Windows 7 Pagefile/Superfetch/ReadyBoot discussion

[Mineria]

You can't be serious. Reported as a troll.

Read my lips: Disabling those features will only hurt performance, not help it.

I'm dead serious about it.

Out of curiosity, did you try disabling those and a few other things yourself?

[Eric Veteran]

Actually, running a 32bit app in a 64bit os actually required the same amount of addressed ram, this being said running a 32bit OS will address 32bit addy space + 32bit of 0's. With this being the case 32bit apps are less efficient on a 64bit OS. Please feel free to look it up. Not to mention the other fact that your OS actually is running an emulator to even run 32bit apps to begin with. So once again either run a 32bit version of win7 with your 32bit apps, or run a 64bit version with only 64bit apps

Alway run a page file, if you have 6+ gigs ram, then only run a 512 MB page file, but always run with a page file, unless you wanna see the failure rate of your ram 10x the current.

Your information is a bit inaccurate. :) There is no "emulation" per se. It's only a 'thunking' layer that restricts addresses and redirects calls from x64<->x86 libraries. It's not emulating x86 like a VM, just restricting the application to what its native architecture is.

[_Xx_HeX_xX_]

Your information is a bit inaccurate. :) There is no "emulation" per se. It's only a 'thunking' layer that restricts addresses and redirects calls from x64<->x86 libraries. It's not emulating x86 like a VM, just restricting the application to what its native architecture is.

I am fully aware its not truly an emulator i.e. WoW. But for the matter of explaining it to people that just seem not to understand most of whats been said here, I will stand by it being a type of "emulator". Keep in mind emulator or not it still address's 32bit apps with 64bits of addy space, therefore technically slowing it down.

[soldier1st]

just leave windows 7 alone and it will work wonders for you and before i tried running without a pagefile but i noticed the system felt kinda strange in some way then after that i set it back to default and no more strangeness issues. true x64 windows is meant for 64bit apps but it can run most 32bit apps just fine, windows xp x64 used an emulator type of thing but in 7 x64 and vista x64 it does not but of course with x64 you cant use 32bit drivers and certain apps can't be installed like antivirus apps unless they support x64 but as 64bit apps become more normal they will can run better than there 32bit counterparts as they have access to more address space/etc... but that various depending on the app used but what would benefit the most is image manipulation like adobe photoshop as it uses alot of memory but it's a big app and video converting apps can also benefit on x64 but regular text file apps like notepad or wordpad won't be any faster or slower on x64.

[svnO.o]

It's recommended that you avoid imaging from a hard disk to an SSD at all costs.

Apart from Windows not reconfiguring itself, you also have partition alignment issues when you image from a mechanical drive.

Partition alignment issues? Haven't had any problems myself and did benchmarks and am getting advertised speeds... Also made sure to double check all the important settings and had configured my old partition to be exactly how I wanted it on the SSD... Haven't had a single problem and also saw some benchmarking sites do it without a hitch. In any case I didn't want to reinstall my 50+ apps (157 in Programs & Features) on my system.

I had used Acronis True Image to create a backup from my 100GB Windows 7 partition which ended up being ~40GB and restored it onto the 80GB SSD. Using the SSD Toolbox also shows the SSD in perfect health.

So I guess understanding what the partition alignment issues will do would be useful and why I'll have problems.

In either case, my system is running extremely well and I'm happy with it.

[_dandy_]

sc.exe config SysMain start= disabled

reg.exe delete HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\WMI\Autologger\ReadyBoot /f

:shiftyninja:

I just find it hilarious when someone's system performance optimization tips start with disabling the very services that have been written to help optimize system performance.

I guess these types of people simply know better than Microsoft, huh?

[Mineria]

Many people disable superfetch or in the case of Server 2008, leave it off.

This is for a number of reasons and everyone should do their own research and come to their own conclusion depending on their particular usage pattern (if they have one).

The idea of prefetching apps that you?re about to use is great. The problem is the OS predicting which apps they are.

Neither will you find ReadyBoost(note this is not the same as ReadyBoot) on a Windows 2008 Server, yet did people proof up to 20% more performance and 1/3 less ram usage while gaming.

ReadyBoot/Boost and Superfetch are implementations mainly aimed for the laptop marked, since it had an increasing growth over the last many years.

On midrange PC's with few resources you will surely benefit from these functions.

But if you got a monster gaming desktop you might benefit from disabling these.

The only way to tell if you get a performance benefit from such a tweak is by monitoring your syslogs, cpu load, ram usage, hd usage and performance differences in games based on fps, latency and smoothness under movements.

Now to the pagefile.

To get your system to create kernel memory dumps you need to have a minimum pagefile size, this differs upon how much memory you got installed.

As example for 8GB Ram you need 800MB, this is just a guideline though, since you can not predict the size of such a dump.

For small memory dumps you need less.

