Vista Superfetch

[adamzapple]

Thanks to TheRPG for opening my eyes on this subject.

After testing Vista now on two 100% identical machines for close to 48 hours I have discovered that by having superfetch set NOT TO monitor at start-up makes a big difference on a Vista PC while it?s booting up.

I started off with two identical almost bare (only basic software installed) Vista machines. One with superfetch enabled at boot-up & the other without. In the beginning they both loaded quickly and there did not seem to be any difference in boot up speed, if anything the superfetch enabled machine was a little quicker.

But then I started loading programs, Zip & RAR, Antispyware, Limewire, ATI drivers, NOD32 etc, on each machine and I noticed the more I loaded the machines up with programs the slower the enabled superfetch PC became with each boot-up.

I eventually loaded 43 programs on each machine and this is what I discovered:

The time it takes for the system that has the superfetch set NOT TO RUN AT BOOT-UP is twice as fast. This tweaked system now gets to the stage where you can actually start to use the PC and go online nearly 35 seconds quicker than the identical machine that is still superfetching at boot-up. I must stress that they are both identical ASUS OS's running the exact same setups and installed programs.

Now getting back to my Personal Home machine which is a DELL, here are the results:

Before I turned off superfetch to load programs into my system at start-up, Vista would boot up to my desktop very quickly, but then it would just hang for about 2 minutes while superfetch loaded everything. The programs it was superfetching where totally unnecessary, (get a freeware program called "autoruns" by Sysinternals and quickly run it to monitor what superfetch actually loads at start-up) You will then understand what I am talking about.

Registry settings to turn off superfetch at boot: (taken from TheRPG's post)

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management\PrefetchParameters]

"EnableSuperfetch"=dword:00000002

"EnablePrefetcher"=dword:00000001

Since turning superfetch off at boot up by changing the Reg settings this 2 minute limbo has stopped without any notable side effects to anything else.

Superfetch still works but only after the PC has booted, and the prefetch still loads the essential goodies at start up like it did in XP.

The things you have to take into account here is that Microsoft would have tested Vista with only a few "if any" programs installed onto their OS's at Redmond, and in that scenario Vista still boots up quickly with superfetch enabled at startup.

But once you start to load lots of programs onto Vista having the Superfetch running at boot up actually slows down the start up process.

Typically the Microsoft Gurus would not have seen this in their tests on their own machines and for that reason they did not pay much attention to the Beta Testers reports because they (Microsoft) would not have been able to duplicate the problem themselves with just a handful of programs running on their Vista's.(And I know there was quite a few Beta testers having concerns with Vista's slow start-ups)

Now this tweak has not slowed down anything else on my machine.Nothing is actually disabled, settings have just been changed for the better. Programs still open as fast or maybe even faster than they did before. Overall the performance of all 3 PC's I tested has increased.

I know some of you will dispute this info and that is OK as well, but the facts speak for themselves.

Now go forth and plagiarize

[stiff~meister]

This is awesome info thanks man... Does the superfetch work together with the readyboost function or are they seperate?

stiff

[jmc777]

Before I turned off superfetch to load programs into my system at start-up, Vista would boot up to my desktop very quickly, but then it would just hang for about 2 minutes while superfetch loaded everything.

I've never experienced anything that could be described as a "hang". My ageing PC allows me to do anything I want whilst Superfetch is working away in the background. :huh:

[Panacik]

Im not really sure this works to be honest. However you can switch of superfetch in services, but to truely turn it of set the dword value to 0. Settings for the dword are as follows:

0=Off

1=Prefetch boot process

2=Application Prefetch

3=Prefetch both

[franzon]

I have the superfetch enabled and Vista is faster than XP:

the boot is faster than XP;

the desktop is faster to become ready than XP, it's more responsive and so I can start working as the desktop is shown;

the applications are loaded faster than XP

My PC is old: P4 1.7GHz, 768MB RAM, Geforce 6200 AGP 256MB.

