New install of Windows 7 looking for solid safe advice

[Flawed]

If you find that you never approach the amount of ram you have, then a good disk io performance boost might be achieved (depending on usage) by disabling the swap (remember to delete the swap file and defrag your disk afterwards) . In addition, disabling file system indexing, system restore and so forth can boost performance (especially if you have a traditional mechanical HDD). I find Piriform's Defraggler to be good for defragmenting individual files, system files (on bootup option), and optimising free space.

Disabling some services can improve performance depending on usage patterns:

1. Windows Search.

2. ReadyBoost.

3. Superfetch.

4. Remote registry, remote desktop, etc.

[DootDootMan]

I note you aren't bothering to respond to me.

By the way, despite the childish nature of his metaphors, he is right.

UAC works fine.

Read below.

If you find that you never approach the amount of ram you have, then a good disk io performance boost might be achieved (depending on usage) by disabling the swap. In addition, disabling file system indexing, system restore and so forth can boost performance (especially if you have a traditional mechanical HDD). I find Piriform's Defraggler to be good for defragmenting individual files, system files (on bootup option), and optimising free space.

Disabling some services can improve performance depending on usage patterns:

1. Windows Search.

2. ReadyBoost.

3. Superfetch.

4. Remote registry, remote desktop, etc.

Really? Another poster spreading crap? Don't disable any of those services.

[LiquidSolstice]

Obviously you don't work in the IT field (given your ridiculous replies). Quit trolling.

I've seen a ridiculous number of cases of computer malware in my time, I used to do company-wide system imaging installations and the crap I've run into would amaze you.

The fact of the matter is that turning off UAC (which is what I'm assuming you imply when you say it's useless) is borderline mentally retarded. Perhaps I just happen to know how powerful UAC is on a company-based computing enviornment, but I still would leave it on. Maybe it doesn't solve everything (there's always ways around protection) but it does (for people I educate on the matter, not sure if you take the time to do it too or if you take the "grumpy IT" approach of not telling them how to avoid it in the future) make a difference if I tell someone to stop and think if they see a UAC prompt, that it's not just there to annoy them.

[articuno1au]

Really? I have used FF, Chrome and Opera with the same results.

Did you see where I said LIKE. Like internet explorer. I'd say Chrome, Firefox and Opera are VERY alike Internet Explorer, all being browsers and all.

You need to go read what the technology does tbh >.>

If you find that you never approach the amount of ram you have, then a good disk io performance boost might be achieved (depending on usage) by disabling the swap (remember to delete the swap file and defrag your disk afterwards) . In addition, disabling file system indexing, system restore and so forth can boost performance (especially if you have a traditional mechanical HDD). I find Piriform's Defraggler to be good for defragmenting individual files, system files (on bootup option), and optimising free space.

Disabling some services can improve performance depending on usage patterns:

1. Windows Search.

2. ReadyBoost.

3. Superfetch.

4. Remote registry, remote desktop, etc.

Ignore him telling you to turn off swap.

Ignore him telling you to turn off everything. Remote registry doesn't run unless enabled explicitly, same with RDP.

Seriously, you people know nothing about the operating system you are giving advice on. It's thoroughly horrifying.

SuperFetch is massively useful. ReadyBoost makes NO DIFFERENCE unless you are using it. Windows Search is not going to worry you enough to discount it's usefulness.

How dumb is that advice.

He is however ok with the advice to use defragmenting software. I prefer Perfect Disk, but that's because I have site licensing..

[LiquidSolstice]

If you find that you never approach the amount of ram you have, then a good disk io performance boost might be achieved (depending on usage) by disabling the swap (remember to delete the swap file and defrag your disk afterwards) . In addition, disabling file system indexing, system restore and so forth can boost performance (especially if you have a traditional mechanical HDD). I find Piriform's Defraggler to be good for defragmenting individual files, system files (on bootup option), and optimising free space.

Disabling some services can improve performance depending on usage patterns:

1. Windows Search.

2. ReadyBoost.

3. Superfetch.

4. Remote registry, remote desktop, etc.

As I said before, on XP, that may have done something, but on 7, you hurt a computer's performance by doing that. Did you even bother asking him if he uses Start Menu search before telling him to disable Windows Search? Did you even ask if he uses ReadyBoost, or if he knows what SuperFetch is? This is the kind of generic "SPEED UP UR WINDOWS FASTER 800%!!!!" advice that we have floating around on the internet that causes so many problems.

[DootDootMan]

I've seen a ridiculous number of cases of computer malware in my time, I used to do company-wide system imaging installations and the crap I've run into would amaze you.

The fact of the matter is that turning off UAC (which is what I'm assuming you imply when you say it's useless) is borderline mentally retarded. Perhaps I just happen to know how powerful UAC is on a company-based computing enviornment, but I still would leave it on. Maybe it doesn't solve everything (there's always ways around protection) but it does (for people I educate on the matter, not sure if you take the time to do it too or if you take the "grumpy IT" approach of not telling them how to avoid it in the future) make a difference if I tell someone to stop and think if they see a UAC prompt, that it's not just there to annoy them.