So one risk of running without a pagefile at all is that you won't get those dumps upon a crash/bsod.

Strictly speaking Virtual Memory is always in operation and cannot be ?turned off?. What is meant by such wording is ?set the system to use no page file space aTurning it of wastes som RAM. The reason is that when programs ask for an allocation of Virtual memory space, they may ask for a great deal more than they ever actually bring into use - the total may easily run to hundreds of megabytes.

These addresses have to be assigned to somewhere by the system. If there is a page file available, the system can assign them to it - if there is not, they have to be assigned to RAM, locking it out from any actual use.l use.

So again, if you got enough RAM free even at heavy load conditions without it enabled it will not harm performance.

And it will boost performance since you will not have HD read/writes concerning it, unless you got a monster raid array.

Even a fast SSD drive (not the common cheap ones) will be slow compared to RAM.

One thing that is important when you disable stuff in your Windows is to check your logs with the Event Viewer, so you can see if there are negative side effects, and if so gives you the opportunity to either re-enable things or find ways to kill even more that you maybe don't need.

Hope that clears some misunderstandings regarding the issue.

[Udedenkz]

Lets just set some ground rules here:

1. NEVER disable the pagefile:

Disabling the pagefile can cause all sorts of problems and strange issues. Some applications will simply refuse to start without a pagefile.

IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MUCH RAM YOU HAVE, do not disable it. If you really must, change it to a small fixed size of around 500MB.

2. NEVER disable SuperFetch:

This is an idle-time service that uses otherwise free resources. Turning this off will only hurt performance (even if you have an SSD).

3. NEVER disable Readyboost:

This is another idle time service; turning this off will hurt boot times (even if you don't have a flash drive dedicated to ReadyBoost).

1. It is perfectly safe to disable your page file in many cases. Disabling the page files DOES NOT cause any weird issues. There only obvious issues with disabling the Page File is just that - if go over your physical memory limit the OS will kill the memory leeching app. I had this happen to me once when I played 4-5 Hrs straight Fallout 3 with 2GB RAM. I have been running without a page file for a year or so on multiple setups (1GB being the minimum) without finding a single application that refuses to run without a page file. The argument that things will not run without a page file is for the most part is a lie - it most likely, if at all, applies only to legacy applications that have long been discontinued.

2. Superfetch is not by any means a crucial service. It is safe to disable. All it does is preload applications that you use in RAM, without your control of thereof. If you have an SSD it will be turned of, in most cases, but if you have an SSD with slow read speeds - it will remain on. Which actually doesn't make sense as superfetch doesn't help with write speeds.

3. This makes no sense. Disabling something that you do not use from loading should increase speeds. It is like saying that a clean boot would slow down your boot time.

?

Yes it does. It harms the performance. Superfetch isn't something that uses resources, it is made to handle resources better.

Again, that is not true. You do need the pagefile no matter the amount of memory you have. Turning it off can in fact make your system less stable.

Stop spreading lies. Your system will alway be more responsive with Superfetch on. There is absolutely no performance penalty to have it enabled. And no your apps doesn't start faster at all. They will in fact startup faster with Superfetch enabled. RAM is faster then your HDD no matter what.

I think you should stop making up things.

Correct. Windows today maintain itself very well. Some of the tweaks that roam the Internet is old stuff from the Windows 98 era. They do not have an impact on modern OS's. But it can actually harm the system. Tweaking software are useless today.

Superfetch is just like any other service, it needs to start, it needs to offload itself when you need memory, no matter how little resources it uses it still uses it. Superfetch also becomes less helpful if you never restart as Windows for a very long time now - keeps parts of any application you ran in memory thus greatly increasing application reload times.

System stability is not effected by turning off the Page File.

Superfetch is good for older storage mediums such as Hard Drives. You won't notice any difference with it off with a modern storage medium.

[StarLion]

1. It is perfectly safe to disable your page file in many cases. Disabling the page files DOES NOT cause any weird issues. [...] The argument that things will not run without a page file is for the most part is a lie - it most likely, if at all, applies only to legacy applications that have long been discontinued.

You obviously have no idea what the page file is actually used for. Please stop spreading this misinformation, disabling the page file is a bad thing no matter how you slice it.

Some applications reserve far more address space than they'll ever use (in some cases, gigabytes more). When this space is reserved, it means nothing else can use it. Normally Windows will attempt to allocate this reserved (yet empty) space to the pagefile. Without a pagefile, Windows is forced to allocate physical RAM. By disabling the page file you are decreasing your effective total amount of physical RAM in a lot of cases.

The pagefile is also where Windows moves unused pages. If something was loaded into RAM and then forgotten about by the host program, Windows will move that misfit data to the pagefile (this is so the data is still available but not eating up resources forever). Without a pagefile, Windows is forced to keep that information resident in RAM. Once again, you are decreasing your effective total amount of physical RAM in a lot of cases.