Edited August 23, 2007 by franzon

[ViperAFK]

I have the superfetch enabled and Vista is faster than XP:

the boot is faster than XP;

the desktop is faster to become ready than XP, it's more responsive and so I can start working as the desktop is shown;

the applications are loaded faster than XP

My PC is old: P4 1.7GHz, 768MB RAM, Geforce 6200 AGP 256MB.

same here, my pc boots just as fast as XP, when I first log in prefetch does it's thing for a minute or so but my computer doesn't slow down at all while it's doing it so it doesn't really matter to me. My applications load faster than in XP also.

[abc@home]

I used to turn off superfetch. But after a restore from ghost image, I happened to find that applications start light year faster with superfetch enabled.

[raskren]

The things you have to take into account here is that Microsoft would have tested Vista with only a few "if any" programs installed onto their OS's at Redmond, and in that scenario Vista still boots up quickly with superfetch enabled at startup.

But once you start to load lots of programs onto Vista having the Superfetch running at boot up actually slows down the start up process.

Typically the Microsoft Gurus would not have seen this in their tests on their own machines and for that reason they did not pay much attention to the Beta Testers reports because they (Microsoft) would not have been able to duplicate the problem themselves with just a handful of programs running on their Vista's.(And I know there was quite a few Beta testers having concerns with Vista's slow start-ups)

Is this the supposed conclusion? Do you have a source to back up these statements or did you make them up?

[Panacik]

Is this the supposed conclusion? Do you have a source to back up these statements or did you make them up?

As soon as i read the words "would have" i stopped reading. "Would have" implys that he is unsure and has no solid proof that they deffinatly did.

[Linkinfamous]

It's a trade off. If I disable Superfetch, the minute or so of horrible lag after a reboot is gone, but word, IE, etc. all take longer to load.

Since I so very rarely reboot, it's a no brainer: leave it on.

[kouhii00]

doesn't matter how long it took you to take your tests if it can't be reproduced by others then your test is flawed. If you have that much time to spend on testing 1 feature of vista you should go outside and get a job instead. If you already have one, then I guess time wasted.

[stiff~meister]

just re installed vista, these settings are enabled with the highest of performance enabled. No need for the reg key

stiff

[Guest]

It's a trade off. If I disable Superfetch, the minute or so of horrible lag after a reboot is gone, but word, IE, etc. all take longer to load.

Since I so very rarely reboot, it's a no brainer: leave it on.

Not really if you system is on Raid 0 configuration. Then Superfetch has no meaning....

[kiddingguy]

It's a trade off. If I disable Superfetch, the minute or so of horrible lag after a reboot is gone, but word, IE, etc. all take longer to load.

Since I so very rarely reboot, it's a no brainer: leave it on.

+1

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

my Vista boot time is definitely slower than XPs was. After the scrolling status bar goes for a few seconds, the screen goes black for around 20 seconds, then the circular windows logo pops up and it finally boots to the desktop.

i'll play around w/ this setting and see if it does anything for me.

[rtk]

Not really if you system is on Raid 0 configuration. Then Superfetch has no meaning....

Not even close to accurate. NO drive array, raid 0 or otherwise, is even close to the speed of the RAM in your system.

drives are an order of magnitude slower.

[Mark Schieldrop]

Not really if you system is on Raid 0 configuration. Then Superfetch has no meaning....

Not quite. Even the fastest HD/Raid combination in the world still is slower than something precached in memory. Superfetch always provides a benefit, even if you THINK it doesn't.

[Guest]

Not even close to accurate. NO drive array, raid 0 or otherwise, is even close to the speed of the RAM in your system.

drives are an order of magnitude slower.

The thing is that superfetch doesn't load let's say a complete game in a RAM. It does load something, but it has almost no meaning if you run Raid 0 configuration.

With superfetch or without your computer still needs to load the game from hard drive, and that's the point. I'm not sure what is happenning as you add more and more memory. I guess Superfetch loads more 'garbage' from hard drive to Ram.

I run Vista X64 with 4GB and memory usage when the system idles is 39%.

Here is some fact. A lot of CPU and Hard Drive and Ram time are wasted by Superfetch. Why? Well, Superfetch has to load the data from hard drive into RAM, which your computer will do it anyway when you start app/game. The data are not coming from nowhere but from hard drive into RAM, which means hard drive has to spend equal or same amount of time as it Superfetch is disabled. Now you can waste a lot of CPU, Hard Drive, Ram time cause Superfetch loads up the thing you're not gonna even maybe use.

