Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Technology Love Story: From High-End Dream to Vista + X2 4400+

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 19, 2008 3:28:58 PM

For all the doubters out there. This is a bit long, but it's worth if you also have - or had - that kind of dreams.

Since I have had some times of amusement lately - just as of intriguing performance - I decided to share some thoughts with you people. What are your specs while reading this text? Do you enjoy this level of performance of yours? Do you feel like needing more?

Now I wouldn't know my own answer.

From the start: if anyone happens to take a look at my profile it will notice quite a mid/high-end PC project. Some months ago I got an "ASUS Maximus Extreme" from my mom (Oh, mom...:p ). If someone doesn't know much about it here are some details: it's a LGA775 motherboard based on Intel's X38 chipset, with two full 16x PCIexp 2.0 lanes (and even a third one, since the second can be split because of an additional chip), DDR3 support and built-in watercooling system. Quite a bad-ass motherboard - just as its price of $350. According to my initial thoughts I would pair it with a Q9550 (after its price cut), some nice and prohibitive expensive 4 GBs of DDR3 1600 CAS 7, a Samsung HD with 250 GBs of space, a Radeon 4870 (perhaps even one more after some time) and a 600 watts PSU from some nice brand out there.

Then everything changed, pals.

Surprisingly, I got an old Duron 1.8 with 512mb of DDR 400 with an integrated SiS740 video chipset from a relative who wasn't interested on it anymore. The machine had a a clean Windows XP Pro installation and was paired with Microsoft Office 2003. Just for kicks: the main machine I mainly use is [was] a Pentium D 820 2.8 with 2 GB of DDR2 667 CAS 4, a Samsung HD with 150 GB and a GA-945GM-S2 motherboard (integrated Intel 945G video).

My "new" machine would boot XP faster.

By faster I mean like almost 2x faster. No super mystery here, though: I knew that the Pentium D based machine had a bloated XP installation after 2 years of use, even with a good ammount of maintenance, registry cleaning, disk desfragmentation, some fine tuning and some other special tatics. Nevertheless, I decided to try something when I found an interesting combo for just as much as $90: an Athlon 64 x2 4400+ with a VS A6VMX motherboard (Foxconn, 690v chipset with SB600).

I had to give it a try.

After all, I was sure the Duron-based rig wouldn't handle any serious website or my beloved copy of Warcraft 3 (although I played it on a PIII with 2 GBs of Ram and an Intel [crappy] 815G chipset) and, since it would take me some more months before finishing my rig project (some months of needed Internet access and some moderate horsepower), I really thought about that combo. So, I ordered the damn thing with 2 GBs of Patriot DDR2 800 CAS 5 and an AKASA 350 PSU, since I had already bought the Samsung HD250HJ SATA II.

So, I happened to have a Windows Vista Home Premium copy which I ordered some months ago...

Hmmm... Soon I thought: "Hell, why not? It can't be *THAT* bad or bloated... These parts should be able to play with it a little, even if it takes a whole minute to boot and 2 to shutdown [with Aero and half of the services disabled]." Since my main project was a machine with 4 GBs of DDR3 I had also "ordered" the 64-bit edition - which I accidentally installed without noticing the damn "This CD contains 64-bit software only" sticker.

Dude, it took "forever" to "boot" the damn installation screen. I almost called it quits.

From what I remember the full installation took something around an hour or one and a half. Oh, man, I was displeased. "@#$@*$ M$ SUCKS, OMG!!!". Like that. Then it was "OMG, WHY DID I BUY THIS UTTER PIECE OF CRAPPY HARDWARE, @#$*@#, I KNEW INTEL WAS ALL THE RAGE, *@#*#@*$2, WTF!!!". I was thinking about posting one more "Epic Fail" post in AMD's honor.

So, everything changed again...

I noticed the "Epic Fail" was mine after a crappy 32-bit Chipset Driver installation (not the Catalyst one) forever destroyed my first Vista. The machine hanged and would never boot that Windows installation again. Oh, how I wish I had *just looked* at the fine damn sticker.

The real surprise then started...

32-bit edition in my DVD drive, lightning fast boot, 20-30 minutes full installation. O.M.G. Had I recovered some faith in my old new hardware? Hmmm, quite a bit. Then I knew I would be able to run Firefox 3, at least. Some reboots, dah dah dah, and then I saw the new "progress bar" taking 5 seconds to completely disappear...