As you yourself mentioned, if you run out of physical memory, you're going to run into problems. Running a couple of virtual machines will reserve enough RAM to push you over the limit real quick (and VMWare crashes pretty nastily if you run out of RAM and don't have a page file). Games can easily push you over your memory threshold as well. As previously mentioned, due to the two factors above, you'll now have varying degrees of RAM locked up as reserved, so your other applications will now have even less space to use before you run out of physical RAM to allocate.

Oh, and there are quite a few applications that will refuse to run without a pagefile (I'm guessing you didn't even bother to research). Photoshop is a pretty big one, it used to just crash instantly without a pagefile (CS1), but now I believe it will just warn you and close.

Speaking of research, did you even bother to look up benchmarks to see if disabling the pagefile has any real world benefit performance-wise? As far as i can tell, disabling it will only hurt performance and stability overall.

Superfetch also becomes less helpful if you never restart as Windows for a very long time now - keeps parts of any application you ran in memory thus greatly increasing application reload times

You think reloading an application from RAM takes longer that reloading from a hard disk? wow...just wow... I can't even begin to believe how completely backwards your thought process is here...

Also, that information is only kept there as long as nothing else needs the space. If you load something large, Windows kicks little-used cache out of RAM to make room.

2. Superfetch is not by any means a crucial service. It is safe to disable. All it does is preload applications that you use in RAM, without your control of thereof. If you have an SSD it will be turned of, in most cases, but if you have an SSD with slow read speeds - it will remain on. Which actually doesn't make sense as superfetch doesn't help with write speeds.

I never said it was a crucial service... The important part here is that you should leave it in whatever state Windows decides it should be in (which is "on" for most people). In the case where Windows has automatically detected Superfetch should be on, you will only hurt performance by turning it off.

Superfetch caches resources that are loaded most often by the user so that they are always available (so in a sense, you do have control over it). Superfetch only uses RAM that would otherwise be free (if a large app loads and needs space, superfetch will purge itself from RAM to make room). I see no reason why you would EVER want to disable it on a system with a hard disk.

3. This makes no sense. Disabling something that you do not use from loading should increase speeds. It is like saying that a clean boot would slow down your boot time.

Once again, you demonstrate you have no clue what you're talking about, nor how it works. The ReadyBoost service does a lot more than you seem to think, you use it every boot (as i said, even without a flash drive dedicated to ReadyBoost).

ReadyBoot (the replacement for Windows XP's boot prefetcher) has been combined with the ReadyBoost service. ReadyBoot has been shown to improve boot times over the old Windows XP boot prefetcher by about 20%.

ReadyBoot uses features of ReadyBoost to work, so disabling ReadyBoost will kill ReadyBoot (harming your boot times greatly).

Here's a highly in-depth look at how ReadyBoot works, how it improves performance, and how it ineracts with ReadyBoost.

Windows Vista uses the same boot-time prefetching as Windows XP did if the system has less than 512MB of memory, but if the system has 700MB or more of RAM, it uses an in-RAM cache to optimize the boot process. The size of the cache depends on the total RAM available, but is large enough to create a reasonable cache and yet allow the system the memory it needs to boot smoothly.

After every boot, the ReadyBoost service (the same service that implements the ReadyBoost feature just described) uses idle CPU time to calculate a boot-time caching plan for the next boot. It analyzes file trace information from the five previous boots and identifies which files were accessed and where they are located on disk. It stores the processed traces in %SystemRoot%\Prefetch\Readyboot as .fx files and saves the caching plan under HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Ecache\Parameters in REG_BINARY values named for internal disk volumes they refer to.

The cache is implemented by the same device driver that implements ReadyBoost caching (Ecache.sys), but the cache's population is guided by the ReadyBoost service as the system boots. While the boot cache is compressed like the ReadyBoost cache, another difference between ReadyBoost and ReadyBoot cache management is that while in ReadyBoot mode, other than the ReadyBoost service's updates, the cache doesn't change to reflect data that's read or written during the boot. The ReadyBoost service deletes the cache 90 seconds after the start of the boot, or if other memory demands warrant it, and records the cache's statistics

So, what I said stands; DO NOT disable the pagefile, DO NOT disable SuperFetch (if Windows has decided it should be on), DO NOT disable ReadyBoost. Disabling these three will only hurt performance.

Please Udedenkz, I beg of you, stop spreading misinformation.

Edited November 29, 2009 by StarLion

[.Markus]

<SNIP>

Most intellectual post I've read in this thread so far, listen to this man...

[svnO.o]

You obviously have no idea what the page file is actually used for. Please stop spreading this misinformation, disabling the page file is a bad thing no matter how you slice it.