I look at Superfetch as software version of hardware solution for this problem, and that's OS in ROM chip which loads up instantly and that's the future.

Edited August 24, 2007 by red_star

[franzon]

With superfetch or without your computer still needs to load the game from hard drive, and that's the point. I'm not sure what is happenning as you add more and more memory. I guess Superfetch loads more 'garbage' from hard drive to Ram.

YOU WRONG!

Superfetch learns which applications and data should be kept in memory, superfetch assigns a priority to memory's pages.

Without Superfetch, the applications and data are stored in memory in a "flat" way like in Windows XP, they haven't a priority, and so the memory managment is not able to learn what are the best programs and data it should keep in memory, it's not able to learn which programs and data should unload from the memory. Without Superfetch your hard drive activity is increased because the right programs and data are not found in memory, they are unloaded without any intelligent criterion and this means your hard drive has to reload them.

Without Superfetch the programs are loaded and unloaded in a raw way, causing a lot of hard drive activity because you lose the low I/O priority feature for loading/unloading memory's pages.

Edited August 24, 2007 by franzon

[rtk]

The thing is that superfetch doesn't load let's say a complete game in a RAM. It does load something, but it has almost no meaning if you run Raid 0 configuration.

Again, you are incorrect. No drive, SCSI, SATA, PATA, or Raid array is faster than RAM, and will not be for the foreseeable future. Robson/hybrid drives and solid state drives moves it forward, but still an order of maginitude exists between the speeds.

A decent 7200 RPM PATA drive with Superfetch on a reasonably profiled machine will seem much more responsive than a 15000RPM RAID0 array without Superfetch, until your usage falls well outside the profile.

With superfetch or without your computer still needs to load the game from hard drive, and that's the point.

The point is, if you can have half the game's dlls loaded in precache before you even launch the game, half the loading is already done.

I'm not sure what is happenning as you add more and more memory. I guess Superfetch loads more 'garbage' from hard drive to Ram.

If the programs you run on a daily basis are garbage, then your assumption would be correct.

I run Vista X64 with 4GB and memory usage when the system idles is 39%.

What an incredible waste of RAM.

[Xtreme2damax]

Most likely they are running a fast enough system already that compensates any slowdowns or sluggishness. So it wouldn't matter if they were running XP, Vista or any other OS because they would most likely not notice any slowdown.

Ok, now on to Superfetch the greatest thing ever, loads apps faster by caching them into memory supposedly. Ok if Superfetch was so magnificent then why is my whole Vista UI completely sluggish and unresponsive? Now supposedly if you run a memory demanding app, close it and open another app, it will load much faster compared to XP or with Superfetch disabled. Even if you're not running any apps at the time it will load things faster compared to XP or with the feature disabled.

Mind you my PC is Vista Premium/Ultimate Ready/Capable, Dual Core AMD64, Graphics card sucks, well sort of low end geforce 6150, however can play Lost Planet: Extreme Condition fine on the absolute lowest settings Albeit significant slowdown in large areas or action on the screen. Should run the Vista UI fine since I can play this without any real slowdowns or sluggishness, right? Well wrong, the Vista UI is extremely sluggish for me even with the performance & reliability packs, taking longer than XP to load anything, browse folders/control panel, sluggish effects. Some programs don't kill properly by the task manager sitting there eating memory. Network connectivity problems, I'll start downloading then wireless signal will cut out crippling the network until I unplug/replug in the router. Many more as well in the way of compatibility, sluggishness/performance problems as well.

Now on to what I've experience using Vista for a while, apps do not load any faster than XP. In fact they are 2x slower than if I did the same thing on XP, completely sluggish to hell. Apps that I load after closing a game, load slower than if If I opened them before using any other programs/games.

