features you disabled in Windows 7 and why?

[yxz]

Notably the first quote doesn't really support you at all.

disabled superfetch

reason

overhead

Finally, we need to think about the impact of these optimizations ? SuperFetch itself cause extra I/O and extra CPU usage, so how does one do the trade-off? The solution lies with prioritization ? SuperFetch uses low priority I/O and low priority threads, so the CPU and Disk I/O overhead is minimal and does not interfere with the actual jobs being performed. In fact, SuperFetch reads only a few pages per second at Very Low Priority. There is certainly a memory overhead which is caused by having to maintain information about what all is happening in the system, but that overhead is minimal and more than makes up with all the advantages provided.

[RealFduch]

I'm actually amazed by how many of you are completely brainwashed into thinking Windows 7 is literally perfect.

It's good, yes, but there's plenty of people out there who don't like what comes out of the box.

I've disabled Aero for instance, are you going to claim the UI is "perfect" and doesn't need changing, too?

...If so, :laugh:

Good luck with disbled GPU acceleration, my dear "unbraiwashed" friend.

[Udedenkz]

Good luck with disbled GPU acceleration, my dear "unbraiwashed" friend.

There is no GPU acceleration where it counts anyway. Scrolling is CPU heavy.

Goddamn piece of **** lags bad w. Intel Atom & Nvidia ION when in power saver w. Aero Enabled.

[Guest xiphi]

yxz, are you even reading the stuff you're quoting? I would guess not since you also don't seem to understand the different priorities there are, and why they were put in place in Vista and 7. The advantages of Superfetch far outweigh any overhead that occurs, which as the very articles you're posting say has no impact on daily usage. It just amuses me when people like you contradict themselves and don't bother to get educated.

[Xilo]

At least it gave you a funny quote. :rofl:

[Udedenkz]

His reason is still valid.

[Kirkburn]

His reason is still valid.

What, should I requote his quote and bold the parts where it says the overheads are minimal and have little impact, and the benefits far outweigh it? (Actually he even did some of that for me, strangely)

Of course it has some overhead. It's can't not. Everything has "overhead". I should hope to think we're having a discussion where we look at overhead that actually matters.

There is no GPU acceleration where it counts anyway. Scrolling is CPU heavy.

Goddamn piece of **** lags bad w. Intel Atom & Nvidia ION when in power saver w. Aero Enabled.

Regarding GPU use: Aero laggy? That just makes me concerned for your computer if it has issues with Aero. I don't think I've ever seen it be laggy on multiple PCs. When it's turned off (for full screen videos, etc.) - now that's when I see it get laggy.

Meanwhile, you make it sound like you think scrolling is the only place using the GPU matters? And further, that because it "doesn't", it's worthless? Pretty weird reasoning, if you ask me. I would have though minimize/maximise, resize and general rendering were fairly important too.

EDIT: After posting, noticed that you didn't actually switch it off, that was someone else.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Kirkburn

[Joe User]

It never ceases to amaze me how some end-users with an average of 5 years of Windows experience think that they know how to tune Windows better than Microsoft with over 20 years of Windows NT development.

Yes, MS has to try and be everything for everyone, but they still do much better job compared to the average joe user who just gives out advice like 'turn this off' without any real-world data to back them up.

If anyone thinks they have a reason to turn off a feature, take the time to show why and back it up with real data.

[Udedenkz]

What, should I requote his quote and bold the parts where it says the overheads are minimal and have little impact, and the benefits far outweigh it? (Actually he even did some of that for me, strangely)

Of course it has some overhead. It's can't not. Everything has "overhead". I should hope to think we're having a discussion where we look at overhead that actually matters.

Regarding GPU use: Aero laggy? That just makes me concerned for your computer if it can't even cope with Aero. I don't think I've ever seen it be laggy on multiple PCs. When it's turned off (for full screen videos, etc.) - now that's when I see it get laggy.

Meanwhile, you make it sound like you think scrolling is the only place using the GPU matters? And further, that because it "doesn't", it's worthless? Pretty weird reasoning, if you ask me. I would have though minimize/maximise, resize and general rendering were fairly important too.

A cynical man might suggest that it's your incessant tweaking that's causing issues. I'm not sure I'm that cynical yet though.

Because you don't get it. He disabled it due to the overhead and has shown you that indeed superfetch has overhead. End. You can not argue that the above is invalid, therefore his reason is valid. Stating that overhead is small does not imply that it is no-existent therefore his point is still valid. You can only argue that it is irrelevant or some such and this is what you are doing.

