Recommended Posts

The Resource Manager under Vista did not use bytes/second units - it used bytes per minute. When I saw "source 2007 materials.gcf" being read there and the "B/min" value was rising and rising and rising, I think it's fair to conclude it's actualy being read from the disk, and it was done so by svchost.exe with background IO - what other purpose of that than "superfetching" it? Oh, and the amount of free memory kept decreasing, so it wasn't just accessing the data, it was reading it into RAM.

Gotta be honest I don't have the answer to that one all I know is that isn't how its meant to behave, so something must have gone seriously wrong there

Right now i only have 1,5 Gb's of DDR , and i find the Windows 7 superfatch more "adaptive" for smaller ram quantities. I feel photoshop loads just a little slower then vista sp1 . But that's just me and my prehistoric PC .

Superfetch is a placebo which just speeds up the opening of applications, but doesn't really do anything after. I mean, if you have a slow hard drive then it will help, but for people with powerful systems or SSDs - this feature is nothing useful.

To whomever wanted all your RAM stuffed with superfetch, you obviously do not realize that some programs will assume that you have no RAM remaining and as such will run worse or not run due to a lack of RAM. Also this means that your OS will read GBs of data from your hard drive at boot which would reduce performance of your storage medium at that time.

I noticed -no- speed increase of -any- sort with superprefetch compared to having it off. There are better things to waste RAM on, like a RAMDISK for your temporary files.

/my $ 0.02

Superfetch is a placebo which just speeds up the opening of applications, but doesn't really do anything after. I mean, if you have a slow hard drive then it will help, but for people with powerful systems or SSDs - this feature is nothing useful.

To whomever wanted all your RAM stuffed with superfetch, you obviously do not realize that some programs will assume that you have no RAM remaining and as such will run worse or not run due to a lack of RAM. Also this means that your OS will read GBs of data from your hard drive at boot which would reduce performance of your storage medium at that time.

I noticed -no- speed increase of -any- sort with superprefetch compared to having it off. There are better things to waste RAM on, like a RAMDISK for your temporary files.

/my $ 0.02

Superfetch should be disabled with SSD's since it can cause additional stress on the drives.

Superfetch is a placebo which just speeds up the opening of applications, but doesn't really do anything after. I mean, if you have a slow hard drive then it will help, but for people with powerful systems or SSDs - this feature is nothing useful.

To whomever wanted all your RAM stuffed with superfetch, you obviously do not realize that some programs will assume that you have no RAM remaining and as such will run worse or not run due to a lack of RAM. Also this means that your OS will read GBs of data from your hard drive at boot which would reduce performance of your storage medium at that time.

I noticed -no- speed increase of -any- sort with superprefetch compared to having it off. There are better things to waste RAM on, like a RAMDISK for your temporary files.

/my $ 0.02

that's not true...

Personal test, Windows 7 7100 x64

boot > Open Firefox after 5 minutes of idle system with superfetch on = 2.2 seconds

boot > Firefox / 5 minutes idle / superfetch off = 4.6 seconds

Boot > Open notepad after 3 minutes of idle system with superfetch on = 0.5 seconds

Boot > Notepad/ 3 minutes idle /superfetch off = 1.4 seconds

and it continues...

I don't know, but with superfetch I see smaller numbers ;)

Superfetch is a placebo which just speeds up the opening of applications, but doesn't really do anything after. I mean, if you have a slow hard drive then it will help, but for people with powerful systems or SSDs - this feature is nothing useful.

To whomever wanted all your RAM stuffed with superfetch, you obviously do not realize that some programs will assume that you have no RAM remaining and as such will run worse or not run due to a lack of RAM. Also this means that your OS will read GBs of data from your hard drive at boot which would reduce performance of your storage medium at that time.

I noticed -no- speed increase of -any- sort with superprefetch compared to having it off. There are better things to waste RAM on, like a RAMDISK for your temporary files.

/my $ 0.02

I disagree. The application doesn't look and see how much memory is free, it has to make a request to the OS. The OS will then unload some of the superfetched content to make way for the item in memory. Superfetched memory actually shows up as empty memory.

I have 8GB of ram and a quad core CPU, and I can still tell the difference between superfetched and non superfetched applications

Superfetch uses just as much of my 4 gb of ram as vista did...

@jjrambo, ssd's are a loooong way off of becoming standard. Mechanical hdd are not going anywhere too soon.

