Windows Vista Vista and Superfetch

[floppybootstomp]

I know this has been mentioned here before but I thought I'd try and see just what impact this Superfetch facility has on memory within Vista.

Here's a link to an article claiming Superfetch is something of a resource hog:

Just say no to Superfetch

I checked how much of my 2Gb memory was cached with Superfetch enabled, it was 1453.

I then disabled superfetch. I also stopped a few programs starting up at boot, Nero Backitup, several Logitech programs and Steam. Most of those I could not disable within Windows Defender and I had to use the startup panel in Run/msconfig. I disabled six programs in all.

Rebooted and brought up the Task manager.

And the result is pictured below. Disabling Superfetch and a few startup programs freed up over 700Mb of memory. And when the OS is running on 2Gb, that's a significant amount.

It does also show, I guess, that Vista still uses a helluva lot of memory, 1.13Gb in my case if I've interpreted this correctly.

 

[Taffycat]

That is food for thought - I've just been checking-out my cache, which is 1275 with Prefetch enabled.

Do you suppose it would make any difference to BOINC if Prefetch was disabled? I'm thinking probably not, but just thought it worth asking

 

[Adywebb]

TC - looking at the erratic CPU usage history in your Task manager, it seems that you may have Boinc set to something like 60 or 80% CPU usage rather than 100%.

That may be what you want but just want to make sure in case it wasn't

I doubt disabling prefetch would have much difference on Boinc performance as the current projects aren't really memory intensive, however I guess if your running alot of programs along side as well it may help.

 

[floppybootstomp]

I've found out a little more about Superfetch.

Apparently when any other program demands it, the memory cache is freed up.

So on that assumption I'm sure it will make no difference to BOINC.

Where Superfetch is a resource hog, apparently, is when it deigns to know what you're going to use that particular session and preloads all the files it thinks you'll need.

Even if you disable Superfetch, caching in the style of XP will still take place.

I've found that having Superfetch enabled or disabled makes no discernible difference at all to my use of Vista.

 

[muckshifter]

I quite like how SuperFetch 'works' in Vista ... such things as your AV, Win Defender, diskeeper ( ) & malware scanner will load in the background and only run when you ain't too busy, your work always comes first. Well, that's what it's intended to do.

With SuperFetch, background tasks still run when the computer is idle. However, when the background task is finished, SuperFetch repopulates system memory with the data you were working with before the background task ran. Now, when you return to your desk, your programs will continue to run as efficiently as they did before you left.

... and ...

... it tracks how often you access certain memory pages and over time will develop profiles of the applications you use. "These profiles include fairly complex patterns," ... "It learns that you can use different applications on weekdays and weekend days, for example, and tracks [PC] job and computer use changes." The net result is that when a memory-intensive task pushes cached memory pages out, SuperFetch will monitor operations and pull the pages back in as soon as possible to avoid a disk-intensive slowdown when you go back to using more commonly accessed applications.

Once again, where ever I read about SuperFetch and ReadyBoost all say the same thing ... the more ram you have, the less you need to rely on SuperFetch and ReadyBoost ... but used together on a PC with minimal ram, there is a distinct improvement.

Ref:
Tom's Hardware tests
Microsoft
Gizmo
Paul Thurrott ... news editor for Windows IT Pro

... and many others.

 

[floppybootstomp]

I've found that having Superfetch enabled or disabled makes no discernible difference at all to my use of Vista.

Source:

Tony Sullivan

PC Review UK
BBF Forums USA



All that in/out makes for a helluva lot of disk activity.

My Western Digital Raptors are not the quietest disks on the market and shortly after boot the noise as the Superfetch kicks in is quite alarming.

Is all that extra activity shortening the lives of my hard disks I wonder?

 

[muckshifter]

Is all that extra activity shortening the lives of my hard disks I wonder?

maybe ...

All that in/out makes for a helluva lot of disk activity.

Don't notice it myself ... well, unless you count the times I mess with RAW pics, then I do ... otherwise I 'hear' nothing and 'see' very little in the way my HD performs.

Still using the same Maxtor I had 4 years ago ... the new SATA drive is for me pics, and, where they are stored, maybe that makes a difference?

All I was really pointing out is ... if you have enough ram, then you won't 'see' any difference ... I do use SuperFetch and ReadyBoost on my 2Mb system and I 'think' it helps with the said files.

 

[floppybootstomp]

Well, I dunno, I guess it's probably not a bad thing for some folk, but not for me.

I mean, Microsoft assume peeps are going to be doing the same things on their computer everyday.

I think the only things I do with any consistency on this computer every day are look at the two forums I'm part of and play some CoD 4.