------

I don't think Aero is laggy, if anything it requires too much video memory. I am saying that it doesn't do any good, aside from visual appeal. I have tried Windows 7 on two setups, Intel C2D T8300, 4GB DDR2, 8600M GT and Intel Atom 1.6Ghz, 2GB DDR3, Nvidia ION (the unlocked one).

It sure the hell should help with scrolling so that the CPU would just load info and thumbnails. Scrolling. moving, and resizing windows are the two most CPU intensive tasks in Windows. We don't move them a lot now (WINKEY + Arrowkeys) so that is less noticeable, resizing is also less common than scrolling. I don't think anything can be done with resizing though as it makes sense that the rearrangement of elements inside the Window is CPU intensive. Oddly, WINKEY+TAB is also CPU intensive which is beyond me. As long as the CPU is High Performance the effects (scrolling lagg, not smooth refresh rate FPS while resizing windows, etc) are not noticeable (C2D) or less noticeable (Atom).

I don't use maximize and minimize animations and such as they are just visual details. The only bone with re-size that I have is that MMC is not updated to use it.

Windows XP has a very fast interface, this is mostly because Windows XP does not have the power saving features of 7. Comparing XP System Atom 1.6Ghz, 1GB RAM, Intel GPU vs W7 System (High Performance) Atom 1.6Ghz, 2GB RAM, Nvidia ION - I have great doubts that W7 is actually faster regardless.

So to summarize, W7 interface has two advantages that I can see - pretty effect that don't influence the CPU and better video playback abilities (I mean, enchantments over than of XP in areas such as tearing prevention). For you to say that the GPU accelerated W7 interface is a godsend is false alluring to your criticism of a person is this thread turning it off. Ideally a lot more can be offloaded, but it is not (I know there are reasons for this).

EDIT: I am not saying that it is bad or should be turned off, you just give it too much credit. :)

Edited January 10, 2010 by Udedenkz

[Xilo]

If the overhead compared to benefits of Superfetch are that big of a deal, you shouldn't be using Windows 7 on your ancient PC in the first place.

[neo158]

It never ceases to amaze me how some end-users with an average of 5 years of Windows experience think that they know how to tune Windows better than Microsoft with over 20 years of Windows NT development.

Yes, MS has to try and be everything for everyone, but they still do much better job compared to the average joe user who just gives out advice like 'turn this off' without any real-world data to back them up.

If anyone thinks they have a reason to turn off a feature, take the time to show why and back it up with real data.

Thankyou, this is exactly what i've been trying to say!!!

Windows XP has a very fast interface, this is mostly because Windows XP does not have the power saving features of 7. Comparing XP System Atom 1.6Ghz, 1GB RAM, Intel GPU vs W7 System (High Performance) Atom 1.6Ghz, 2GB RAM, Nvidia ION - I have great doubts that W7 is actually faster regardless.

While i'd agree on this point, doesn't having nearly 6 hours of battery life from a 6-cell battery on a netbook sound good to you. It does to me, thats why I run Windows 7 on my netbook.

The fact is that if you want a portable machine that gives you better Aero performance then you shouldn't have bought a netbook.

[RealFduch]

I am saying that it doesn't do any good, aside from visual appeal. I have tried Windows 7 on two setups, Intel C2D T8300, 4GB DDR2, 8600M GT and Intel Atom 1.6Ghz, 2GB DDR3, Nvidia ION (the unlocked one).

It sure the hell should help with scrolling so that the CPU would just load info and thumbnails. Scrolling. moving, and resizing windows are the two most CPU intensive tasks in Windows. We don't move them a lot now (WINKEY + Arrowkeys) so that is less noticeable, resizing is also less common than scrolling. I don't think anything can be done with resizing though as it makes sense that the rearrangement of elements inside the Window is CPU intensive. Oddly, WINKEY+TAB is also CPU intensive which is beyond me. As long as the CPU is High Performance the effects (scrolling lagg, not smooth refresh rate FPS while resizing windows, etc) are not noticeable (C2D) or less noticeable (Atom).

Yeah bro, U R rite. Aero totally suxx! XP RuleZ!

BTW Lunix is so cool too!

[Guest xiphi]

Yeah bro, U R rite. Aero totally suxx! XP RuleZ!

Wow! That brings back memories. :laugh:

[devHead]

I keep my computer on for only 2 minutes a day. Reason: overhead. When it's not on, there is no memory usage and zero disk and CPU activity. That's the way to go! :|

[Udedenkz]

Yeah bro, U R rite. Aero totally suxx! XP RuleZ!

