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

    • Microsoft fixes one of Excel Copilot's most frustrating limitations by Usama Jawad Microsoft began integrating Copilot into Excel a couple of years ago and has been upgrading it with new functionalities since then. While some changes have been controversial, Microsoft is hoping to win over users by allowing them to be more productive via Copilot. To that end, it has now announced a Copilot improvement that may actually be appreciated by people who use it regularly. Excel customers often use the Copilot prompt box to issue instructions to format and customize their data, but it can become quite tiring to keep repeating the same instructions again and again. Microsoft now allows you to define Copilot personalization rules for formatting, naming conventions, formulas, and report styles. These can be accessed via Settings > Personalization, where you can explain your rules in natural language like "Always format currency in USD with no decimals", and just let Copilot take care of the rest. Microsoft is going a step further in this direction by allowing you to set workbook rules too. These rules are stored as a .Rules sheet, and are preserved while the workbook is shared. This fosters collaboration while making sure that standard rules govern the Copilot editing experience across the organization. Other advantages of this capability include pointing it to specific examples, defining dynamic formulas, and referencing an entire sheet and asking Copilot to infer rules based on that. You can leverage this feature by opening Copilot in Excel, clicking on "+", and selecting Create workbook rules. If you have an existing .Rules sheet, you can simply start listing the rules in column A as well. Personalization features are available to all Copilot in Excel users across the web, Mac, and Windows. Meanwhile, workbook rules are currently being previewed for Windows and Mac customers on the Insiders channel. General availability is scheduled after a few weeks, but a concrete date is currently unknown. Overall, the Excel capability is quite similar to ChatGPT's memory features, which allow you to permanently store items in the AI model's context window.
    • Imagine you still haven't discovered Total Commander that is doing all those things for three decades already...
    • This sounds like underneath the nice marketing spin, either someone at Adobe got tired of their lazy devs and asked Microsoft to help them sort at least some of Adobe's ancestral spaghetti code to make it go faster, or Microsoft wanted Adobe's crap to run better on Windows to make it look better when compared to Apple, so they offered to intervene. Either way, GOOD.
    • My favorite file manager for Windows 11 finally gets a long-requested feature by Taras Buria Files is among the best File Explorer alternatives for Windows 10 and 11. This free app is packed with all sorts of features and conveniences, but there is one crucial feature that is still missing—Tree View. Fortunately, the latest update in the Preview channel finally delivers it. With version 4.1.4, which is now available for download in the Preview channel, developers implemented Tree View, a new mode that displays folders in an expandable hierarchy. Windows 11's stock File Explorer always had this feature, but it was nowhere to be found in Files until now. Starting with the latest preview update, you can expand each drive and its nested folders without leaving the current location and then open the folder you need in the main view. To try Tree View in Files, update the app to the latest preview version, then click the small arrow next to a drive to expand its content. The developers say they are rolling out Tree View in Preview first to gather feedback from users and improve the feature before bringing it to all in the stable channel. In addition to Tree View, Files 4.1.14 improves the Windows Fonts folder. You can now preview each font directly in Files with no need to open the built-in font viewer. For now, these two features are only available in the Preview channel. For those using the stable release, developers recently released version 4.1.3, with improvements for the built-in tag system, on-demand folder size calculation, and plenty of various fixes. You can check out the full release notes here. You can download Files from the Microsoft Store (paid version) or its official website (free).
    • Who is paying for this 30x scale-up? Its sounds expensive.
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      Jocimo earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      suprememobiles48 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Windows Guy earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      Prasann earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Prasann earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      520
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      174
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      90
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      81
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      69
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!