GrofLuigi Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Just some theoretical thoughts (contra prefetch): 1. What if some virus finds a way to insert itself in the prefetch cache? There isn't one yet, but who knows...2. Do you want additional code between you and the hardware? Prefetch is monitoring what you execute and preloading it. Why not just load it when it's needed? It will never guess 100 %.3. How can you be sure there isn't some bug in that extraneous code that's executing all the time? Do you think Microsoft writes perfect code? (In this case, code that's not absolutely necessary.)4. Microsoft pushed prefetch with XP because people complained of slow boot times with Windows 2000. It is no magical pill that will speed up your computer 200 % nor does it cooperate with other windows subsystems (except that it's embedded in Task Scheduler service).5. Every monitoring takes cpu cycles and memory, however insignificant thay may be. IMHO this is ridiculous, slowing down your machine so that you have the impression of it operating faster.As I said, these are just MY thoughts from the real world, not something that's been quoted over and over a 1000 times. I tried to think up some PRO arguments, but honestly, could not think of even one. OK, maybe there's one:1. Your computer will boot in 25 seconds instead of 40.GL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uvmain Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Just some theoretical thoughts (contra prefetch): 1. What if some virus finds a way to insert itself in the prefetch cache? There isn't one yet, but who knows...this wouldn't make you more suceptable to viruses.. it would just make the virus run quicker 2. Do you want additional code between you and the hardware? Prefetch is monitoring what you execute and preloading it. Why not just load it when it's needed? It will never guess 100 %.which is why I only recommend boot prefetch and not app prefetch.. you *need* those files everytime your computer switches on 5. Every monitoring takes cpu cycles and memory, however insignificant thay may be. IMHO this is ridiculous, slowing down your machine so that you have the impression of it operating faster.1. Your computer will boot in 25 seconds instead of 40.yup.. and without app prefetch, this is the only effect it will have. w00t GLif you have a computer with 2 gigs of ram, which pretty much everyone i know does nowadays (except for my parents), you'd getter a larger speed increase from loading the kernel into ram, or whatever the option is actually called in the nLite tweaks.with both of these options, windows not only boots quicker, but is much more responsive when alt-tabbing between apps and Explorer. Every little helps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoeman Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 (edited) you'd getter a larger speed increase from loading the kernel into ram, or whatever the option is actually called in the nLite tweaks.Is this the option you mentioned - "Disable paging of Kernel and Core-os" ?Is 1GB of RAM is enough for using that option? or at least 2GB? Edited November 17, 2006 by shoeman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uvmain Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 1 gig could be enough.. depends what you use your machine for. iirc, xp used around 250 megs o' ram.. this would leave 750 megs in your system for use before it starts paging.. if you start paging textures whilst playing a game, that game is gonna chug to the max.I find that even with two gigs, this option can have its downside.. for instance, whilst using photshop. PS just loves to eat all the RAM it can but with two gigs, it's nt often that a game can chew up 1.7gigs, so disabling kernel paging isn't hurtful maybe i'll take out one of my 1GB sticks, and see if it has much of an effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponch Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 As I said, these are just MY thoughts from the real world, not something that's been quoted over and over a 1000 times. I tried to think up some PRO arguments, but honestly, could not think of even one. OK, maybe there's one:1. Your computer will boot in 25 seconds instead of 40.I thought we were talking about something that makes boot time longer to speed up application launching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uvmain Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 (edited) I thought we were talking about something that makes boot time longer to speed up application launching. nLite gives you 4 options for prefetch:1: disabled - no prefetch2: boot only - speeds up boot times3: app only - slows down boot times, speeds app, launch time4: boot and app - sppeds up app time, and boot timeobviously, option 4 will incur a slower boot due to applaunch prefetch.but if only boot prefetch is used, the system will boot faster.It all depends which option you choose.. I personally use and would recommend Boot Prefetch only. In this instance, Grofluigi is right. If he is talking about Prefetch enabled to the vanilla XP default, boot *can* still be slightly quicker.. it depends on how much crap you have installed. Edited November 17, 2006 by uvmain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGadAllah Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 For my own think... I think you are right guys about enabling only Boot option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrofLuigi Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 I am sorry to dig up an old thread, and very very sorry to quote myself, but couldn't help it when I saw this from about the most credible source there is...How should I put it... ahem... I told you so... I just pray for Vista/7 users that there are no bugs in Fileinfo.sys 3. How can you be sure there isn't some bug in that extraneous code that's executing all the time? Do you think Microsoft writes perfect code? (In this case, code that's not absolutely necessary.)GL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tain Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 Funny coincidence. I was just reading this thread earlier today while trying to determine if I should enable prefetch for an SSD-based box Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinifera Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 (edited) bump from me...how offtopic it is staff should decide...but if i use defragmenter which is set up to put .exe and .dll fileson the outer tracks (edges) of my system drive, then app prefetch is useless right ?cause windows would not only have to access some of same files twice but would also lurkmore around hard drive for prefetch data instead just picking up closest location (outer track data)true ? Edited October 9, 2009 by vinifera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now