"???"

That was the first one. Then came the pretty Vista shining logo and a welcome screen. Okay, so, a click here, a click there, a performance test and a fine new clean desktop was right in front of me. So, I was like "Let's turn Off Aero, Superfetcher, UAC, half of the services and I will be fine... Yeah, it must survive this way...".

But then it was "... .. . ! !! !!! Don't I need to do this?".

My performance index was like this: 1.0. When I checked the details, they were: CPU = 4.9, Memory = 5.9, Aero = 1.0, 3D = 1.0 and HD = 5.9. But of course I wasn't *that* stupid and had some CD filled with pure goodness: fine drivers would come to my aid this time. Catalyst 8.7 was ready to go. It bumped "Aero" and "3D" scores to 3.7 and 3.1 respectively.

"Let's do that one fine reboot and see the pwnage... Mwuhahaha... This rig will have to sweat even then!"

No, it didn't. It took me 20 seconds to have a fully "able" desktop. The computer was as responsive as the Pentium D + XP rig had ever hoped to be. Honestly, I just couldn't believe it. Perhaps I can't even now. No, seriously. My IE7 (yeah, that's INTERNET EXPLORER 7'S IE!) looked like what Firefox 3 was on the other machine. Same for Windows Media Player 11: no more VLC needed (although I will install it because of the built-in codecs). Probably I'll still use Firefox 3, but...

That was just *freaking amazing*.

Some good friend of mine has a Q9300 @ 3.2 based rig and Vista Ultimate - and I simply can't feel the difference in responsiveness while using the OS or taking a look at some fine websites. Make no mistakes here, though: I have no doubt his system pawns mine in many ways. Yet, I don't think my early expectations were worth the money I was willing to spend for them. Heck, now I'm just thinking of getting me an 4850 and perhaps some 2 GBs of DDR2 800 CAS 3.

Perhaps not even that: an "awesome soon-to-be-released" Deneb or Phenom 9750 with a 790GX would probably blow me away.

That's not to say I don't believe the benchmarks - because I do and I'm aware of where supreme performance is right now -, but...

What is really worth in the tech world right now?

Do we need 4 cores? Well, I'm sure some can find many ways to put it under good use. Do I need 4 cores? *Definitely* no. The only reason I mentioned Phenom is because of its price. Had AMD released a Dual-Core edition I would probably have one by now. I'm also considering a respectable E8400 with a P45 board (which I would buy after selling my Maximus-$-In-ASUS'-pockets) and the 4850, but the 790GX platform looks so damn *fine* that I want to give it a try.

Time should tell. Anyway, here is the deal:

1) Don't talk about the real performance of something you have never tried.

Do I need to say more? To hell with Futuremark and all that crap.

2) Don't call MS like M$ everytime.

Like it or not: the guys do a good job with the "standardization" thing and so on. Much of our good times with computers - and also some of the disguting ones - are related to them. I'll miss uncle Bill quite a bit.

3) Don't believe the hype.

Vista would never be in my system if I went for what many reviews and forums said. The short time experience I had with it was far more pleasant than an almost "lifetime" experience with XP. The whole system is, and pay attention, *a lot* (and by it a mean *a l.o.t*, read *A LOT*) more responsive in any situation I have seen. Should one IE7 tab get slow, the other ones will still be fine [just as the whole system]. My XP rig would be crawling in that moment.

Not to say I don't have some complaints, though. Service Pack 1 took almost 3x the time the full installation took. I mean, WTF??? That's clearly a proof that, in spite of not having any issues with it, Vista had some serious problems underneath. The machine also had to reboot 3 or 5 times during the process, I guess. I did some research and found that some people had the same "64-bit boot screen takes forever" problem. Being aware of the "4 GBs of Ram during installation" bug, I can't help but think that someone should be fired by releasing a software in what feels like almost a "BETA" stage. I mean, WHY WOULD ONE [NOWADAYS] INSTALL THE 64-BIT EDITION IF NOT TO USE 4+ GBS OF RAM? *NOBODY* IN MICROSOFT HQ NOTICED THAT *BEFORE* THE RELEASE DATE?

