Some *useful* information about Vista performance tweaking
-
Lately nearly everything you read online about Vista and particularly its performance is full of garbage. I wrote a huge rant about it[^]. But here's some information[^] that's actually useful for once.
Interesting read. I just found a little error: System Restore Points take up to 15% of each drive, not only the system drive (checked in the help, and it also makes sense).
If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. - Charlie Brooker My Photos/CP Flickr Group - ScrewTurn Wiki
-
Lately nearly everything you read online about Vista and particularly its performance is full of garbage. I wrote a huge rant about it[^]. But here's some information[^] that's actually useful for once.
reinux wrote:
that's actually useful for once.
Wow, that's a great link. Very informative. Thanks for providing it. Marc
-
Lately nearly everything you read online about Vista and particularly its performance is full of garbage. I wrote a huge rant about it[^]. But here's some information[^] that's actually useful for once.
I also remember Jeff Atwood[^] writing a very good (well I suppose they all are) entry on RAM utilisation in Vista. Basically he reasoned that RAM is a form of cache for the hard drive, it's true that PCs could run directly off the hard drive but the speed would be crippling. And what's the point of a cache if it's not filled? I've tried to dig up the entry (I can't remember whether it was a comment or an entire post).
-
Lately nearly everything you read online about Vista and particularly its performance is full of garbage. I wrote a huge rant about it[^]. But here's some information[^] that's actually useful for once.
I just read the summary so far, and the only thing I want to quibble with is the memory section. I just upgraded my laptop from 1 to 3(4)gigs and even for browsing and chat it was noticeably more responsive. It was definitely usable with only 1 but had noticeably higher UI latency than XP.
Otherwise [Microsoft is] toast in the long term no matter how much money they've got. They would be already if the Linux community didn't have it's head so firmly up it's own command line buffer that it looks like taking 15 years to find the desktop. -- Matthew Faithfull
-
Lately nearly everything you read online about Vista and particularly its performance is full of garbage. I wrote a huge rant about it[^]. But here's some information[^] that's actually useful for once.
That's actually one of the most useful things regarding Vista I've read; well, that and a prior posting about AREO and why it is an improvement (written by one of the CPians). Course, this still won't stop me from ranting about Vista. The OS is a freakin tool, and tools shouldn't stop you from working to ask "Would you like to run the installer that you just told me to run?" Hey ... when's the last time you picked up a hammer and had it ask you ... "Are you sure you want to drive that nail that you're trying to hit with me?" I'm just sayin ... Let me drive damn-it. ;) Thanks for sharing!
:..::. Douglas H. Troy ::..
Bad Astronomy |VCF|wxWidgets|WTL -
Lately nearly everything you read online about Vista and particularly its performance is full of garbage. I wrote a huge rant about it[^]. But here's some information[^] that's actually useful for once.
That was a great post! The only issues I had were: 1) ReadyBoost! This is one area that has helped me out drastically. My main box has a motherboard with a dead memory bank that I have been lazy to replace. It has 1GB of RAM, which I have used for over a year now. Before a 4GB ReadyBoost memory stick, the fileswapping would kill my system and sometimes make it unresponsive for more than 30 minutes while it swaps out. The ReadyBoost solved that problem and made the swapping survivable. 2) Disk Grinding is another issue though. With the quality of hard drives falling, I stay concerned by the constant grinding of the drive. This is an area I will take a performance hit over thrashing my drive.
Rocky <>< Blog Post: Yahoo! Pumps OpenID! Tech Blog Post: Cheap Biofuels and Synthetics coming soon?
-
I also remember Jeff Atwood[^] writing a very good (well I suppose they all are) entry on RAM utilisation in Vista. Basically he reasoned that RAM is a form of cache for the hard drive, it's true that PCs could run directly off the hard drive but the speed would be crippling. And what's the point of a cache if it's not filled? I've tried to dig up the entry (I can't remember whether it was a comment or an entire post).
I posted a link to that here a few weeks ago. http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html[^] The question shouldn't be "Why does Vista use all my memory?", but "Why the heck did previous versions of Windows use my memory so ineffectively?"
When everyone is a hero no one is a hero.
-
That's actually one of the most useful things regarding Vista I've read; well, that and a prior posting about AREO and why it is an improvement (written by one of the CPians). Course, this still won't stop me from ranting about Vista. The OS is a freakin tool, and tools shouldn't stop you from working to ask "Would you like to run the installer that you just told me to run?" Hey ... when's the last time you picked up a hammer and had it ask you ... "Are you sure you want to drive that nail that you're trying to hit with me?" I'm just sayin ... Let me drive damn-it. ;) Thanks for sharing!
:..::. Douglas H. Troy ::..
Bad Astronomy |VCF|wxWidgets|WTLDouglas Troy wrote:
The OS is a freakin tool, and tools shouldn't stop you from working to ask "Would you like to run the installer that you just told me to run?"
You're mouthing the Apple party line there. I thought as you do at first until I actually used Vista for a while and wrote installers targetting it and changed my code to work *with* the security in the OS as we were all supposed to do for many years before Vista came along and started insisting on it. I think UAC is a good compromise system and makes perfect sense. UAC prompts are far from annoying in any sense of the word.
When everyone is a hero no one is a hero.
-
Douglas Troy wrote:
The OS is a freakin tool, and tools shouldn't stop you from working to ask "Would you like to run the installer that you just told me to run?"
You're mouthing the Apple party line there. I thought as you do at first until I actually used Vista for a while and wrote installers targetting it and changed my code to work *with* the security in the OS as we were all supposed to do for many years before Vista came along and started insisting on it. I think UAC is a good compromise system and makes perfect sense. UAC prompts are far from annoying in any sense of the word.
When everyone is a hero no one is a hero.
Exactly. UAC is not annoying at all. Oh no, it shaved off 30 seconds of my day! Big whoop. That 30 seconds adds another layer of security to your system, so quit bitching. The only reason people continue to think it's annoying even after they've gotten used to it is because Apple commanded them to think of it as being annoying. They've done a good job of psychologically making everyone aggravated. Complaining about UAC is like complaining about wearing seat belts. It's childish. Even if it's not 100% effective it doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.
-
Exactly. UAC is not annoying at all. Oh no, it shaved off 30 seconds of my day! Big whoop. That 30 seconds adds another layer of security to your system, so quit bitching. The only reason people continue to think it's annoying even after they've gotten used to it is because Apple commanded them to think of it as being annoying. They've done a good job of psychologically making everyone aggravated. Complaining about UAC is like complaining about wearing seat belts. It's childish. Even if it's not 100% effective it doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.
agreed. With a single exception I've not had an app sit out UAC dialogs except during the install. The exception is Multiplicity's (a keyboard/mouse/clipboard sharing app like synergy) config dialog, and arguably due to the security implications of what it does it should require admin rights to reconfigure.
Otherwise [Microsoft is] toast in the long term no matter how much money they've got. They would be already if the Linux community didn't have it's head so firmly up it's own command line buffer that it looks like taking 15 years to find the desktop. -- Matthew Faithfull