Superfetch is a placebo which just speeds up the opening of applications, but doesn't really do anything after. I mean, if you have a slow hard drive then it will help, but for people with powerful systems or SSDs - this feature is nothing useful.

To whomever wanted all your RAM stuffed with superfetch, you obviously do not realize that some programs will assume that you have no RAM remaining and as such will run worse or not run due to a lack of RAM. Also this means that your OS will read GBs of data from your hard drive at boot which would reduce performance of your storage medium at that time.

I noticed -no- speed increase of -any- sort with superprefetch compared to having it off. There are better things to waste RAM on, like a RAMDISK for your temporary files.

/my $ 0.02

Even on an ssd it could possibly improve performance because ram is still magnitudes faster but it wouldn't be noticeable and it should be disabled as said above because it can cause more stress on ssds because of their limited writes.

On any traditional hdd system it should definitely be on. The whole point of it is to make apps open faster and it does it well...

And you completely contradicted yourself, saying it works and opens apps faster but is also a placebo, that makes no sense.

http://jaysonrowe.com/2009/01/05/thoughts-...fetch-in-vista/ - read the paragraphs above and below the second screenshot.

I would consider this normal behaviour, because the .vdi file needs to be saved by VirtualBox. This disk activity is caused by VirtualBox.

Edited by jamesVault
sorry, I'm using the Win7 Rc for a month! And it's not a bad install. :rolleyes:

sorry, that doesn't make you right. Before you go off half cocked and comment how wrong we are, you need to read up on the changes to SuperFetch first to understand why they were made and why it was for the better.

And quit using sorry before expressing your opinion each and every time. And learn to capitalize the first letter of your post too while you are at it. You should never be "sorry" for having a opinion, even if it is wrong.

Lets go back to basics here. I thought the general consencus was that Windows7 was much faster than Vista. The experiences here hint that the experence is actually slower? Please correct me if I'm wrong!

It is much faster than Vista on old or low end hardware. It is slightly faster than Vista on good hardware. It is just a very vocal minority claiming other wise.

Superfetch should be disabled with SSD's since it can cause additional stress on the drives.

Windows 7 will do that for you with Trim supported drives.

I have 7 installed on 2 machines, and have had it installed since the RC was released.

My desktop is running x64 and has 4gb of RAM.

My laptop is x32 and has 2gb of RAM.

Win 7 never uses more than 38% of the RAM on the laptop, and never more than 28% on the desktop, even with superfetch enabled.

I don't understand why on some people's machines they say its using 1.5gb just with superfetch? Are they looking somewhere other than task manager for the details?

I have 7 installed on 2 machines, and have had it installed since the RC was released.

My desktop is running x64 and has 4gb of RAM.

My laptop is x32 and has 2gb of RAM.

Win 7 never uses more than 38% of the RAM on the laptop, and never more than 28% on the desktop, even with superfetch enabled.

I don't understand why on some people's machines they say its using 1.5gb just with superfetch? Are they looking somewhere other than task manager for the details?

That's because when you are reading the Task manager, you are reading RAM which is currently being used by applications and services. Windows doesn't add the Superfetch data to that percentage since it's actually free memory, and when an application needs it, it can do it instantly. I think this is to reflect what the actual usage is with applications/services rather than Windows just adding everything on to confuse people.

If you go to the task manager and look at the performance tab, there is a usage box under the 'Memory' indicator graph.

Total = Total system memory

Cached = How much Windows has cached using Superfetch

Available = How much memory is actual available (Free memory + Superfetch data)

Free = What memory is free after Superfetch and applications/services (Total minus Superfetch minus Current Application/Service usage)

Hope this helps.

Superfetch should be disabled with SSD's since it can cause additional stress on the drives.

+1, along with prefetch (dunno if theres a difference but it is a separate registry value), defragmenting, indexing and even readyboot (the thing that re-orders boot items for faster booting).

It was enabled from build 7000 to build 7100, did not try other builds yet.

Disable it ASAP......I get faster load times with all the above disabled on my SSD than I do with it enabled on a standard HDD.....all having it enabled does is wear the SSD out faster for a tiny increase in program load times (a much smaller increase than going from a HDD w/ superfetch to a SSD without superfetch).

As an example, Photoshop CS4 and Word 2007 both take ~2 seconds to load on my SSD without superfetch, on my HDD with superfetch they both took ~8-10 seconds.

