner" and have put in a request to see if I can get to the bottom of those. But read on, I don't think they impact the performance magic that TuneXP does.

I set up a controlled test case for this next part. I started with my "un boot optimized" XP and using BootVis I got a baseline timing for the boot process it was a whopping 129 seconds. Ouch! I then created a ghost image of the C: partition so that subsequent tests could use the EXACT same configuration. I ran TuneXP and let it do it's thing UNOBSERVED. I did not use ProcExp or FileMon, so there was no chance either would interrupt TuneXp in any way shape or form. Once it completed it's work I used BootVIS again to get a timing and the boot time was down to 108 seconds. That was GREAT! Well done TuneXP!!! I then restored the Ghost image and ran TuneXP again, this time using ProcExp and FileMon to make the observations recorded above. After that run, I again used BootVis to measure the boot time and again it was 108 seconds. Next, I restored the Ghost image again and this time using a command prompt I manually ran the RUNDLL32 command documented above and "defrag -b c:" (without the undocumented parameters). After it finished, I used BootVis to measure the boot time, and guess what, it was exactly 108 seconds! (This is what lead me to believe the -p and -s parameters TuneXP was using might not have any real effect on boot time, but the jury is still out on that. I'll report back if Microsoft, or anyone else, can uncover the specifics of the two parameters.)

So I think we now have a pretty good picture of what is going on "under the covers" with TuneXP. Now all I need to do is find the time to write a small app to replace this functionality. One that will be Vista specific and not have any of the other bells and whistles from TuneXP that can't be safely used on Vista.

A couple of observations.

First I found a thread where the author of TuneXP was discussing its functionality including the UltraFast Boot option. TuneXP discussion In message #44 (on page 3) he states:

That pretty much validates what I uncovered.

Also, I have been wondering WHY so many folks INCLUDING ME, are reporting such marked improvement in boot times using TuneXP, when these same processes are SUPPOSED to happen AUTOMATICALLY every three days under XP and Vista. Clearly that is NOT happening. A couple of things might be in play here. First, if the task scheduler is turned off the process would never run. Second, if there is never enough "idle" time the rebuild of the Layout.ini will never occur and the defrag might not ever be run. If you turn your machine on, use it and turn it off without leaving it idle the processes will never be run. Finally there is a registry entry that might have been tweaked that affect this. It is located in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Dfrg\BootOptimizeFunction. "ENABLE" must be set to "Y" (without the quotes of course). There may also be some clues here as to why the defrag never ran. The entry "OptimizeError" will contain info about any errors the defrag process encounters. On my laptop before I started this entire experiment, it told me there had been insufficient disk space the last time WinXP tried to do the boot files optimization. So I cleared out a bunch of junk and gave it plenty of frees pace before I started my "tinkering". If you want to use the manual steps I outlined above you might want to look at the registry entries in this key. Set both LcnEndLocation and LcnStartLocation to 0 and clear OptimizeComplete and OptimizeError.

Well, I know this was LONG WINDED. But I wanted to be thorough and fair in trying to find out how TuneXp is improving the boot times so dramatically and to lay the ground work for a replacement so we are not forced to use the command line or a four year old unsupported application to achieve this.

Gary

 

Again, glad I could help out. Remember the old adage, two heads are better than one. In this case we can extend it to "many heads".

One more point in the same ReadyBoost tweak, you mention in point #3 the speed needed and that most devices have that speed. Actually that is not the case. There are two speed specifications for these devices. One is the sequential access and another is the random access. You are right that most devices exhibit the speed you sited in sequential mode. But to be used with Readyboost the device needs to meet that number in RANDOM access mode. Many devices are NOT able to do that. Especially the cheaper ones. Lots of folks are buying cheap sticks only to find that the won't cut the mustard.

Gary

 

Schuderia....

You are a well versed guy in the area of computer technology; you have my rep for that. I, on the other hand, am more of a laymen...hand raised,grain fed and educated through hit and miss.

Its probably why this thread is such a hit, in fact. Its because people understand the concept in basic terms much more than the scientific explanation. To use the most recent example, people can grasp ram much easier than memory and much, much easier than disk cache, as incorrect as it is.

Let me go astray and give you a similar example if I may. I taught computer technology, to inlude OS's and application for many years. People used to ask what defragmenting or 'optimizing' a hard disk was. I'de explain it like so...

A hard disk is like a city and information is like the houses in that city. The hard disk accesses its info much as you do when driving to someones house, through roads that are known.