Some applications reserve far more address space than they'll ever use (in some cases, gigabytes more). When this space is reserved, it means nothing else can use it. Normally Windows will attempt to allocate this reserved (yet empty) space to the pagefile. Without a pagefile, Windows is forced to allocate physical RAM. By disabling the page file you are decreasing your effective total amount of physical RAM in a lot of cases.

The pagefile is also where Windows moves unused pages. If something was loaded into RAM and then forgotten about by the host program, Windows will move that misfit data to the pagefile (this is so the data is still available but not eating up resources forever). Without a pagefile, Windows is forced to keep that information resident in RAM. Once again, you are decreasing your effective total amount of physical RAM in a lot of cases.

As you yourself mentioned, if you run out of physical memory, you're going to run into problems. Running a couple of virtual machines will reserve enough RAM to push you over the limit real quick (and VMWare crashes pretty nastily if you run out of RAM and don't have a page file). Games can easily push you over your memory threshold as well. As previously mentioned, due to the two factors above, you'll now have varying degrees of RAM locked up as reserved, so your other applications will now have even less space to use before you run out of physical RAM to allocate.

Oh, and there are quite a few applications that will refuse to run without a pagefile (I'm guessing you didn't even bother to research). Photoshop is a pretty big one, it used to just crash instantly without a pagefile (CS1), but now I believe it will just warn you and close.

Speaking of research, did you even bother to look up benchmarks to see if disabling the pagefile has any real world benefit performance-wise? As far as i can tell, disabling it will only hurt performance and stability overall.

You think reloading an application from RAM takes longer that reloading from a hard disk? wow...just wow... I can't even begin to believe how completely backwards your thought process is here...

I personally don't feel the need for a page file myself. I've also run my system with and without a page file for several years and haven't noticed any performance differences. I do have 8GB of ram so that helps. Also when I do run VMs I usually only run 1-2 and only dedicate around 1GB to it so most of the time I never even come close to using the 8GB. I do remember reading benchmarks saying that the best page file size is ~512MB if you've got a lot of ram (don't remember the source off hand). So at one point I did have my page file set to 512MB but disabled it completely since I got my SSD to maximize the space on it as well as extend the life of the SSD (due to less writes).

Basically what I'm trying to say is that disabling the page file isn't going to hurt if you know what you're doing. A lot of people have never had an issue with page files disabled and that's good enough for me. Especially when I'd prefer the extra space and life of my SSD over any possible benefits of having it enabled (my system flies as it is and is rock stable).

[genuine555]

this site :

black viper

has everything u need in order to find out which services to run, and which to set manual or disable.

As for superfetch, I agree with StarLion all the way. It isn't crucial, but it does a lot more then just cache applications.

Anyone who would disable it completely wxould be a fool, cause SuperFetch in win7 is totally different then in Vista.

In vista, superfetch was very agressive in the way it runned.

In win7, it has become more subtile, and works a lot better, giving the feature it's true purpose.

One could set it to option 2 in registry, making it cache boot only (Default is "3", caching boot & applications)

Some notice a slight improvement in that. But NO-ONE will improve anything by disabling it.

To set Superfetch to setting 2 :

open regedit.

go to :

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

Change EnableSuperfetch to "2"

Still, having it at three, and so enabling caching for boot & applications, running services & processes will have a lighter footprint than not having caching enabled for applications. For ppl running low on mem, option three is still a must !

Hope this clarifies further, and backs up the statements by StarLion, cause they are true.

Gen555

[StarLion]

I personally don't feel the need for a page file myself. I've also run my system with and without a page file for several years and haven't noticed any performance differences

Stop right there. You noticed no difference from disabling it...so why turn it off if there's even the possibility it will make things worse?

[genuine555]

Stop right there. You noticed no difference from disabling it...so why turn it off if there's even the possibility it will make things worse?

To pick up where I left my previous post here, just a minute ago :

Disabling pagefile is never a good idea, no matter how much ram you have.

Certain apps need the presence of a page-file, even when it never gets used.

Your kernel will crash, when such an app tries to address it, and it doesn't exists.

Also when mem is running low, and page file needs to be addressed, your kernel will become unstable and crash.

BSOD's will eventually result from disabling page-file, even if you run a system without it for months.

And come on, don't tell me you need the disk space...

It takes up a few gigs at most, on a disk of several hundred of gigs, if not TB's. So it won't bother anyone to have it present.

Best way is to keep a small portion of the pagefile (say 512MB) on the systemdrive (c:), and the rest on a seperate drive, or completely on a seperate drive.

But performance will be slightly better on many systems, if a small portion remains on the systemdrive.

[svnO.o]

Stop right there. You noticed no difference from disabling it...so why turn it off if there's even the possibility it will make things worse?

Did you read the rest of my post?

So at one point I did have my page file set to 512MB but disabled it completely since I got my SSD to maximize the space on it as well as extend the life of the SSD (due to less writes).