Since I disabled Superfetch this morning it's worth mentioning that I am now enjoying relative quiet again, my hard disks have stopped acting like they've got a bad case of St Vitus Dance

I will say this though, at least Vista is tweakable. It does come with a lot of 'nanny' functions enabled by default but if we dig deep enough, we can pick and choose those functions. And I've chosen not to use Superfetch.

I still have UAC enabled though, it doesn't irritate me too much. Still have auto updates on as well.

Speaking of which, I still haven't been granted SP1, can't think why the hell I'm not getting it via auto-update. My spec's in my sig, I don't think anything there would disagree with Vista's SP1.

 

[muckshifter]

Each and every PC is different ... and used in a different way.


Try loading MS's default drivers, I suspect, from what little I have read on the subject, that one, or more, may be infringing on auto-update ... or do as others have done, download the whole SP1 and update that way.

MS auto-update will not offer you SP1 if it "thinks" it may cause a problem, or, has detected a driver/hardware on its incompatibility list.

 

[Taffycat]

Since I disabled Superfetch this morning it's worth mentioning that I am now enjoying relative quiet again, my hard disks have stopped acting like they've got a bad case of St Vitus Dance

My Vista PC runs very quietly, in fact, I don't notice any difference in it's noise level, whatever I happen to be doing. ........Which is more than I can say for the XP PC, which "rumbles" whenever the HD is busy

TC - looking at the erratic CPU usage history in your Task manager, it seems that you may have Boinc set to something like 60 or 80% CPU usage rather than 100%.

Ady you're correct regarding the erratic appearance of my Task Manager's Usage History; I've just been checking and see that I have it set to use 75% memory when the PC is in use. (I set that some time ago and had forgotten.)

I still have UAC enabled though, it doesn't irritate me too much. Still have auto updates on as well.

An admission ... I disabled UAC, because it was so annoying to have it interrupting whenever I clicked on anything. I know it is not recommended, but a non-irritated TC, is a patient and more careful TC I have auto updates turned on though

I've not yet altered my Prefetch, guessing that there might be more discussion as the day progressed. Hmm, decisions, decisions

 

[Adywebb]

Ady you're correct regarding the erratic appearance of my Task Manager's Usage History; I've just been checking and see that I have it set to use 75% memory when the PC is in use. (I set that some time ago and had forgotten.)

I leave mine at 100% and it never seems to effect what I'm doing on my PC - it should give way to other tasks anyway as its set to run at the lowest priority. However if I'm doing DVD burning or encoding I do shut down Boinc completely just to reduce the chance of corruption.

I installed Vista Ultimate 64bit on one of my crunchers yesterday to see what all the fuss was about....and the first thing I did was disable UAC - I'm happy that I'm careful enough in what I do not to need a 'nanny'

 

[Taffycat]

FAO Floppybootstomp

Speaking of which, I still haven't been granted SP1, can't think why the hell I'm not getting it via auto-update. My spec's in my sig, I don't think anything there would disagree with Vista's SP1.

I just wondered whether this would be of any use - I received it in a Microsoft newsletter thingy today.

Overview

This tool is being offered because an inconsistency was found in the Windows servicing store which may prevent the successful installation of future updates, service packs, and software. This tool checks your computer for such inconsistencies and attempts to resolve issues if found.

This update is provided to you and licensed under the Windows Vista License Terms.

Link Herehttp://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...06-D9F1-4700-ACF3-3A58D533597A&displaylang=en

 

[crazylegs]

I told my dog Vista to go prefetch me my slippers but he was having none of it..

 

[floppybootstomp]

I just wondered whether this would be of any use - I received it in a Microsoft newsletter thingy today.





Link Herehttp://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...06-D9F1-4700-ACF3-3A58D533597A&displaylang=en

Sad to say that fix is for 64 Bit systems only, I'm running 32 Bit Vista.

But thanks for looking

 

[Taffycat]

Oh sorry Flopps, I know it's dumb, but I keep getting muddled about 64 bit and AMD 64 32 bit... if you see what I mean One of these days I will have a Eureeka moment.... well that's the plan anyway

 

[Adywebb]

Sad to say that fix is for 64 Bit systems only, I'm running 32 Bit Vista.

How about this one HERE Flops?

 

[floppybootstomp]

How about this one HERE Flops?

Installed that, 'checked for updates' still zilch

The only optional updates I haven't installed are:

Silverlight
HP Printer, which is actually on another computer but shared via Network.
Nvidia Video Drivers

I don't know why it wants to install Nvidia Video drivers as I have a recent Beta installed, a set of drivers optimised for Unreal Tournament 3, which work well with all my games.

Maybe it wants to see the latest official drivers, the certified ones.

The hell with this, anyway, I think I'll download SP1 and install it myself.

And if this thing crashes I want my money back