Sorry, but this is a joke to me that I can't believe you fell for it especially since it's coming from Microsoft, a lying, deceptive, greedy, evil monopolistic company which steps over it's customers, squashes the little or middleman (Competition) with it's corporate greed. Threatens bogus lawsuits (Linux) with proclaimed IP infringement without valid proof although they incorporate ideas in their OS from other OS's. When asked to present code to study as a means of aforementioned possible infringement they refuse with closed source or whatever argument they use to avoid possible suits. Incorporating Intrusive DRM/WGA and activation which in the end is a hassle for legit consumers since pirates are happily using their cracked, DRM/Wga, and activation free copies of windows without worries. Is trying to eliminate linux by bogus claims, getting them to jump ship or pay them a royalty like fee for unproven IP infringement. Also they basically treat everyone as a pirate by forcing Wga/Activation and DRM. Also in the past the OS had tons of security flaws, where even browsing the web can get you a nasty Trojan or Virus, the OS that crashes a bit to much. The company that has a poor track record, monopoly lawsuits or lawsuits and much other concerning behavior.

Finally in Vista they are starting to do something right, but it's a Far cry than what they could be doing with the OS if they just listened to the consumer, what they do/don't want (Less Intrusive/No DRM or WGA), No hassle with Activations. People are going to pirate regardless of what schemes are in place and will find a way to avoid it So what's the use?

I'm not bashing Windows, even using Vista/XP myself legally bought in a dual-boot config. I was just trying to say, take anything Microsoft says with a grain of salt due to their past record/history. I thought my Experience with Vista would be WoW, but so far it's been Meh.

Although if my or any Games/Apps had 100% compatibility with Linux, I wouldn't hesitate and would switch completely in a heartbeat. :p

Ignore the consistency or coherency and spelling/grammar of my comment, as it's almost 3am EST here where I live and I'm dead tired.

G'Day and Night. :sleep:

Edited August 25, 2007 by bmaher
Removed certain phrases.

[argonite]

Ram is going to suck up power whether you've filled it or not. If you have RAM to spare, you might as well fill it with something.

[kouhii00]

Xtreme2damax, so you wanna explain to me why my system still runs fast and load everything fast EVEN when my settings are in power saver WHICH UNDER CLOCKS my CPU to 800MHz. My spec are as follows:

Laptop

C2D T7300 2GHz

2GB RAM

Intel X3100 graphics card (3.5 WEI)

200GB HDD

OR Anyone wanna explain WHY MY SYSTEM LOADS APPS FAST and browsing the internet with NO LAG before you guys talk more **** about vista.

Edited August 25, 2007 by kouhii00

[marc2003]

<snip>

has it not occurred to you, that your setup has serious issues? you really think vista performs as badly as that for everyone and we're just lapping it up? please. :rofl:

so your pc is vista certified? complain to your oem. they're the ones at fault here.

just for the record, i'm running vista on a somewhat decrepit old s478 mobo (asus p4c800e dlx). that's 4 years old now. my cpu is a pentium m which is well over 2 years old. single core, 32bit only, 1.7ghz..... vista absolutely flies on it. admittedly i have 2gb of ram. i do concede vista needs this amount to function properly. and i have just the one single sata hard drive. running vista, my pc is much faster than xp for launching applications/browsing folders/everything. even all my games play just fine. admittedly i haven't bought any new games so can't compare but all my old games like hl2/quake4/gta:sa run at the same settings as i could manage in xp.

as for the 2nd half of your post, have one of these -> :laugh:

[muf]

just for the record, i'm running vista on a somewhat decrepit old s478 mobo (asus p4c800e dlx). that's 4 years old now. my cpu is a pentium m which is well over 2 years old. single core, 32bit only, 1.7ghz..... vista absolutely flies on it. admittedly i have 2gb of ram. i do concede vista needs this amount to function properly.

Actually, I'm running Vista Ultimate on an Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe with an Athlon 2400+ and 1GB RAM, Radeon 9700 Pro with Aero turned on, and it still manages to perform better than XP. I have some complaints about booting up slowly, and stuff like TrustedInstaller suddenly doing some stuff behind my back (on single-core systems this is still an issue), but then I dualboot into XP and it has just these same problems, + more. Anyhow, I just wanted to mention that it runs fine on 1GB RAM too.