I refuse to argue with you anymore. I have my experiences and opinions with the feature and I know that UAC doesn't work. Plain and simple. Good day kind sir.

As I said before, on XP, that may have done something, but on 7, you hurt a computer's performance by doing that. Did you even bother asking him if he uses Start Menu search before telling him to disable Windows Search? Did you even ask if he uses ReadyBoost, or if he knows what SuperFetch is? This is the kind of generic "SPEED UP UR WINDOWS FASTER 800%!!!!" advice that we have floating around on the internet that causes so many problems.

Why would I ask him that? It wasn't even included in the OP.

[articuno1au]

That's because you are stupid, and let me show you why.

"I have my experiences and opinions" - You are making statements of fact based on "opinion".

I'll continue to argue with you because I actually know what I am talking about. I am not talking about inferred knowledge. I am trained in this field.

UAC is effective at it's goals. It is possible to go through it with in thread execution, however that's not the intent of the feature.

Considering this, why would you turn it off for this reason? It stops you from installing malware in other ways.

You spotted one thing you consider a flaw in UAC and decided it was something to turn it off for, ignoring the fact it has great advantages. You spotted a flaw which ISN'T a flaw.

You are a fool. That said, you are entitled to be so, just don't expect me not to say it.

[Flawed]

As I said before, on XP, that may have done something, but on 7, you hurt a computer's performance by doing that. Did you even bother asking him if he uses Start Menu search before telling him to disable Windows Search? Did you even ask if he uses ReadyBoost, or if he knows what SuperFetch is? This is the kind of generic "SPEED UP UR WINDOWS FASTER 800%!!!!" advice that we have floating around on the internet that causes so many problems.

Well, I did add a 'usage pattern' caveat. Of course optimisations are not a one size fits all scenario, but I have personally tested them, and I found that they can improve performance without damaging the system. Again, your mileage may vary depending on hardware and workflow patterns.

[articuno1au]

Turning off PageFile will do damage.

No if's buts or maybes. There is also no advantage to it in Vista or 7. XP's memory management was far poorer, that's why it was worth doing in XP.

Tons of things change with patches, not to mention service packs, and then ultimately new versions.

[Flawed]

Turning off PageFile will do damage.

In my experience it extends the lifetime of HDDs and SDD's due to Less reads/writes, but I'd be interested in your reasoning if you care to elaborate.

[DootDootMan]

That's because you are stupid, and let me show you why.

"I have my experiences and opinions" - You are making statements of fact based on "opinion".

I'll continue to argue with you because I actually know what I am talking about. I am not talking about inferred knowledge. I am trained in this field.

UAC is effective at it's goals. It is possible to go through it with in thread execution, however that's not the intent of the feature.

Considering this, why would you turn it off for this reason? It stops you from installing malware in other ways.

You spotted one thing you consider a flaw in UAC and decided it was something to turn it off for, ignoring the fact it has great advantages. You spotted a flaw which ISN'T a flaw.

You are a fool. That said, you are entitled to be so, just don't expect me not to say it.

I am WELL trained in this field as well. I deal with virus/spyware situations on a DAILY basis. I never stated that it should be "turned off". I am just stating that it doesn't work (no matter what you say or try to imply). The situations that I encounter everyday just don't support your "theory". I invite you to give me some hard data that UAC (along with proper AV software) actually works. Otherwise go away.

[LiquidSolstice]

I refuse to argue with you anymore. I have my experiences and opinions with the feature and I know that UAC doesn't work. Plain and simple. Good day kind sir.

That's flipping wonderful for you and your experiences and your "opinions" (I didn't realize that opinions made facts now). UAC can work and nothing is for the worse by leaving it on. It can be bypassed, no one is arguing that, but turning it off would be dumb (and that's what I'm assuming you're saying).

Enjoy your day too, sir.

Why would I ask him that? It wasn't even included in the OP.

You obviously have never seen Flawed's other posts before concerning Windows in general ;)

[articuno1au]

In my experience it extends the lifetime of HDDs and SDD's due to Less reads/writes, but I'd be interested in your reasoning if you care to elaborate.

VM (Virtual Memory) is a requirement for a lot of applications. Flash is a good example of this.

Also, Windows 7 and Vista already have much better memory management, as a result, very very little is written to VM (swap) to begin with unless you computer needs to (due to running out of RAM), in which case Windows ignores the limits you set and expands the VM area.

Ultimately it doesn't matter if you turn off VM for this reason. Windows will ignore you when memory is needed. Thus you gain nothing, and lose a lot of functionality as a result of all the applications which crack the ****s as a result of having no VM.

Sorry, 30 hours since I last slept, it's a bit rambly..

I am WELL trained in this field as well. I deal with virus/spyware situations on a DAILY basis. I never stated that it should be "turned off". I am just stating that it doesn't work (no matter what you say or try to imply). The situations that I encounter everyday just don't support your "theory". I invite you to give me some hard data that UAC (along with proper AV software) actually works. Otherwise go away.

