Thoosje Quick XP Optimizer

[cmpm]

I'm not wounded, if that's what you mean.
People can think and say what they want.
The only mind I can take care of is mine.

Heck, list as many optimizers as you want to.
I am interested, perhaps others are also.

Though I don't like gaotd,
except for the comments where there are some sound ones.
With good info and other places with other software.

[cmpm]

I prefer this site-

http://www.freedownloadaday.com/

The programs here stay free and available for more then a day.

[cmpm]

In System Properties-Advanced-Performance-Settings-
Advanced Tab, Under Process scheduling-
TQ Opt. changed it to having the processor to -
Adjust for best performance-*Background services*.
I had it on Programs
The Memory is still set to Programs.

My paging file is still set to the same settings I had it on.

[Lashiec]

i remember an old tweaker program called X-Setup that showed you what are the changes it is going to make to your system and also had a "recorder" function to revert the settings. i think the program has now changed from freeware to shareware.

you can check out this web-site for useful tweaks (but a bit dated): http://www.mdgx.com/wxp.htm.

-lanux128 (January 30, 2008, 09:23 PM)

Yes, X-Setup Pro is what I've been using for years, precisely because it's very safe and it specifies what it's going to do. What's more, the code for every plugin is available at the click of a button.

MDGx is also an old friend, was very useful back in the 9x days, not only for tips, but also for information, software, troubleshooting, etc.

Lashiec: "disable last access" is a nice thing indeed, and most people don't really last-access timestamp anyway. Remember that turning of last-access timestamp doesn't turn off last-modify timestamp, only "I have to update filesystem metadata because the user looked at this file."

-f0dder (January 31, 2008, 05:06 AM)

Yep, but it registers the last timestamp for everything, whether is an user peeking at the file, or a program accessing it. Programs like jv16 PowerTools or TuneUp Utilities use that timestamp to decide if they should delete a temp file or not, so that's why I don't use it. Of course, all files residing in the TEMP directory are mostly safe to delete, but those programs search for files in other parts of the filesystem.

[Curt]

Adjust for best performance-*Background services*.

-cmpm (January 31, 2008, 08:44 AM)

- this helped!  Things are happening a little faster now!  

[cmpm]

Thanks Curt,

It didn't change any Visual Effects, but I only have 5 of them checked.
So for someone that may have them all checked, it could change that.

And I'm staying with version 1.0 for now.
Just to see what else I can find.
If anything.

[cmpm]

Run this Curt, if you are familiar with this kind diagnostic stuff.
And still having problems with your computer.
It has a beginner, intermediate and advanced modes.

http://runscanner.net/

Discussed here a little bit.
I've been using it for a while and it works well.

https://www.donation...dex.php?topic=9683.0

[f0dder]

Yep, but it registers the last timestamp for everything, whether is an user peeking at the file, or a program accessing it. Programs like jv16 PowerTools or TuneUp Utilities use that timestamp to decide if they should delete a temp file or not, so that's why I don't use it. Of course, all files residing in the TEMP directory are mostly safe to delete, but those programs search for files in other parts of the filesystem.

-Lashiec (January 31, 2008, 09:24 AM)

If wiping out %TEMP% breaks an applicaiton, it's time to fill a bug report to the developers (the exception is if you've just installed something and haven't rebooted yet).

Leaving "last accessed" timestamp on just to be able to clean up a few files? Not a chance in hell, too much of a performance hit.

In System Properties-Advanced-Performance-Settings-
Advanced Tab, Under Process scheduling-
TQ Opt. changed it to having the processor to -
Adjust for best performance-*Background services*.
I had it on Programs
The Memory is still set to Programs.

My paging file is still set to the same settings I had it on.

-cmpm (January 31, 2008, 08:44 AM)

Humm, setting the scheduling to "Background services" should actually make your system a bit less responsive... what it does is controlling the "quantum" (or timeslice) that programs are allowed to run before they're pre-empted. Background Services = longer timeslice = worse for most people.

Setting memory usage to "System Cache" is a good thing if you have at least a gigabyte of RAM and don't use an ATI graphics card (or rather, their buggy drivers).

[PhilB66]

@f0dder

Any experience with "ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1" tweak? Does it really improve perfomance?

[Darwin]

Yes, X-Setup Pro is what I've been using for years, precisely because it's very safe and it specifies what it's going to do. What's more, the code for every plugin is available at the click of a button.

-Lashiec (January 31, 2008, 09:24 AM)

+1 for XSetup Pro  I've been using since long before it became shareware and it's the only tweaking tool I use (other than TweakUIXP), for the exact reasons Lashiec states (though having the code available at the click of a button is completely lost on me  ).

[f0dder]

@f0dder

Any experience with "ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1" tweak? Does it really improve perfomance?

-PhilB66 (February 08, 2008, 09:48 PM)

On Win9x, yes, I believe it did - made the kernel less likely to page things out to disk. Win9x was designed to run on pretty low-memory systems, when you moved to "enough" memory (64megs or above), it was often paging out stuff when not necessary.

On NT, ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1 has no effect at all.

[PhilB66]

On NT, ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1 has no effect at all.

-f0dder (February 09, 2008, 03:06 AM)

Thanks for clarifying this.

[yksyks]

To the page file usage tweaks on XP et al. I found this:

http://www.opentechs...ve/topic/7124-1.html (see the last post)
and
http://technet2.micr...ad1033.mspx?mfr=true

So far I didn't dare to experiment with this. Anyone more brave?

[f0dder]

[/b]DisablePagingExecutive=1[/b] is a win even with relatively small (by today's standards) amounts of memory. I think I used it even back when I had less than 512 megabytes of memory? (but still not enough memory to disable paging completely). Paging drivers and kernel components to disk should sound pretty self-explanatory bad to everybody, I think. The reason it's being done at all is that NT was designed when systems had very little memory.

And windows tends to page things out to disk a bit aggressively, or so it would seem to me. DisablePagingExecutive=1 helped my system "recover" back to a usable stage (ie., stop disk thrashing from pagefile read/write) sooner, on the low memory systems, when I had exited something very resource intensive like a game/whatever, it was definitely measurable. Sure thing, turning that setting on meant that games/apps had slightly less RAM available for their use, but I was happy to sacrifice that to avoid the "thrashing recovery" after running intensive stuff.

I still have the setting on, but have been running without paging file ever since I got a gigabyte of memory, so I don't feel it's effects at all. This box has 2 gigabytes of memory, and it has never been a problem running without paging file. As soon as I can get my act together and transplant harddrives + graphics card, I will be running from a quadcore with 8 gigabytes of ram (there goes my savings...) and hopefully I'll never ever need to even consider using pagefile again

[Lashiec]

Hey, send one or two GB this way! A couple of cores would be welcomed as well

[f0dder]

* f0dder hoards his goodies