Same for hardware: I would believe that anything but a Core 2 Duo with 3 GHz [at least] would be utter crap nowadays. But it isn't. Well, it's hard to make a comparison between the X2 and Pentium D rigs (although I know the X2 *crushes* the Pentium in benchmarks, but then I don't quite believe in many of them anymore), especially since I haven't tried Vista to see how it would be on the Pentium D based rig, so, I don't know if who I should thank is AMD or Microsoft... Probably both...

Probably the $90 combo ad and giving "new" things a chance.

EDIT: Hey, BM. Sorry about the reference. Yet, it was just for kicks! : P
August 19, 2008 3:36:24 PM

Vista 64 all the way!!!
a b à CPUs
August 19, 2008 3:47:48 PM

Shhhh... They'll never believe you.
August 19, 2008 4:20:29 PM

I'm with you all the way on this. At first, Vista 64 sucked...Thank you, Nvidia. But once good drivers came out, I had no problems. I'm using a 5000+ BE at 2.8 and upgraded to an 8800GT, and Vista's beautiful. Looks much better than XP, turned off UAC so it doesn't annoy me, maybe a tad longer startup time, but that's it. No problems. Not anymore.
August 19, 2008 4:30:39 PM

Scotteq said:
Shhhh... They'll never believe you.


Yes, don't tell them. Keep quiet god dam it. Let them keep those paws off Vista 64.
Vista is a pretty good system once you do:

Bust UAC.
The Hell with Superfetch.
Shutdown Windows Defender.
Indexing Service my a$$.
Activate 2 Cpus during boot (msconfig, only one is by default)

And this from the top of my head. Vista 64 runs pretty well on AMDs.

Vista 64 runs pretty well on AMDs. I wrote this. Good god, leet kiddies with Nehalem t-shirts and Larrabee Axes are after me. Only say it in secret, never in a public forum. Oh "·$% !!


EDIT:msconfig and services.msc are your friends. If you have 8gigs the page file can go fack off.
a b à CPUs
August 19, 2008 4:39:26 PM

radnor said:
Yes, don't tell them. Keep quiet god dam it. Let them keep those paws off Vista 64.
Vista is a pretty good system once you do:

Bust UAC.
The Hell with Superfetch.
Shutdown Windows Defender.
Indexing Service my a$$.
Activate 2 Cpus during boot (msconfig, only one is by default)

Superfetch speeds your computer up. Turn it off if you enjoy long program loading times (comparatively). Windows defender is a darn good anti spyware. There's no reason to shut it off. Indexing is why the searches are instant. Leave it on too.

The only good advice here is to kill UAC if it annoys you, and to activate 2 CPUs during boot.
August 19, 2008 4:48:01 PM

cjl said:
Superfetch speeds your computer up. Turn it off if you enjoy long program loading times (comparatively). Windows defender is a darn good anti spyware. There's no reason to shut it off. Indexing is why the searches are instant. Leave it on too.

The only good advice here is to kill UAC if it annoys you, and to activate 2 CPUs during boot.


vista (and xp) automatically uses all your cores during boot.

the spot in msconfig to edit the amount of cpus being used is for debugging
(especially for programmers who want to test on multi threaded systems as well as single core machines, you can use the same computer by editing the cores used in msconfig)
August 19, 2008 5:04:30 PM

cjl said:
Superfetch speeds your computer up. Turn it off if you enjoy long program loading times (comparatively)


Unfortunately Superfetch takes to long to adapt ,consume too many CPU cyles, HDD resources and RAM. You might like it, but for what i do in a PC i want it shut down. Maybe to Windows Mojave lovers would da shizzle, but i do too much at the same time to Superfetch to help my load times. Reduce the page file/swap file to a minimum and you would see load times and operation times increase. But it is my opinion of course. In this incarnation it is worthless. And if you have 2 Gb ram or less, you really need it off.

cjl said:

. Windows defender is a darn good anti spyware. There's no reason to shut it off.


On that matter i like to choose my software's thank you. I bet your using Firefox. For that same reason i disable windows defender. Avast and Spybot do the trick. In the Browser side, i got NoScript and few other. I don't have to worry much.


cjl said:

Indexing is why the searches are instant. Leave it on too.


Do you search anything on your pc ? I guess im an old timer and i got bored to use dir /s *.* or the ls variant (i bash scripted those baddies so i don't remember) . So i usually know where everything is. Indexing service is always indexing add infinitum. It eats resources like a freaking cockmongler. While your OS is clean it is fine, once it gets loaded, it is not.