Since I've never had any problems with my comp, why should I enable it when there is more benefits (to me) with it disabled?

Edit: Actually I double checked -- I DO have page file enabled right now just not on my system (SSD) drive. On my secondary 1TB drive I have a page file set to 512MB. Regardless, in the past I've had the page file completely disabled for long periods of time just to see if it made any difference and didn't notice any performance hits/issues at all. If people don't have any problems with it disabled and want the extra space or want to minimize writes to their drive, I don't see why not.

Maybe in mission critical situations such as servers the page file is much more important, but for people like me it makes little difference.

Edited November 29, 2009 by Se7enVII

[genuine555]

Did you read the rest of my post?

Since I've never had any problems with my comp, why should I enable it when there is more benefits (to me) with it disabled?

Edit: Actually I double checked -- I DO have page file enabled right now just not on my system (SSD) drive. On my secondary 1TB drive I have a page file set to 512MB. Regardless, in the past I've had the page file completely disabled for long periods of time just to see if it made any difference and didn't notice any performance hits/issues at all. If people don't have any problems with it disabled and want the extra space or want to minimize writes to their drive, I don't see why not.

Maybe in mission critical situations such as servers the page file is much more important, but for people like me it makes little difference.

Why not disable pagefile --> see my previous posts. It explains just why.

Also regarding games, u need it enabled. Some games will make your system unstable when having it disabled.

[soldier1st]

I myself did try with the pagefile off but right after that i noticed windows was behaving eradicaly like not opening things or if it did it would take forever so once i put it back to default size windows performed properly again but all you do is remove your ability to manage the pagefile as windows will still create one as it needs one, it's better to be safe than sorry, until we are in an era where we all have say 256GB of RAM then disabling the pagefile would be a good idea as by that time the OS would no longer use VM but we aint there yet but if you wanna muck up windows and you get errors then don't come to us begging for help but thats just the way i see it is it is better to be safe than sorry.Win9x had terrible memory management but From 2000 and on it got better.

[genuine555]

I myself did try with the pagefile off but right after that i noticed windows was behaving eradicaly like not opening things or if it did it would take forever so once i put it back to default size windows performed properly again but all you do is remove your ability to manage the pagefile as windows will still create one as it needs one, it's better to be safe than sorry, until we are in an era where we all have say 256GB of RAM then disabling the pagefile would be a good idea as by that time the OS would no longer use VM but we aint there yet but if you wanna muck up windows and you get errors then don't come to us begging for help but thats just the way i see it is it is better to be safe than sorry.Win9x had terrible memory management but From 2000 and on it got better.

True.

For who doesn't believe all this :

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000422.html

What you can do is set is as a static pagefile, and make it large enough so resizing is never neccesary.

[Subject Delta]

sc.exe config SysMain start= disabled

reg.exe delete HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\WMI\Autologger\ReadyBoot /f

:shiftyninja:

If you're going to post tweaks, it helps to describe what they do

Here's a good one. Create a New > Shortcut (on your desktop, for example) and paste the text below into the Path field:

C:\Windows\System32\rundll32.exe shell32.dll,Control_RunDLL desk.cpl,Advanced,@Advanced

(Assuming Windows is installed on your C: drive).

This will put a shortcut to the Window Color and Appearance dialog that otherwise requires several clicks to get to. You can select a different icon from Shell32.dll that is more appropriate.

That one was pretty useful, thanks

SuperFetch monitors which applications you use the most and preloads these into your system memory so they'll be ready when you need them.

So it will preload whatever program you use the most.

Cool if you play some huge game every day and then need to do something in another larger application.

Try to listen to your HD when starting up. ;)

Check program sizes versus physical ram etc.

If you use large programs this can affect your boot times to.

That argument is meaningless, considering Superfetch has been tweaked considerably in Windows 7. It actually runs in low IO priority mode, and it doesn't start until after you have booted to your desktop so the argument that it somehow slows your boot down is just incorrect, and it also has no impact on performance at all, your other argument is also void, as when memory is needed, prefetched stuff is unloaded again to make room, do you will not get problems with memory performance.

No you do not.

Head over to Toms Hardware where they did a throughout test with the pagefile, and check out the results yourself.

As a fact, I monitor a maximum usage of 6GB memory on my system, which is why I don't use neither need a pagefile swapping on disk.

Shouldn't need to explain access speed differences between different type of storage and why you don't need more then you use at max loads.

Of course if you run heavy applications that uses more memory than what you physical got to work with you need a pagefile.

See, you say it yourself: RAM is faster then your HDD no matter what, think about that for a while.

And than you very much for that other sentence.

Another argument that is irrelevant, seeing as I cannot recall anyone claiming that paging was faster than normal memory, but seeing as the only things that are usually offloaded are low priority items for which speed isn't so crucial, again it has little impact on performance. In fact, disabling it can cause errors, there really is no need to disable it because stuff is only paged out when it needs to be anyway.