I disagree. The application doesn't look and see how much memory is free, it has to make a request to the OS. The OS will then unload some of the superfetched content to make way for the item in memory. Superfetched memory actually shows up as empty memory.

I have 8GB of ram and a quad core CPU, and I can still tell the difference between superfetched and non superfetched applications

A minor correction: the OS doesn't need to "unload" anything from RAM. it simply overwrites the contents of RAM with the stuff it wants to load instead, so there is absolutely no additional performance penalty.

Superfetch is a placebo which just speeds up the opening of applications, but doesn't really do anything after. I mean, if you have a slow hard drive then it will help, but for people with powerful systems or SSDs - this feature is nothing useful.

To whomever wanted all your RAM stuffed with superfetch, you obviously do not realize that some programs will assume that you have no RAM remaining and as such will run worse or not run due to a lack of RAM. Also this means that your OS will read GBs of data from your hard drive at boot which would reduce performance of your storage medium at that time.

I noticed -no- speed increase of -any- sort with superprefetch compared to having it off. There are better things to waste RAM on, like a RAMDISK for your temporary files.

/my $ 0.02

What? Could you elaborate on that? I thought apps worked with virtual memory, meaning that they don't really CARE about physical memory? And let's say that the app really is aware of its location in the physical memory, to get this information wouldn't they have to get it from windows itself? (meaning that even if superfetch was on, windows would report this sector of the RAM as 'free' to the apps?). I thought that , at all times, it is the OS that manages the memory. And "the app thinking there is no ram left and as such will run worse", I didnt know that apps decided to run WORSE at the thought of not having more ram. It's not the app that decides whether or not to use the page file, it is the OS.

Also, it's been reported that windows 7 waits until after boot to start loading the superfetch thing.

What? Could you elaborate on that? I thought apps worked with virtual memory, meaning that they don't really CARE about physical memory? And let's say that the app really is aware of its location in the physical memory, to get this information wouldn't they have to get it from windows itself? (meaning that even if superfetch was on, windows would report this sector of the RAM as 'free' to the apps?). I thought that , at all times, it is the OS that manages the memory. And "the app thinking there is no ram left and as such will run worse", I didnt know that apps decided to run WORSE at the thought of not having more ram. It's not the app that decides whether or not to use the page file, it is the OS.

Also, it's been reported that windows 7 waits until after boot to start loading the superfetch thing.

The guy you quoted is completely mis-understands how Superfetch works.

The guy you quoted is completely mis-understands how Superfetch works.

Yeah, I find it hilarious when random internet tech enthusiasts think they know better than the Windows developers about how Windows works.

Have they so little confidence in Windows that they think the devs would spend time developing stuff that is specifically detrimental to a PC's performance? How would that ever make sense from any perspective?

It's all very tin foil hat...

Yeah, I find it hilarious when random internet tech enthusiasts think they know better than the Windows developers about how Windows works.

Have they so little confidence in Windows that they think the devs would spend time developing stuff that is specifically detrimental to a PC's performance? How would that ever make sense from any perspective?

It's all very tin foil hat...

People complain that Superfetch makes their systems slow, that can be true about Vista when it would Superfetch everything into the memory right after start up, but that's not what happens in Windows 7 since the system waits for you to be idle or not using much of the system, i.e. browsing the interwebs.

Another thing Windows 7 does (which I don't think Vista ever did) is do a WEI on your computer if you leave it on. For example, I was downloading some stuff on Usenet the other night and I just finished installing Windows 7, and I noticed that I needed to do a WEI to get my new scores, but I couldn't be bothered waiting 5 minutes for it to finish. Woke up the next day and noticed it did one over night. Pretty cool! :)

+1, along with prefetch (dunno if theres a difference but it is a separate registry value), defragmenting, indexing and even readyboot (the thing that re-orders boot items for faster booting).

Disable it ASAP......I get faster load times with all the above disabled on my SSD than I do with it enabled on a standard HDD.....all having it enabled does is wear the SSD out faster for a tiny increase in program load times (a much smaller increase than going from a HDD w/ superfetch to a SSD without superfetch).

As an example, Photoshop CS4 and Word 2007 both take ~2 seconds to load on my SSD without superfetch, on my HDD with superfetch they both took ~8-10 seconds.