I stand for my "tweaks". And these are few of them.

a b à CPUs
August 19, 2008 5:37:54 PM

As pointed out - all cores are used during startup by default. Selecting how many cores is used for debugging. This is not necessary to do at all.

Once Indexing learns what is on your comp, it updates itself only as the contents of your drive change. So HDD activity falls off greatly once the initial database is created. Vista's search blows away XP's, full stop. And /dir? Why bother even opening a command prompt when Vista's search returns results as fast as you can type the name of the thing.

UAC learns what you use, and as it does the warnings go away and you'll rarely see it pop up. If you don't like it, just shut it off. There's also a "real" admin account (not a user account with "admin" privledges) that you can activate and bypass the entire issue. But know that doing either bypasses security

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc709628.asp...
http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1887

Quote:
In Windows XP or older systems, whether or not the malware succeeds is more or less a function of the rights and privileges of the logged in user and whether or not the system and Registry have been hardened or protected in any way to block such attempts. With Vista, because everything related to the Internet runs at a Low integrity level, the malware will be unable to modify, delete or interact with virtually anything else on the system.

These protections will protect Vista systems from the vast majority of malware. Most of the time, users now become compromised or infected by malware through visiting malicious web sites, or opening email file attachments. The same protection does not apply when a user brings in files on CD, DVD, USB drive or other removable media however. These files will execute in the context of the integrity level of the logged in user.


and https://forums.symantec.com/syment/blog/article?message...

Quote:
Note that malicious code is always looking to latch on to another process, bind to a local port, or modify system critical files; thus, identifying a successful execution does not indicate it fully compromised the victim host. Out of the seventy percent that were able to execute, only about six percent of the samples were able to accomplish a full compromise and an even smaller number (four percent) were able to survive a reboot. The rest did not execute properly due to incompatibility, unhandled exceptions, or security restrictions.

It was easy to spot why malicious code fails to successfully attack a Vista host. Malicious code authors regularly presume a user is running with administrator privileges and blindly attempt to modify system settings, global user environments (registry keys, shared documents), and even bind to ports with little interference. In Vista, these common tactics are now restricted or virtualized.




Agreed on Defender, though - Use only one AV and 1 Firewall. As I don't believe in anything Microsoft being the first point of contect to the web, I use 3rd party apps instead.
August 19, 2008 5:56:15 PM

Only reason Vista is on my PC is because it was time to upgrade the hardware.

I did bench Vista on my 4800+, and the results were an overall 10-15% performance loss across the board; games, synth benchmark and just the overall slugishness of it all, and this was a few days after SP1 was released, no no driver issues or anything. 2GB RAM, ATI x1900xtx & Raptors. Went back to XP after the analysis exercise.

Then came AoC (lol @ me)... beautiful game, quite fun to play... until you reach like, level 50, then it's an incredible bore, but that's besides the fact, the game would run like utter ****, and some other games like Crysis, Bioshock, etc... would really make the whole rig chug at medium resolutions (1280x1024). So I decided to upgrade to 8400, 8800GTS OC & 8GB RAM.

Yeah, 8GB with no swap file on Vista finally destroyed XP, 0 decrease in performances, aside from boot up, which I'm guessing is the only downside to no swap file & using the tweak to load up everything possible in RAM right away (1.8GB in use without anything else running lol, 4GB + no swap file would not be enough with AoC taking almost as much).

As mentionned, kill Indexing (who the hell searches EVERYDAY, a LOT of things on a HOME PC?), kill Defender & kill UAC. Superfecth I leave on because I pretty much do the exact same things over and over on my PC, and almost always in the same order, so it's actually good for me, but I'd kill it otherwise if I had an "erratic" pattern of launching stuff on my PC.

The RAM definitely made the biggest impact IMO, 8GB is holy cheap, and holy good for any Vista gamer... loading screens?? lolwhatsthat?
August 19, 2008 5:57:15 PM

UAC hasn't been half as annoying as people's comments about it.
August 19, 2008 6:10:15 PM

Quote:
Umm, DUFUS, don't third party me. I had to give this a rest before with that crap. I have never said anything like "an awesome soon to be released." I have said that X2 is more than enough for a general PC even for games with the right GPU.