Prove me wrong. Microsoft and I both say it works. Microsoft showed me where it worked and how it worked as part of the training..

You are throwing around stupid insinuations and "I know best"isms rather then debating the point. You told me how to bypass it, I explained why it worked.

You haven't met a single point with fact or theory, merely conjecture.

Feel free to sit there and bitch me out, but understand that everyone reading this is going to side with me because I have shown reason and logic.

/shrug

[OuchOfDeath]

I am WELL trained in this field as well. I deal with virus/spyware situations on a DAILY basis. I never stated that it should be "turned off". I am just stating that it doesn't work (no matter what you say or try to imply). The situations that I encounter everyday just don't support your "theory". I invite you to give me some hard data that UAC (along with proper AV software) actually works. Otherwise go away.

There's plenty of data that UAC works. I don't think you understand what UAC even is. It's the difference between a program executing as one with user priviledges that can only write to a select few areas and not touch any running executables, to running with full administrator access that can delete any file, manipulate any process, infect and subvert whatever the hell it wants. This is fundamental basic operating system security design that UNIX operating systems have been following since the 70's. Every other operating system has had "UAC" for close to their entire existence. OS X has had it since day one. Linux has likely had it for most of its existence. Solaris and all the BSD's have likely had it for most of their existence. Windows just picked up on this fundamental security level in Vista unfortunately, but better late than never. UAC is key to a secure operating system. Period. You look stupid to argue otherwise. This is basic operating system fundamentals, I stress again, that every other operating system implements.

Of course it's not foolproof. No operating system his. However it is the single biggest security enhancement in Windows -ever-, and every piece of malware has two vectors that they need to attack before they gain access to the system. They have to first off execute, most often through a flaw in the browser, then because of UAC they have no access to the system and have to again exploit a vulnerability in Windows itself in order to bypass UAC. This is two layers of security that have to be breached, and breaching Windows in order to gain admin access is very difficult. It is, i'll say again, the single biggest security enhancement in Windows EVER, and the most important security layer in any operating system. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Just stop posting in this topic.

[Ace]

UAC also provides file and registry virtualization which is very handy for old and/or poorly written apps that try to save stuff to places they shouldn't. For example, trying to write to an INI file in the "Program Files" or Windows folders.

UAC's filesystem and registry virtualization helps mitigate problems with legacy applications run as a standard user by automatically redirecting write operations and subsequent reads to protected areas of the filesystem and registry to a per-user virtual store. This helps ensure that many applications that would not run on earlier versions of Windows as a standard user will work without any intervention from system administrators. (Source)

[nfiniti9]

Really? Just let it go if that is what you believe FFS. I refuse to respond to your crap posts. I've been working in IT for 33 years. I don't need you to "validate" me.

Theres the real reason you can't argue with him. Anyone been working on computers that long is stubborn and burned out.

Honestly though, your blanket argument that UAC doesn't work does make you seem ignorant. It's just not the case. In reality if the machine is up-to-date, 0-day malware is very expensive and rarely used for simple infections. Its just not going to be the norm in anyway. Otherwise if its not using a security flaw then it must go through UAC which makes the user responsible for the choice.

[Frylock86]

I think Flawed should be deterred from giving Win 7 advice.

That's really bad advice man, and I really hope you're not telling everyone to do that.

[DootDootMan]

I just always hope I never turn into that person :\

I am resolved to keep reading and staying on top of my game and taking nothing for granted D:

I just hope I can manage it without becoming a loner >.<

What are you saying?

[articuno1au]

I am saying that at some point, doing the work means that you can't stay on top of the technology.

At some point your work with Windows Forms takes up enough of your time that you can't learn WPF and still do your job.

What I am saying is that I hope I always have enough freedom in my job to stay on top of everything as I do now. Currently I am on top of my field, I know over time this will be less and less true, I just hope I can stay flexible.

You took the "I know what I am doing because I have been doing it for 30 years" approach. The problem is, you can't have learnt everything about everything while working.

I get to know this stuff by growing up with it.

You can't compete with people like me. In the same way I can't compete with the 18 year old kid when I am 40. All I can do is stay flexible and hope to learn from them, the exact opposite of what you did here.

/shrug

The last line was just saying I hope I can keep reading all the tech journals, white papers and random bits and pieces I do now.. AND have a family at the same time.. I don't know if I can, and I shall just have to see..

[nfiniti9]

I don't care about what anyone "thinks". I was just making a statement.

You have to think of this logically. To get malware on the system you have to either a) trick the os or b) trick the user. Now which one you do you think 90% of the malware uses? Why spend lots of effort/resources to get past the OS security when its so easy to trick the average user? UAC is rarely bypassed on today's malware, its just too expensive (sold by hackers) and it has a very short lifespan before its patched. So its really used for people trying to steal specific information or control key systems. It just doesn't make sense to say UAC is bypassed on a daily basis. There would be nothing stopping almost every machine connected on the internet from being infected. The hackers are good but they want money for what they do now. It just not the reality you think it is.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

Cleaned

Stay on topic. If this thread is derailed again with petty bickering, action will be taken.