If a neighbourhood were to be knocked down, it would cause confusion and slow you in your quest. A hard drive is the same, and similar when files are deleted and fragmenting occurs. Cleaning a hard disk is getting rid of the demolished neighbourhoods and making things easier to get to once again.

So, having said this, I just want you to know that I appreciate your input here; it is a very valuable resource and compliment to my thread. As I said earlier, you have my rep for that and I admire your knowledge even when we do bump heads.

Thanks again

And...oh...by the way... I am the king of long winded.

 

Excellent post and analysis.

 

Hey, my intent was NEVER EVER to bump heads with you. Any time you feel like that has happened, PLEASE drop me a PM. I don't want folks to EVER get the impression that we are at odds with each other. I've been at this stuff for almost 40 years now. I owned the first computer store in Cincinnati and have taught this stuff too. My only intent here is to add commentary where I can and point out any technical extensions to the thread that might further folks understanding. We all have to walk a fine line between suggesting tweaks that will help folks improve their experience all the while making sure that the newest users amongst us are not adversely affected by lowering the safety mechanisms that are part of the OS. Also we have to tread another fine line of not making things TOO technical that folks eyes glaze over and dumbing it down too much such that no one ever LEARNS what this stuff is all about. Over those 40 years I have found it best not to underestimate the capacity of folks to understand what is going on under the hood, if given a clear explanation.

BTW my analogy in my classes about defrag was to imagine a book's pages all removed and placed in various folders throughout a room full of filing cabinets. Attached to each page was a note like "the next page of this book can be found in cabinet 1, drawer 4 in folder 275". (That equates to cylinder, sector and head in another analogy of a hard drive to a room full of file cabinets.) The process of defragging a file, in our case the book, was to gather up all of these pages from each folder in each drawer in each cabinet, arrange those pages in order and place all of them in a single folder.

Gary

 

Fantastic analysis ScuderiaConchiglia. I appreciate your putting the time to find this out for us.

 

We have something in common...soooo

my first computer was an Amstrad Dual 5 1/4" floppy drive system with no hard drive...

Yours? Ooopps...thats showing our ages I think!

 

Hmm the first (1967) I used was a terminal attached via modem to a mainframe in Chicago. 1968 I got to actually use an IBM 1620 on a daily basis (I had three study halls a day in my senior year and was given a key to the computer room, so I could play). In 1976 (the year we opened the computer store) it was a Digital Group Z-80 machine with a cassette tape recorder as the ONLY storage media. The machine arrived as bare circuit boards and a bag of parts! I was in HEAVEN when we upgraded to dual 8" floppies.

Enough of the "old folks boogie", we now take you back to your regularly scheduled program of Vista Tweaks. ...big ol' grin...

Gary

 

U gotta have a tweak or two up yr sleeve to throw in...pm it will ya...

 

I'd like to point out a combatibility issue with TuneXP for the superfast booting opton when you do it it will never stop cleaning up then you have to cancel
My boot time went from 38secs to 30secs

 

Huh? What never stops? Do you mean the warning dialog box that you should not shut down until the defrag stops? If that is what you are talking about yes it will stay there until you cancel, but the two actual defrag processes will continue to run in the background until they complete their work.

Or do you mean the two defrag processes, (i.e. defrag and dfrgNtfs) never end? Were you watching them using Task Manager to see when they ended? Because they should not run forever. They may take anywhere from a few minutes to quite a while, but they will eventually end.


Gary

 

I mean on the warning below the progress bar it will always say even when finished, ''cleaning up''

 

My humble tip is to turn off Aero and all the sliding/fading effects, and if you really want to get extreme, turn off your wallpaper, too and go back to the Windows 2000 look. This eliminates the need to continuously redraw the wallpaper every time you open or close a window.

I would add to your TMM tip that disabling this does not cause you to lose dual-monitor support, though the Vista boot and welcome screens will only display on the primary display, which is no big deal, since, generally speaking, you only gain usability from two screens when you are working, not logging in to Windows.

With all due respect and appreciation for your helpful tweaks, you really should change your ReadyBoost tip by removing your "you can literally add memory to your system" line, as everyone reads your OP first and may not even bother to read the corrections 36 pages in stating that it is no way adding RAM as you claim it is. Layman or pro, one should try to provide accurate information to the best of one's abilities, if possible.

 

Samuel... Thanks for the input and i was thinking about hitting those performance enhancers a bit late. I just hate cutting out the best of Vista which is the graphics.

With respect to the TMM tweak, if you shut your system down as a dual monitor configuration, it will start as that on reboot.