But hell, just drop that extra dough and you can at least say you did.


Sorry, BM. Just used your name as a Pro-AMD reference (not a "fanboy") and your optimism regarding Deneb's launch. I'll leave just Thunder's name in there.

Oh, I'll take him out too. The guy needs a break sometimes. 240% agreed about the X2 part, though.
a b à CPUs
August 19, 2008 6:31:10 PM

I'm still pretty pleased with my Pentium D @ 3.8 (from 3.4). And prefer Vista. I hated XP from the off. Went straight from W2K to Vista Beta2!
August 19, 2008 6:35:10 PM

dattimr said:
Sorry, BM. Just used your name as a Pro-AMD reference (not a "fanboy") and your optimism regarding Deneb's launch. I'll leave just Thunder's name in there.

Oh, I'll take him out too. The guy needs a break sometimes. 240% agreed about the X2 part, though.



Not in a great mood today, even though I just got a promotion. I think I need to get out of NYC. It's dirty and people dress bad.
August 19, 2008 6:59:52 PM

BaronMatrix said:
Not in a great mood today, even though I just got a promotion. I think I need to get out of NYC. It's dirty and people dress bad.


Really?! Congratulations, BM! : P What will you be doing? : )

(PS: I almost dared to ask if you were going to the "Asset Smart" or "Asset light" teams, but I would be just kidding and you would be just mad! Hahaha. But man, I'm really impressed with my X2 rig. Omg. Now I wanna try a Phenom too! Never been to NYC, unfortunately. Perhaps another day. :)  )
August 20, 2008 12:31:22 AM

dattimr said:
Really?! Congratulations, BM! : P What will you be doing? : )

(PS: I almost dared to ask if you were going to the "Asset Smart" or "Asset light" teams, but I would be just kidding and you would be just mad! Hahaha. But man, I'm really impressed with my X2 rig. Omg. Now I wanna try a Phenom too! Never been to NYC, unfortunately. Perhaps another day. :)  )



Still writing code. I'll probably have a few programmers under me. NYC is great to visit not so great to live.
August 20, 2008 9:16:41 AM

BaronMatrix said:
Still writing code. I'll probably have a few programmers under me. NYC is great to visit not so great to live.


Come to Galicia !! Girls are feisty (and loads of them), drivers are nuts, the food is not that bad, the scenery is great, and the lower rate of cops per 100k habitants. Crime is almost none existent. For the exception of 2 "supramax" type prisons we have :) 

Its great, and im not a natural.

PS: Grats on the promotion.
August 20, 2008 9:54:10 AM

just reading about people turning superfetch off. does it really work? as in it keeps the responsiveness that vista has had? im 2gb of ram, e8200 @ 3.61ghz n vista x64
a b à CPUs
August 20, 2008 12:38:30 PM

No free lunch - If you turn off Superfetch, you lose responsiveness. At 2GB, tho, you stand to gain some additional responsiveness by plugging in a fast thumb drive. Vista will use that to cache to.

Mostly, the people who do that seem to prefer their system resources to be idle, rather than put to work.
August 20, 2008 1:30:07 PM

Scotteq said:
No free lunch - If you turn off Superfetch, you lose responsiveness. At 2GB, tho, you stand to gain some additional responsiveness by plugging in a fast thumb drive. Vista will use that to cache to.

Mostly, the people who do that seem to prefer their system resources to be idle, rather than put to work.


At 2gb or less superfecth is better off. You will notice responsiveness. This is quite unquestionable, you never seen a Core 2 Duo taking about 3 minutes to open 80kb Office 2007 file. Turn off superfetch and that will never happen again.

About Ready Boost, you need a high-performing SD Card (or any card) or a USB pen. The trick is, you will only feel it going better when the machine has 512mb RAM. And after plugging a 2GB SD/PEN or bigger i wont improve. Ready boost was a great idea to try and dodge the "vista capable" sticker. Nothing more.

Superfetch is a great idea, but was badly implemented. Because when you really needed it (low ram) it clogs your system. When you dont need it (4GB or more) you can even shutdown the pagefile.
a b à CPUs
August 20, 2008 1:42:38 PM

Pagefile =/= cache

SuperFetch and Ready Boost - Analyzed
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-vista-super...