BTW Lunix is so cool too!

The screen you provided is either a shoop (not so likely as that would require work), borked hardware (likely as reproducible regardless of OS), or borked application which is running between the window currently dragged and the dekstop (Not sure if possible on non-Windows OS).

The proper way to troll XP users is to not install GPU drivers and make a video of the GUI running at a crawling speed and post it in a topic "W7 is faster, here is proof!."

If you had some other purpose in mind with that post, you failed at expressing it.

[Guest xiphi]

The screen you provided is either a shoop (not so likely as that would require work), borked hardware (likely as reproducible regardless of OS), or borked application which is running between the window currently dragged and the dekstop (Not sure if possible on non-Windows OS).

The proper way to troll XP users is to not install GPU drivers and make a video of the GUI running at a crawling speed and post it in a topic "W7 is faster, here is proof!."

If you had some other purpose in mind with that post, you failed at expressing it.

It's not reproducible as long as Aero is enabled. That's the advantage of DWM: it prevents tearing as you saw in those screenshots, and yes it's a common problem on XP. His purpose was to prove that a DWM based interface is more reliable than a GDI based one.

[zhangm Supervisor]

It's not reproducible as long as Aero is enabled. That's the advantage of DWM: it prevents tearing as you saw in those screenshots, and yes it's a common problem on XP. His purpose was to prove that a DWM based interface is more reliable than a GDI based one.

I find there to be a certain gracefulness to Windows XP. Graceful and classy.

I also happen to like being able to tear my windows. It gives me the sense of being a powerful poweruser. Feel the power of my mouse pointer! HURRR!!!

:rofl:

[Udedenkz]

It's not reproducible as long as Aero is enabled. That's the advantage of DWM: it prevents tearing as you saw in those screenshots, and yes it's a common problem on XP. His purpose was to prove that a DWM based interface is more reliable than a GDI based one.

I have tried XP (SP1, 2, & 3), XP x86_64 (SP2), 2003, Ubuntu x86_32 (8, 9), Ubuntu x86_64 (8). Spanning across 5 different Hardware Configurations. The only problem I experienced is the one that came from not having drivers installed and ubuntu's interface has no problems regardless.

Good job attacking both Linux and Windows XP userbase. It is quite easy to forget the countless issues with the black windows while resizing issue that - forget about external applications! - that Microsoft Management Console Suffers from!

It is quite easy to praise something by ignoring the problems with it.

[Guest xiphi]

I have tried XP (SP1, 2, & 3), XP x86_64 (SP2), 2003, Ubuntu x86_32 (8, 9), Ubuntu x86_64 (8). Spanning across 5 different Hardware Configurations. The only problem I experienced is the one that came from not having drivers installed and ubuntu's interface has no problems regardless.

Good job attacking both Linux and Windows XP userbase. It is quite easy to forget the countless issues with the black windows while resizing issue that - forget about external applications! - that Microsoft Management Console Suffers from!

It is quite easy to praise something by ignoring the problems with it.

Seems like you're the one ignoring the problems, not me. I'm fully aware of the limitations of both GDI and DWM. You're the one overlooking the fact that DWM is much more reliable than GDI. Those black artifacts you see when resizing the windows are limitations of GDI not DWM. You seem to forget that the content drawn inside those windows are using GDI in most cases.

[Xilo]

It's not just graphics drivers that cause UI tearing. Because GDI only uses the CPU to draw, if your CPU has a high load it will tear like a mofo.

[TCA]

sidebar i shut ot pff didn't like it in vista either

[Guest xiphi]

sidebar i shut ot pff didn't like it in vista either

It's already disabled by default. :blink:

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

I just disabled Aero Snap.

[Udedenkz]

I am aware that GUI drivers crashing does nor bring down the system. I am also aware that this is a rare occurrence as I have pointed out with my extensive use of Windows XP.

The complaint is that the MMC is part of the Windows 7 OS, yet it experiences this issue. That and it is really slow (or should I say the plugins for it?) - which is another issue. The second complaint is that this is unique to the DWM.

Another positive w. W7 is that without the driver the GUI is pretty fast whereas in XP the gui redrew itself at abysymal speeds before the driver.

:)

It's already disabled by default. :blink:

By default pre-installed Windows 7 usually has a bunch more crud running and installed by default.

That may or may not be the case with this example, but it is something to keep in mind.

[P.M.K]

HomeGroup because it shares my entire users folder with too liberal permissions (instead of "Authenticated Users").

Wow?? I think 'HomeGroup' is one of the best features of Windows 7.