And you are misconstruing what the tweak says. It does not state that you are adding RAM but rather that you are adding memory which comes straight from Microsoft (the link provided in the tweak) which goes as follows:

"Windows Vista introduces Windows ReadyBoost, a new concept in adding memory to a system. You can use non-volatile flash memory, such as that on a universal serial bus (USB) flash drive, to improve performance without having to add additional memory "under the hood."

and ThomasH:

The downfall of tweakXP is that the only way to know that it is complete is to watch tTask Manager until the two defragmenting executables close. You may have to close the drive screen or screen that says not to shut down the system until defragmenting is complete or any other. The only true indication that the program is done...is the files dissappearing from the Task manager.

Did you say 38 to 30 seconds? What are you looking for? That was incredible before the change. Im just above 20 with a SSD but there is absolutely no way that alone could have got me here. Tweak, tweak, tweak!!!

 

Im looking for perfection its always beeen say ""fastest of the bunch'' always faster at task just look @ the 3DMark03 score:1513

 

Did you overclock at all??

 

None completley stock no mods done just OS tweaking no BIOS nothing

 

Downloading 3dMark03 now...

What system did you do the test on?

 

I think Samuel meant that to the lay person, when you say system memory they automatically assume you're talking about RAM, or something close to it. Whereas Vista's use of flash media is much more similar to adding a secondary hard drive cache, and in no way speeds up your system like additional RAM does. Not that I disagree with your tweak, I'm just trying to clarify what I think Samuel meant.

 

Thank you and I understnd that. I felt it best to follow the Microsoft terminology in this case because, most dont understand the term hard drive cache. To elaborate though, I think many may be missing where the similarity is. Its more like ram than the secondary HD cache simply because of the access time which is where the speed increase comes from, similar to ram.

The flash disk itself not only allows its storage capacity to store frequently used files for 'flash' or extremely fast retrieval because of its extremely quick access time, but also, it keeps that info from being placed and removed from the hard disk cache (pagefile.sys) on the hard drive, which of course has a much slower access speed.

Having been long winded in that view, i felt it better to lean towards a definition most would understand than have someone shy away because they don't understand the terminology.

 

Apple (not Macintosh) 5 1/4", no hard drive as well.

 

To clarify, Vista uses the flash media not at all like RAM. I'm not sure what you're saying with the access time thing, as hard drive cache's have very fast access time, they have to to be able to do their job. I guess the most important thing is that a lay person understand that the ReadyBoost and or ReadyBoot features will not speed up there system like RAM will, nor will they be a substitute for RAM. However, I understand that you're using MS's terminology, and I guess that's fine.

 

hey flamenko, the CC cleaner only cleaned up 50 and then said that I would have to buy it. Is there any way around that or can I only clean 50 max?

 

Your not using the right one...You downloaded another version. the link i included is completely free.

 

okay, well i'll try again, probably a mistake on my part, but nonetheless an awesome thread man. Big ups to you.

Edit: yeah, my fault downloaded the wrong one, its all good now. thanks man

 

oh yeah, flamenko, did you think of making this a sticky? I think it would help everyone a lot better and would save some hassle.

 

First, thanks to Odin243 for attempting to clarify what I wrote. I appreciate it.

Note: Here is most of Microsoft's original explanation of ReadyBoost (underlines, etc. are mine) from http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/features/details/readyboost.mspx:

"Adding system memory (typically referred to as RAM) is often the best way to improve a PC's performance, since more memory means more applications are ready to run without accessing the hard drive. However, upgrading memory can be difficult and costly, and some machines have limited memory expansion capabilities, making it impossible to add RAM.

Windows Vista introduces Windows ReadyBoost, a new concept in adding memory to a system. You can use non-volatile flash memory, such as that on a universal serial bus (USB) flash drive, to improve performance without having to add additional memory "under the hood."

The flash memory device serves as an additional memory cache—that is, memory that the computer can access much more quickly than it can access data on the hard drive."


(Speaking of long-winded, here goes

Flamenko, as he said, the tweak is nice, props to you and all, but your inaccurate portrayal is not merely semantics; Microsoft wrote "a new concept in adding memory", which prompts the reader to read further on to learn the details of just what this new type of memory is, as opposed to your, IMHO, misleading blanket statement of "literally adding memory", which, especially when taken "literally" one rightfully assumes the memory you refer to is the same as RAM, which is grossly inaccurate, as I will explain. Why not just write in your post "a new type of memory", as Microsoft did, rather than "literally add more memory"?

I believe you may be mistaken in your understanding of how ReadyBoost works. You might be aware that ReadyBoost is designed to allow the user to remove it at any time. This means that when you write "it keeps that info from being placed and removed from the hard disk cache", you cannot be correct, or else you'd get a blue screen if the USB key is removed since that memory is now gone.