Many people disable superfetch or in the case of Server 2008, leave it off.

This is for a number of reasons and everyone should do their own research and come to their own conclusion depending on their particular usage pattern (if they have one).

That is because servers are typically geared towards the running of background applications and services, and are not used for workstations, meaning that superfetch is generally not necessary

The idea of prefetching apps that you’re about to use is great. The problem is the OS predicting which apps they are.

A process you have grossly oversimplified to suit your agenda, it works on detailed analysis of application usage patterns, it isn't completely random.

Neither will you find ReadyBoost(note this is not the same as ReadyBoot) on a Windows 2008 Server, yet did people proof up to 20% more performance and 1/3 less ram usage while gaming.

Again, that is because it isn't really necessary to have it on a server.

ReadyBoot/Boost and Superfetch are implementations mainly aimed for the laptop marked, since it had an increasing growth over the last many years.

On midrange PC's with few resources you will surely benefit from these functions.

But if you got a monster gaming desktop you might benefit from disabling these.

The only way to tell if you get a performance benefit from such a tweak is by monitoring your syslogs, cpu load, ram usage, hd usage and performance differences in games based on fps, latency and smoothness under movements.

Again, more nonsense there. Superfetch improves performance regardless of the system you use it on, so does ReadyBoot, in fact ReadyBoot doesn't even incur a performance penalty, you really do appear to be totally ignorant of the way these systems work, and I would suggest you educate yourself to their true functions before posting again. I have a powerful computer, with a large amount of memory, and I find that Superfetch improves my performance rather than hindering it, and all of the games that I play run smoothly at full settings. Like I stated, as soon as memory is needed by other applications, Superfetch frees it up so it has no impact on performance.

[genuine555]

and I find that Superfetch improves my performance rather than hindering it, and all of the games that I play run smoothly at full settings. Like I stated, as soon as memory is needed by other applications, Superfetch frees it up so it has no impact on performance.

And I'll add to this true statement for you, dude. Not only does it improves performance, running processes also have a lighter footprint (use less mem) when enabled. You can easily test that out by setting it at setting 2 in registry (boot only), rebooting, and make a screen of processes tab.

Now set it at 3 (boot and apps), reboot, and make another screen. Apps like AV's will use less mem when enabled.

So statements like : "you should disable it when having little mem", are rediculus. On the contrary : it will be even more a "must" to leave it enabled.

I have tried out all three settings, and although I still have doubt about "boot only" setting and "boot & apps" setting, disabling it will result in a GREAT REDUCTION of performance allround. Boot up is signifficantly slower, and apps don't open up as fast as when u have superfetch enabled.

For all who do not understand the concept "SuperFetch", before posting, please read up on the subject, and then post your opnion, so that you can back it up with some correct facts :

http://www.osnews.com/story/21471/SuperFet..._it_Works_Myths

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/window-on-windows/?p=735

[Udedenkz]

You obviously have no idea what the page file is actually used for. Please stop spreading this misinformation, disabling the page file is a bad thing no matter how you slice it.

Some applications reserve far more address space than they'll ever use (in some cases, gigabytes more). When this space is reserved, it means nothing else can use it. Normally Windows will attempt to allocate this reserved (yet empty) space to the pagefile. Without a pagefile, Windows is forced to allocate physical RAM. By disabling the page file you are decreasing your effective total amount of physical RAM in a lot of cases.

The pagefile is also where Windows moves unused pages. If something was loaded into RAM and then forgotten about by the host program, Windows will move that misfit data to the pagefile (this is so the data is still available but not eating up resources forever). Without a pagefile, Windows is forced to keep that information resident in RAM. Once again, you are decreasing your effective total amount of physical RAM in a lot of cases.

As you yourself mentioned, if you run out of physical memory, you're going to run into problems. Running a couple of virtual machines will reserve enough RAM to push you over the limit real quick (and VMWare crashes pretty nastily if you run out of RAM and don't have a page file). Games can easily push you over your memory threshold as well. As previously mentioned, due to the two factors above, you'll now have varying degrees of RAM locked up as reserved, so your other applications will now have even less space to use before you run out of physical RAM to allocate.

Oh, and there are quite a few applications that will refuse to run without a pagefile (I'm guessing you didn't even bother to research). Photoshop is a pretty big one, it used to just crash instantly without a pagefile (CS1), but now I believe it will just warn you and close.

Speaking of research, did you even bother to look up benchmarks to see if disabling the pagefile has any real world benefit performance-wise? As far as i can tell, disabling it will only hurt performance and stability overall.

For now, you are spreading misinformation by scaring people from disabling a feature that was put in place to act as extra memory space a rather long time ago out of necessity.