Quote:
Conclusion
SuperFetch takes care of buffering applications proactively; ReadyBoost provides the additional memory space to do so. Both new features cannot make systems faster than they are; which means that power-hungry applications do not benefit from them. SuperFetch uses available main memory space that may have been unused under Windows XP, and ReadyBoost utilizes a mature and cheap technology by means of USB 2.0 Flash memory devices to provide additional memory capacity for the SuperFetch feature. With only a little "learning", Vista will know which applications are most important for you, and it will preload them into available main memory and onto the ReadyBoost device. In short: Vista succeeds in utilizing existing resources and technology to provide more balanced performance.

The results are impressive: Using both features, Windows Vista shows off how it can effectively reduce application launch times to provide a better performance experience with your everyday software. At only 512 MB RAM, application launch times decrease from 9 seconds (OpenOffice Writer 2.1) and 10 seconds (Outlook 2007) to 2-4 seconds only. Adding our 1 GB USB 2.0 Flash stick helped to shorten launch times for these applications to 2-3 seconds only. The next conclusion is that Windows Vista with only 512 MB RAM is no fun at all, because applications start much faster only by having 1 GB of RAM. In fact, both Outlook 2007 and OpenOffice Writer 2.1 start even faster on a fresh Windows Vista installation than on our SuperFetch-trained and ReadyBoost-enabled system at only 512 MB.

Having 2 GB of RAM reduced application launch times even more, but now we're talking about fractions of a second. But again: If you study our results carefully, you'll realize that it makes sense plugging an unused high-speed USB 2.0 Flash device into a USB 2.0 port: Application responsiveness at lauch does still benefit!
August 20, 2008 2:15:17 PM

If you want i can get on my Customer database, make a query, and show you what customers think of those services before i make my modifications to the system. I work of a big brand. Vista with less than 2GB without my mods, costumers refer as pleasant as pulling teeth in some equipments.

About ready boost you are right, if you have a USB2.0 UNUSED.

Quoting your thread:

Quote:
Having 2 GB of RAM reduced application launch times even more, but now we're talking about fractions of a second. But again: If you study our results carefully, you'll realize that it makes sense plugging an unused high-speed USB 2.0 Flash device into a USB 2.0 port: Application responsiveness at lauch does still benefit!


If you read my posts ive been talking about 2Gb or less. And i pointed out what that thread says about 512mb ram. Before you posted it. So are you comprehension impaired ? And by the way, like any user, being laptop or desktop like to hang out with a extra PEN or CARD as ready boost. And EVERY FREAKING PERIPHERAL IS USB atm. Of course you will find clean and unused in every freaking system !!! Oh, and by the way USB BUS consumes CPU resources !!!! In a cramped machine by lack of ram, and excess use of HDD because of trash process, that is perfect way to go !!! Flood the CPU even more !!!!!
Disabling the page file makes the processes being mapped directly to the RAM, if you dont have enough ram someting is going to the swap file. If we are having a excessive use of HDD because of the swap file being overly used because IT CANT MAP THE FREAKING PROCESS IN THE AVAILABLE RAM........

So what, in top of that your going to use superfetch ???? oh goodie, you better start reading more white paper and less blogs.

So it will use EVEN MORE HDD RESOURCES (it wont use ram, there isn't nothing more to use). You really need to start reading. Or at least trying out the technologies before come quoting to debunk what i said but you just freaking confirmed it !!!!

This is getting silly.
a b à CPUs
August 20, 2008 2:40:45 PM

I agree about the 'Getting Silly' part, anyways...

Beyond that, you clearly haven't the slightest clue. Instead, resorting to 'shouting' a stream of meaningless crap. Extra exclamation points do not cause gibberesh to suddenly make sense.

It's an intelligently managed cache - A further development of what already exists in XP. At most it takes a few more seconds at startup to load since there is extra data that needs to be pulled from the HDD. Data the computer would have to access ANYHOW when the user launches the app. Which, by the way, now launches faster because it was cached.

And yes, I *do* use the OS. Which you clearly do not.
August 20, 2008 3:17:25 PM

radnor said:
At 2gb or less superfecth is better off. You will notice responsiveness. This is quite unquestionable, you never seen a Core 2 Duo taking about 3 minutes to open 80kb Office 2007 file. Turn off superfetch and that will never happen again.