If, in fact, the user pulls a ReadyBoost device out, Windows will seamlessly switch from accessing data from the now-removed ReadyBoost cache to retrieving it from its location in the swap file on the hard drive. Again, the information in the swap file is optionally cached on the ReadyBoost device, but at no point does Windows bypass the Swap File to place it directly on the ReadyBoost device.

So, I believe your refusal to change the misleading wording in your OP stems from your misunderstanding of ReadyBoost, as I explained earlier. Readyboost is cache memory for your swap file and does not function independently of that swap file, as you seem to incorrectly imply it does.

ReadyBoost simply allows files that have already been paged out of RAM to the swap file to be repeatedly accessed from the ReadyBoost device on their way back into RAM, rather than needing to hit the Hard Drive swap file. The more Windows is able to retrieve the data from its cached copy rather than from the swap file, the better the performance will be since the ReadyBoost device is faster than the Hard Drive.

RAM, on the other hand, is memory for your computer, and does function independently of the Hard Disk, in that if you boot from, say, a CD or LAN, you do not necessarily touch the HDD, but must use RAM. And since, unlike ReadyBoost, there is no backup location, the computer will crash if the RAM disappears. So the only similarity between RAM and ReadyBoost is that they are solid state and that they are faster than a Hard Disk. That's it. Their respective functionalities are quite different.


Maybe a brief tutorial on computer basics is in order, which should hopefully be helpful to many people. I like to use the following analogy I made up, which is applicable to many older versions of Windows, too, and not just to Vista.

Your Hard Drive is like a filing cabinet: lots of room for many different folders filled with files. Your RAM is like a desk or table. In order to do any work with the files stored on your Hard Drive (filing cabinet) you must place them into your RAM (your table or desk).

Now you have folders with files opened in front of you on your table or desk, and you are ready to work. (Technically speaking, Windows makes a copy of what's on your drive to put into RAM, whereas in the "real" world, you'd be moving the file out on to your desk).

Let's get to the swap file. Suppose your desk is now filled with folders, but you want to work on some more folders without returning any of the ones to the filing cabinet. What do you do? Well, you can't create space where there is none, but you can do the next best thing, which is to temporarily remove folders from the table, which makes room for the additional ones. So where do those folders go temporarily?

Say you have an empty mini file-storage area in one of your filing drawers for this "overflow". You now place those folders you're working on in that temporary mini file-storage area, and as you work with different folders, you shuffle the folders in and out of that temporary mini file-storage area.

When you're finished working with all those folders, you place them in their proper place in the filing cabinets, and your desk (RAM) and mini file-storage area (Swap file) are clear, so you are done.

ReadyBoost is like having a tray fold out of the mini-filing cabinet that brings some of those folders already in temporary storage a little closer to you, so you don't have to get up to reach into that mini file-storage area all the way inside the filing cabinet. It is NOT an extension of the table or desk itself, just a way of giving you faster access to the stuff already in the temporary filing cabinet.​

Enjoy.

 

ilikeicehockey.....

Coached for 17 years; this is my second not coaching and...

It is a sticky...and a front page story.

 

Quick question....

I downloaded tune xp and ran the ultra fast booting part and it completed and cut my boot time to about a minute...down 30 seconds. but my question is if i now run auslogic disk defrag which i try to do from time to time will it keep those boot files where tune xp put them? or will it move them around?

also when i open tune xp i get the following error message "failed to get data for disable paging executive". is that normal? it seems to run fine and it did cut my boot time.


ok so i lied, i got another question..

i tried using startup inspector but when i tried to disable things in it i check and uncheck what i want and then click apply. the window pops up i click ok but it always gives me an error message that cant create a file for one program or another that i have checked. I was able to disable startup things from msconfig, i just used startup inspector to see what i could disable safely. i was just wondering if there was something i was doing wrong. any help would be great.

 

I have never received the above message relating to disabling page executive because I have never enabled that. Somehow you enabled Disable Paging Executive which is, I would suggest, not a good thing in Vista.

Disable it again.

As for Startup Inspector, I have never encountered that problem and found the program very straight forward.

 

haha, my bad, that's why I couldn't find it lol. yeah, hockey is the best sport, I play goalie.

 

My 1501 & it beat a Turion dual-core with dedicated graphics 1397 Vs. my 1513
EDIT: I've had my system since last december with only 21% battery wear & does anybody know the MK-36's default voltage?