Word 2007 takes ~2 seconds to load on my Raid 0 setup without superfetch. As I said long time ago, if you even have good Raid 0 (with standard HDDs) setup Superfetch is useless.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Hello, It would appear so, according to https://finance.yahoo.com/news/how-to-hide-your-home-on-google-maps-apple-maps-204146687.html. Regards, Aryeh Goretsky      
    • Hello, The Nvidia Founders Edition 3080 video card is approximately six years old, correct? Have you looked into whether replacement fans are available for it? Perhaps replacing those will improve cooling, especially when combined with cleaning the card's heatsink and replacing the thermal interface materials. Regards, Aryeh Goretsky  
    • Hello, While ~104 GB of space may seem generous (at least compared to other e-readers which have 8-32GB), I feel at this price point the device should have a Micro SDXC card slot for expansion, particularly if it allows audio books to be installed and played. I hope to see more reviews of 6" phone-sized e-readers on Neowin in the future. It will be interesting to see how they compare. Regards, Aryeh Goretsky
    • Sandboxie Plus 1.17.8 / Classic 5.72.8 by Razvan Serea Run programs in a sandbox to prevent malware from making permanent changes to your PC. Sandboxie allows you to run your browser, or any other program, so that all changes that result from the usage are kept in a sandbox environment, which can then be deleted later. Sandboxie is a sandbox-based isolation software for 32- and 64-bit Windows NT-based operating systems. It is being developed by David Xanatos since it became open source, before that it was developed by Sophos (which acquired it from Invincea, which acquired it earlier from the original author Ronen Tzur). It creates a sandbox-like isolated operating environment in which applications can be run or installed without permanently modifying the local or mapped drive. An isolated virtual environment allows controlled testing of untrusted programs and web surfing. Sandboxie is available in two flavors Plus and Classic. Both have the same core components, this means they have the same level of security and compatibility. What's different is the user interface the Plus build has a modern Qt based UI which supports all new features that have been added since the project went open source. The Classic build has the old no longer developed MFC based UI, hence it lacks support for modern features, these features can however still be used when manually configured in the Sandboxie.ini. Sandboxie Plus 1.17.8 / Classic 5.72.8 release notes: Added added DisableCustomTitleOpt=[process,][y|n] to allow [#] sandboxie title markers on custom-titlebar windows (Delphi VCL, Qt, Electron) that were previously skipped to prevent DWM repaint CPU loops #5387 Changed updated bundled ImDisk driver to 3.0.2 #5419 Fixed fix Suppress logs for expected non-user SIDs #5422 SbieSvc.exe: SBIE2218/2219 error when run program as administrator #5417 fixed explorer.exe crashes in Application Compartment when Huorong Security is installed #5423 Download: Sandboxie Plus (64-bit) | 23.5 MB (Open Source) Download: Sandboxie Classic (64-bit) | 3.0 MB Links: Sandboxie Website | GitHub | ARM64 | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Hello, Christian Maas' XVI32 is a nice (and very small) hex editor. Speaking of hex editors, many years ago a colleague and I who both worked at Tribal Voice managed to edit a copy of the company's PowWow instant messaging client to make it behave better now that all of its lookup servers and other server-side tech was gone.  The program didn't support NAT (RFC-3022 was introduced in January 2001, the same time Tribal Voice was shuttered), but it still worked okay if you manually set up port-forwarding on your router.  The server at http://powwow.jazy.net/ hosts a copy (usual warnings about downloading and running untrusted code from random internet servers apply). I occasionally use some tools like Funduc Software's Search and Replace and Application Mover when I need to make mass-edits to text-based files or move programs with a hard-coded installation directories, respectively.  When I need to figure out the exact LCD panel inside of a laptop, EnTech Taiwan's Monitor Asset Manager is my go-to tool for that purpose. JD Design's website (now hosted on github.io) has a number of interesting freeware and shareware utilities.  I used to use their TouchPro utility to set the file timestamps on software I was mastering to match its version number (e.g., version 3.00 of a program had all of its files dates set to 3:00AM, and so forth). Karenware has a number of interesting freeware utilities, too. Regards, Aryeh Goretsky  
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      Jeroen Wilms earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      rolfus earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Leroy Jethro Gibbs earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Conversation Starter
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Month Later
      AndreaB earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      509
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      198
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      138
    4. 4
      ATLien_0
      90
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      82
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!