About Ready Boost, you need a high-performing SD Card (or any card) or a USB pen. The trick is, you will only feel it going better when the machine has 512mb RAM. And after plugging a 2GB SD/PEN or bigger i wont improve. Ready boost was a great idea to try and dodge the "vista capable" sticker. Nothing more.

Superfetch is a great idea, but was badly implemented. Because when you really needed it (low ram) it clogs your system. When you dont need it (4GB or more) you can even shutdown the pagefile.


Agreed. My personal experience is that Vista becomes "usable" 10-20 seconds faster with Superfetch turned Off. The responsiveness has also improved, but it's hard to make a comparison between two absolutely different rigs. Since I usually don't run the same softwares everyday I don't think Superfetch would be of great benefit in my case. However, I should state that I didn't let it take its time to "learn my usage pattern".
August 20, 2008 6:57:29 PM

holyyyyy **** i turned off super fetch n it took me about 5 minutes to load. and my machine is not slow. thats after about 8 restarts n doing stuff inbetween each. not fun!
August 20, 2008 7:19:26 PM

smyffalis said:
holyyyyy **** i turned off super fetch n it took me about 5 minutes to load. and my machine is not slow. thats after about 8 restarts n doing stuff inbetween each. not fun!


Strange. Do you have the "ReadyBoost" service enabled? What's your HD? Are there many softwares running during the boot process? Did you install SP1 and the other patches?
August 20, 2008 9:22:17 PM

Scotteq said:
I agree about the 'Getting Silly' part, anyways...

Beyond that, you clearly haven't the slightest clue. Instead, resorting to 'shouting' a stream of meaningless crap. Extra exclamation points do not cause gibberesh to suddenly make sense.

It's an intelligently managed cache - A further development of what already exists in XP. At most it takes a few more seconds at startup to load since there is extra data that needs to be pulled from the HDD. Data the computer would have to access ANYHOW when the user launches the app. Which, by the way, now launches faster because it was cached.

And yes, I *do* use the OS. Which you clearly do not.


No, i just have them in VMware (Both the 32 and 64 bits) . My working OS is Ubuntu 64. And by the way, if you think im wrong how the things tick. Please enlighten me.

Not with that post please, show me better. Because the case you showed in this small post is a single case, sigle app being launched. Windows Vista SP1 in the first boot in a non-OEM instalation (Non-OEM. i mean the normal ones, not the ones that comes with dells and HPs of the world) boots with more than 40 processes. It takes about 800 MB Ram on the first boot.

Ok, i think you never used Vista with 1 GB ram.
If you read the stream of meanigless crap you would understand, but because im in a bad hair day, and i post during work sometimes things off the chart (putting up with so called IT techie this time, too bad his Xeons cant pass the 30% load, but that is a diferent story) because im pissed because of work affairs.

Ive already apologized for it before and ill do it now. Sorry about being rash, bad hair day. Now enlighten me with your words please. Thank you.
a b à CPUs
August 20, 2008 10:30:23 PM

Dude - This is getting absolutely absurd...


It's a CACHE - It puts unused memory to work. The value add is that it keeps track of what you use and what you don't use, and when you use it. So over time it becomes more and more efficient as it learns your habits. It starts with a generic profile that Microsoft thinks is a decent place to start (eMail, explorer, etc), and over time learns that User A works during the week, using VMware, Excel, and Outlook. But plays games on the weekends. And it caches the startup files needed for these apps in memory so they launch faster.

The point of the thumb drive is if you don't have 'enough' ram, then instead of paging back and forth to the hard drive, it uses the faster flash memory as a cache. Is that as fast as more RAM? Nope. But it's certainly faster than a page file.

All this crap about USB consuming CPU resources, or a thumb drive somehow magically mapping itself into MMI/O address allocation tables, or somehow "flooding" a cpu?? I don't even know what drove you to pull that out. The only thing I can think of is you wanted to holler at someone anyhow, and this served as a convenient outlet.


But clearly, at this point I find it hard to believe you're even interested in listening to anyone. Rather arguing for the sake of having something to do.


Instead, here's real information on how this actually works. And from a reputable site:

http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=2917&p=...

No hype. No Hyperbole. No BS. This is what it does. And yes, there are graphs for 512MB.
August 20, 2008 11:33:00 PM

Scotteq said:
Dude - This is getting absolutely absurd...