 

Does TuneXP 1.5 actually work with Vista? I've installed it in the past, and the first time I run it I get an error message (can't remember what it said...). Then I can set all the settings fine the first time, but when I open up TXP a second time, all the settings get error messages when I enable them.

Or is TuneXP on there ONLY because of the Ultra Fast Booting?

 

Yes...Its on there only because of the Ultra Fast Booting. Many have seen on average 35-40 second decrease in boot time and I know of one or two instances of a minute decrease or similar.

Advice with Vista is to follow the instructions exactly and use only that feature.

 

what about shut down? How can I speed up shut down?

 

Tweak numero 12.

 

After installing TuneXP I got a pop up error message that said:

Failed to get data for 'DisablePagingExecutive'

Does the Paging Executive have an effect on the Ultra-Fast booting?

Also, under the Memory and File System tab, are any of the options suppose to be enabled or disabled? First time program was opened I believe Optimize prefetch and Increase NTFS performance was enabled and I disabled them. Then I ran Ultra-Fast, let the two defrag programs complete and restarted computer.

No decrease in boot time; actually takes a little longer.

I was going to run it again but if I try to change any of the Memory and File System options, I get Failed error messages.

So did I mess something up or what?

 

It works great with me, decreased by 40 secs

 

Datalife...

I think you checked off the selection "disable paging Executive" by accident whereas you shouldnt have.
It should be disabled.

 

I had the same problem with the disable paging executive....and when I try to disable it i get another error message. cant figure out why but the ultra fast boot worked so i just did that and leave tunexp alone and all seems to be well.

 

Flamenko, you might want to consider putting a large bold red warning to folks that they should NOT try any of the other items in TuneXP except the Ultrafast Boot option. I beleive this is the third report of someone mucking things up by trying (or inadvertently trying) some of the other items. Knowing what I do now about how TuneXP is doing the UtlraFast boot thing, I wish I had the time to create a replacement app, so we can eliminate this possible trap. In the meantime a proactive warning might be in order.

Gary

 

I can't seem to install TuneXP. Everything goes fine until the "Registering Fonts" stage, and then the installer hangs.

I'm running Vista Home Premium, 32-bit.
I downloaded the installer again, but keep running into the same problem.

I check my Program Files folder, and TuneXP was there. It loaded, despite not finishing install, but Ultra-fast booting option didn't do anything (no new processes). It also gave the the Disable paging file issue in the last few pages. I didn't do anything to touch that.

How do I correctly install TuneXP?

 

The program should just install straight up no probs.

 

Best Buy's Geek Squad offers to clean out the Vista trash for $30. Has anyone done this with them? Any comments on the job done? It seems like it might be a little generic, but to clear out much of the universal gunkquickly would allow me to focus on the tweaks.

 

See the CCleaner Tweak (#2). Its totally free and works like a charm.

If you are fluent enough, there is a program from ToniArts called EasyCleaner in download.com. Install and ONLY use the drive cleaner. I check off everything as for what i want it to seek for before searching for files. DO NOT USE THE REGISTRY CLEANER...

 

Flamenko,

It will if you are running as an admin. The fact it is complaining about registering fonts it sounds like a privledges issue to me.

Gary

 

Thanks for the reply. I already am running as admin, though. Is there a way to elevate the installer program for more privileges?

I've heard of problems installing ttf fonts in Vista. Can that be the problem?

 

Nope, definitely not... after TuneXP installed it opened with that error message. Think you meant it should be enabled?

I followed the instructions to the letter except when I went to Memory and File System and saw two of the options, as previously stated, were checked (enabled) so I unchecked (disabled) them.

What I didn't mention in my first post is after running Ultra-Fast, completing defrag, and rebooting a few times (w/o speeding up) I uninstalled TuneXP and reinstalled it. Again the Paging Exec error pops up. But this time when I click on Memory and File Sys tab none of the other options are checked. And if I try to disable or enable one, I get a failed to... pop up error message.

So back to Paging Exec, that could that be the effect of another Vista Tweak? I'll do some checking and see if I can run it down. I'm open to other theories though.

 

I havent got any. My system is tweaked with all the mentioned tweaks and TuneXP runs fine. Ive probably rebuilt my software about 6-7 times and put that program in each time from the site; never a problem.

Sorry.

 

i got that error message the first time i opened it too. i have version 1.5 from the link on the tweaks page. i ran the ultrafast booting and it seems to have cut down my boot time so im just going to uninstall it so nothing gets messed up. someone mentioned having things checked and no where is anything checked just the options to enable or disable things. not sure whats going on with the error message but ultrafast booting still works