The second paragraph is a non argument. You are pretty much saying the obvious: an application will allocate memory when launched. You are just twisting language. There is no difference whether the allocated memory resides on the disk or RAM, it will still be allocated.

The second paragraph stems also from the same argument: without a page file, stuff will remain in RAM and will not be transferred to the disk. I may go with the "Disk is NOT faster than RAM and thus accessing anything on disk is slower than accessing anything in RAM" argument but it should be self evident that transferring of information between Disk and RAM is not as intelligent as simply keeping it in RAM. If pressured for RAM, W7 could quickly shed a bunch of memory for another application to use. As long as you never went over half your system memory (w. a Page File), disabling the PF will not be an issue as you never really used the PF as memory.

It is self evident that there will be less System Memory as instead of system memory being the swap file and RAM it will only be RAM. This is why disabling the Page File should only be done by power users who know how much memory Windows 7 takes up and how much memory is needed to say run Crysis or HL2, etc. For example, I can tell you that my W7 uses about 480MB at boot (less w/o *fetch)... This is not an argument for using a PF but an argument to upgrade your Hard Ware, if a game requires 2GB RAM and you have 1GB RAM + 1.5GB Swap - you are not going to have a smooth performance for obvious reasons. I believe the correct term for using the Page File is called Disk Thrashing.

CS2 and CS4 work just fine w/o a swap file. Applications do not really need to know about the origins of the memory space they reside in, that the OS's job. It may have been a bug if CS1 didn't run, that or a low memory issue that you experienced. Photoshop uses its own scratch disks that you setup in the options, so it has no necessity to care about the PF. I have used many adobe products (some came with my camera) and had no issues. I also had no issues running GTAIV or Crysis without a page file.

Performance Benefit? I don't think I mentioned anything about that in my previous post. I would challenge you the same to find a performance benefit for using the Page File or a stability decrease from using the Page File on a home operating system with a large amount of RAM installed.

I debated the likes of you before, the person I debated this topic with pretty much pulled out an argument for keeping the Swap File from 1998 (FYI that is 11 years ago) and also stated that without a page file RAM will get fragmented. I asked that person to how I could reproduce performance issues due to RAM fragmentation when running without a PF - he couldn't offer me a way.

You think reloading an application from RAM takes longer that reloading from a hard disk? wow...just wow... I can't even begin to believe how completely backwards your thought process is here...

Also, that information is only kept there as long as nothing else needs the space. If you load something large, Windows kicks little-used cache out of RAM to make room.

Either you did not read what I wrote properly or you do not know that Windows loads dlls from an application and keeps them in memory after that application was closed. This feature has been around since or before XP. So the next time you launch that application, it is much faster. This does not require Superfetch.

I never said it was a crucial service... The important part here is that you should leave it in whatever state Windows decides it should be in (which is "on" for most people). In the case where Windows has automatically detected Superfetch should be on, you will only hurt performance by turning it off.

Superfetch caches resources that are loaded most often by the user so that they are always available (so in a sense, you do have control over it). Superfetch only uses RAM that would otherwise be free (if a large app loads and needs space, superfetch will purge itself from RAM to make room). I see no reason why you would EVER want to disable it on a system with a hard disk.

With the explanation given above, I return to my original argument. The longer ones computer is on, the more stuff will be loaded in memory and thus the longer one's computer is on, the less the need for superfetch becomes. This may be considered a reason.

Other one, is quite simple, superfetch is a non-crucial service that loads during boot. And it w ill not up my 3D Mark score.

* last part *

Readyboost is only useful for slow storage mediums or if you are suffering from thrashing.

Now readyboot on the other hand, is useful for low RAM systems with traditional 4200/5400 RPM drives. It is simply an enhancement of Windows XP prefetcher. Sure it will be somewhat faster, but you will never know the difference on a fast storage medium.

I disabled a bunch of services as well as readyboost and readyboot, and my boot time increased by a whole negative one minute. :)

Also, as the post above doesn't do much to benefit the thread, here is a registry file of stuff for SSDs,

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

; Make start menu snappier, end hung apps faster
[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\Desktop]
"MenuShowDelay"="200"
"HungAppTimeout"="4000"
"WaitToKillAppTimeout"="5000"

; NTFS, Disable 8.3 names and Last Access (speeds up disk access)
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\FileSystem]
"NtfsDisable8dot3NameCreation"=dword:00000001
"NtfsDisableLastAccessUpdate"=dword:00000001

; Must Have Explorer Settings
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\Explorer
"NoLowDiskSpaceChecks"=dword:00000001
"LinkResolveIgnoreLinkInfo"=dword:00000001
"NoResolveSearch"=dword:00000001
"NoResolveTrack"=dword:00000001
"NoInternetOpenWith"=dword:00000001

; HOMEGROUP ICON: Default item should be "Other users". Delete the folder from the registry.
[-HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Desktop\NameSpace\{B4FB3F98-C1EA-428d-A78A-D1F5659CBA93}]

