Recommended Posts

Yes. System restore is useless - until the first time you need it - and then it's invaluable. Unless you have a third party backup or imaging utility (such as True Image or Ghost) you should leave System Restore enabled. And even if you do have one of those utilities, there's no advantage to disabling System Restore except for disk space. And of course there's a huge pinned thread on UAC and why it makes no sense to disable it - it should just be set to silent mode if the pop-up warnings bother you. And then there's Superfetch - why exactly would someone disable that?

Oh well, to each his own ;)

System Restore has saved me a bunch of times. I would never disable it. It is better than SR was in Xp.

User Account Control

System Protection (drives are imaged, data stored seperately)

Superfetch

Windows Search

Sidebar

Security Center

Windows Modules Installer (I enable it whenever I need it, it stops TrustedInstaller barraging my CPU (and battery life)).

As for superfetch, battery life for me is more important than applications starting 2 seconds faster, and the constant hard drive thrashing that superfetch causes has a severe negative impact on battery life.

Because it slows down a lot of games and similar applications. It also sits there and crunches at your harddrives for no apparent reasons. The day I turned off, my performance increased for everything *but* the initial loading of programs. But a **** lot of good that does; I'd rather wait an extra second or two for the application to load and then have it run smoothly and effortlessly for the entirity of the session.

Your experiences may vary. Disabling Superfetch definitely speeds things up on my end for the applications I use the most.

Superfetch does NOT slow down games. I have tried superfetch on and off and games and intensive apps that need tons of memory perform the same and apps launch faster. When an application needs memory the cache is instantly purged which is no slower than allocating free memory.

Superfetch also does NOT cause hard drive thrashing, if you have constant drive thrashing it is something else, not superfetch. For me and I have 4 gb of ram superfetch only takes a minute of two to load everything into ram which is hardly "constant thrashing"

I have only disabled the sidebar and put UAC into silent mode on my desktop and laptop. Completely turning off UAC is pointless when you can use silent mode.

Edited by ViperAFK

I turn off Windows Defender and disable its service, Avast already does active scanning for spyware too, don't need two 2 programs doing the same thing.

Windows Search, cause I don't really do much file system searching at all, and when I do I'm fine with the extra ten seconds or so to do it.

Sidebar, cause its just useless to me and never found any gadgets that I reallyyy needed.

System restore, cause its just a waste of drive space and I keep very good backups on my own.

Readyboost service disabled, cause I just neverr use it.

Windows Firewall, I use Comodo.

Security Center, cause its just useless to me. I know the status of my security.

Uh, thats bout it. I've grown to prefer UAC on. I am curious bout SuperFetch now tho, never even tried turning it off. People really seeing performance gains with it off?

I turn off Windows Defender and disable its service, Avast already does active scanning for spyware too, don't need two 2 programs doing the same thing.

Windows Search, cause I don't really do much file system searching at all, and when I do I'm fine with the extra ten seconds or so to do it.

Sidebar, cause its just useless to me and never found any gadgets that I reallyyy needed.

System restore, cause its just a waste of drive space and I keep very good backups on my own.

Readyboost service disabled, cause I just neverr use it.

Windows Firewall, I use Comodo.

Security Center, cause its just useless to me. I know the status of my security.

Uh, thats bout it. I've grown to prefer UAC on. I am curious bout SuperFetch now tho, never even tried turning it off. People really seeing performance gains with it off?

if you have 2 gb of ram or more it will only make your system slower if you disbale it.

Well, I was just playing around with a Virtual Machine of Windows Vista Home Premium on my MacBook starting with 512MB of RAM and slowly moving up the ranks going up to 1.8GB of RAM (I only have 2GB of RAM and Leopard needs at least 200MB of RAM to function properly).

I can safely say that Vista was a LOT faster with SuperFetch OFF on anything below 1GB of RAM, however anything above 1GB SuperFetch was really helping.

For example

Firefox Web Browser 3.1 - 1.5GB of RAM

With Superfetch = 0.8 second load time

Without Superfetch = 3.7 second load time

Microsoft Word 2007 - 1.5GB of RAM

With Superfetch = 2 second load time

Without Superfetch = 12 seconds load time

Obviously I cannot check games as the virtual machine can only render DX7 graphics and i've got nothing that old :D but by the looks of things superfetch DOES dump everything when going into a full screen application. I saw my RAM useage jump from 82% to 12% in a matter of seconds, not paged to disk, dumped!

Superfetch does work in most normal situations, dont disable it.

EDIT: Forgot to mention boot times,

With SuperFetch an Extra 20 seconds, no big deal.

I disabled UAC because I think it is really annoying. I'm the only user of my PC so it's my fault if something goes wrong and I don't need UAC holding my hand and constantly popping up. :p

Also have disabled the sidebar because I don't use it.

Whats the point in buying Vista and disabling the features that make it!?!?!

Maybe because not everyone uses all the features of Vista?

As for the original question, I get rid lots of stuff: sidebar, search indexing, system restore, superfetch, etc...

vLite FTW! :punk:

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      580
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      71
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!