It's a CACHE - It puts unused memory to work.


Dude, this is a exchange of opinions, and yes we both agree that is cache. Now, with systems with less ram don't have enough resources to use superfetch. And for the ReadyBoost, not every card reader (in laptops) and Pen Drive gets aproved by Readyboost. ReadyBoost was made not for you and me, but help the "value" costumer to use vista in a cheap way.

So lets remove quite a few computers and loads of models of pen drives , because they dont fit the standarts for ReadyBoost.

Now, putting that aside, and saying you have a good pen drive or Card im quoting anandtech on this one aswell.

Quote:


ReadyBoost makes a very significant impact on performance here. With 4GB of flash dedicated to ReadyBoost, we saw an increase in performance of over 47%. However for the cost of a 4GB flash drive you could probably upgrade to 1GB of memory which results in an even larger performance gain. That said, if you don't want to open up your system, ReadyBoost does actually work.



It works and pretty well. Some tests revealed it does nothing, others reveal it helps alot. But like in that quote said, and correctly buying a good 4GB USB pen or upgrading your RAM you might find it better to upgrade your ram. It is cheap and might give better results.

Readyboost with slower HDD. People with WD Raptors won't be candidates for ReadyBoost. People with 5400 RPM laptop drives are. Quoting Anandtech once more.

Quote:





ReadyBoost doesn't seem to do any better with a slower hard drive, although we'd suspect that you may see bigger gains on similarly old notebook drives.


The thing is for the Joe Costumer that ReadyBoost was made, it isn't much effective. While i agree with you that caching or preloading Apps you use the most is a great idea, you need to have resources for it. Thats is why i ussually take down Superfetch. Joe Consumer doesn't want to run around with a pen drive sticked in the back of the laptop and much less want to pay for it. The memory that is freed by shutting down superfetch is in better use by having other apps.

Superfetch and ReadyBoost are indeed great ideas, but not in this incarnation. I guess we will both use them as we please we just have diferent ideas on the subject. Ill keep shutting it down, and recomend it to be shut down, (like the indexing service, might be good in WinFS, but now it is pointless imho)and you will keep recomending Superfecth/readyboost combo. I agree we disagree on this one.

PS:Tomorow ill get more hard info on the USB Bus.
a b à CPUs
August 21, 2008 1:04:21 AM

...

The graphs clearly show an improvement - and the less RAM you have, the more it helps. End of Discussion - Game, Set, match.


Now, I agree on one aspect: If you are using a Piece of Sh*t computer that doesn't have USB 2.0, and is so completely underpowered that handling a stinking thumb drive is a burden system resources, then yes. You shouldn't use Vista/Superfetch.

"by the way USB BUS consumes CPU resources !!!! In a cramped machine by lack of ram, and excess use of HDD because of trash process, that is perfect way to go !!! Flood the CPU even more !!!!!"


Besides that? Thank you for wasting my time
August 23, 2008 6:15:47 PM

well that X2 4400 combo deal was a steal...I recently upgraded to an X2 6000+ have been blown away at the performance...I spent a little over $400 on my rig (using old hdd and dvd drive) and cant believe how fast the computer is for a budget rig...I definitely don't see myself ever spending a ridiculous amount of money on a rig...
August 23, 2008 6:46:40 PM

radnor said:
Yes, don't tell them. Keep quiet god dam it. Let them keep those paws off Vista 64.
Vista is a pretty good system once you do:

Bust UAC.
The Hell with Superfetch.
Shutdown Windows Defender.
Indexing Service my a$$.
Activate 2 Cpus during boot (msconfig, only one is by default)

And this from the top of my head. Vista 64 runs pretty well on AMDs.

Vista 64 runs pretty well on AMDs. I wrote this. Good god, leet kiddies with Nehalem t-shirts and Larrabee Axes are after me. Only say it in secret, never in a public forum. Oh "·$% !!


EDIT:msconfig and services.msc are your friends. If you have 8gigs the page file can go fack off.

Disabling superfetch will ONLY slow down your pc if you have at least 2 gb ram, and disabling uac is retarded when you can use tweak uac to put it in silent mode, no prompts, while still being much more secure.

Also that msconfig tweak does NOTHING and was disproved long ago back in the xp days. Vista WILL use all cores by default at boot time.
!