; Remove Remote Computer
[-HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\RemoteComputer]

;Windows will tell you exactly what it is doing when it is shutting down or is booting
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System]
"VerboseStatus"=dword:00000001

; Disable Tool Tips
[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Advanced]
"ShowInfoTip"=dword:00000000

; maximum simultaneous downloads for IE to 20 ( default is 2 )
[HKEY_USERS\.DEFAULT\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings]
"MaxConnectionsPerServer"=dword:00000014
"MaxConnectionsPer1_0Server"=dword:00000014

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings]
"MaxConnectionsPerServer"=dword:00000014
"MaxConnectionsPer1_0Server"=dword:00000014

;Disable User Account Control ( UAC )
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System]
"EnableLUA"=dword:00000000

; Disable Windows Media Player AutoUpdates
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\WindowsMediaPlayer]
"DisableAutoUpdate"=dword:00000001

; turn off start menu baloon tips
[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\Explorer]
"NoDriveTypeAutoRun"=dword:00000091
"NoSMBalloonTip"=dword:00000001

; Disable automatic updates
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\WindowsUpdate\Auto Update]
"AUOptions"=dword:00000001

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\Desktop]
"FeedbackToolEnabled"=dword:00000000

;-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   ;Speed up shell response

    [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\Desktop]
    "MenuShowDelay"="2"

    [HKEY_USERS\S-1-5-19\Control Panel\Desktop]
    "MenuShowDelay"="2"

    [HKEY_USERS\S-1-5-20\Control Panel\Desktop]
    "MenuShowDelay"="2"

    [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Advanced]
    "Start_ShowRun"=dword:00000001
;-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\Desktop]
"AutoEndTasks"="1"

; Disable defrag for SSDs
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Dfrg\BootOptimizeFunction]
"Enable"="N"

Edited December 6, 2009 by Udedenkz

[StarLion]

*snip*

There is so much wrong with your post that I can't even begin to start correcting you. I can only assume you're joking (or not reading my post at all). Every single thing you just said was wrong...

Edit: I will quote you on this though:

Performance Benefit? I don't think I mentioned anything about that in my previous post

Oh, no performance benefit? Guess we should leave it all enabled then, as it's not hurting anything.

Edited December 6, 2009 by StarLion

[Udedenkz]

There is so much wrong with your post that I can't even begin to start correcting you. I can only assume you're joking (or not reading my post at all). Every single thing you just said was wrong...

Best Argument Ever.

I am going to ask you to either

1) Give steps to reproduce fabled instability / performance loss due to running w/o swap

2) Stop Posting.

[StarLion]

I just had a closer look at the gigantic reg file you posted as a claimed set of tweaks for SSD's...you have it set up to disable UAC and automatic updates.

Are you for real? Reported as a troll.

Best Argument Ever.

I am going to ask you to either

1) Give steps to reproduce fabled instability / performance loss due to running w/o swap

2) Stop Posting.

I quite clearly spelled out why disabling all of those services was a bad idea, you just aren't reading. It's a pointless waste of energy trying to explain it to you over-and-over if you aren't going to read what I'm posting.

[Udedenkz]

Yes, disabling the UAC nagging is must for any Power User (esp. with hard drive image backup and system restore on ). I think there is another thread in which you can feel free to criticize disabling UAC thing.

I quite clearly spelled out why disabling all of those services was a bad idea, you just aren't reading. It's a pointless waste of energy trying to explain it to you over-and-over if you aren't going to read what I'm posting.

What Services? Sure keep your services, but I still want you to provide steps on how to reproduce instability / performance loss problems when running without a page file. I don't feel like arguing with you, I just want proof of your claims about stability ..

automatic updates.

; Disable Windows Media Player AutoUpdates

you just aren't reading. It's a pointless waste of energy trying to explain it to you over-and-over if you aren't going to read what I'm posting.

EDIT:

Oh, no performance benefit? Guess we should leave it all enabled then, as it's not hurting anything.

Not a substitute for RAM,

-- The PF is not anywhere as efficient as physical memory

-- Reliance on the PF does not mean anything good

-- You need to upgrade, remove bloat, etc if your PF is being used

Legacy Feature

-- The PF is an ancient feature

-- Its purpose being an extension of system memory

-- Without the necessity of thereof, its purpose is not there

Free Up Space,

-- The Page File wastes a good amount of space which can be utilized for storage.

Reduce Writes To Storage Medium

-- Unnecessary writes are bad, especially for SSDs.

-- Wastes clock cycles, time, moving data from RAM to PF and from PF to RAM

I must apologize but arguing with me is kinda hard because I have ran without a PF XP (3 Systems), 2003, 7 x64, XP x64, and 7 x32 (Current).

Edited December 6, 2009 by Udedenkz