prevent frame rate shutter with out turning graphics down.

[caldera]

Gamebooster is easy to use, no need to know anything in computers for it to be efficient. And If you use your computer for other things than aces high you might don't want those processes to be gone forever! Windows 7 x64 going down to 44 processes with a couple a clicks is not too bad 

I have Windows7-64 and play with only 32 processes running (30, not counting AH and the Properties tab - so all the buttons work on the X-52).  Try Black Viper instead.  The processes turned off are not "gone forever".  You can turn them back on at any time. 

[wabbit]

As of June 30th, Gamebooster will no longer be free.

http://www.silobreaker.com/iobit-game-booster-free-ride-ends-on-june-30th-5_2265698404090773583

Sounds like a good time for those using it to check out some of the Freeware alternatives, like Jet Boost, and others.


Wabb

[guncrasher]

here's a free one.

http://www.blackviper.com/


semp

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Ditto. I've found simply turning off readyboost and superfetch has increased performance.

Coogan

Readyboost is unnecessary. Turning off superfetch will only cause you longer loading times on commonly used applications.

[Skuzzy]

Readyboost is unnecessary. Turning off superfetch will only cause you longer loading times on commonly used applications.

Actually, superfetch on Vista was a process hog as it would load everything it could, until memory was exhausted.  During that time everything ran horribly and then if you wanted to run an application it did not load (quickly earning the nickname of "stupidfetch"), you would wait forever for memory to clear so the app could load and run.

Some of the misbehaving was corrected for Windows 7, but there are still times when it misses and it can add to the load time of an application.

It is just not worth it.

[gyrene81]

Readyboost is unnecessary. Turning off superfetch will only cause you longer loading times on commonly used applications.

haven't noticed that on any of my personal systems...side by side testing at work with 2 fresh images on exact same systems, starting ms word 2010 repeatedly showed mere milliseconds in difference. not worth the extra memory load.

[Skuzzy]

haven't noticed that on any of my personal systems...side by side testing at work with 2 fresh images on exact same systems, starting ms word 2010 repeatedly showed mere milliseconds in difference. not worth the extra memory load.

By default, once you load an application, all versions of Windows (starting with 98SE) would cache the application, until physical memory for something else was needed.  So once you load any given application it is available instantly after that.

Stupidfetch sometimes helps with the first time load, and that is all.

[gyrene81]

By default, once you load an application, all versions of Windows (starting with 98SE) would cache the application, until physical memory for something else was needed.  So once you load any given application it is available instantly after that.

Stupidfetch sometimes helps with the first time load, and that is all.

hence the reason we repeated the process several times with full power down restarts...

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Actually, superfetch on Vista was a process hog as it would load everything it could, until memory was exhausted.  During that time everything ran horribly and then if you wanted to run an application it did not load (quickly earning the nickname of "stupidfetch"), you would wait forever for memory to clear so the app could load and run.

Some of the misbehaving was corrected for Windows 7, but there are still times when it misses and it can add to the load time of an application.

It is just not worth it.

I'd say it's not worth to disable it since I've never seen any benefit in doing so either.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

haven't noticed that on any of my personal systems...side by side testing at work with 2 fresh images on exact same systems, starting ms word 2010 repeatedly showed mere milliseconds in difference. not worth the extra memory load.

You do realize that superfetch will analyze your working patterns for 2 weeks and then it starts to actually affect anything?

[guncrasher]

You do realize that superfetch will analyze your working patterns for 2 weeks and then it starts to actually affect anything?

sounds like my girlfriend.


semp

[Skuzzy]

I'd say it's not worth to disable it since I've never seen any benefit in doing so either.

Any process, whether it is sleeping or running, in Windows takes up resources and CPU cycles.  You can argue to the percentages of what that is, if you like.

For those who want every CPU cycle they can get to run applications, then it is a win for them to disable that process.

[gyrene81]

You do realize that superfetch will analyze your working patterns for 2 weeks and then it starts to actually affect anything?

  come on Ripley, you might want to remove the hook before you get reeled in too far. it doesn't take that long to start affecting the system. as soon as you have the os installed and perform the first full system restart superfetch is peforming part of its touted usefulness...analyzing and caching windows startup files to improve windows boot times. on a slow mechanical drive with a windows install that is old and bloated like you would find on a business laptop, it could be useful. to that point, generally speaking for general business or basic home use, i wouldn't argue against using superfetch. on a dedicated gaming system and/or instances where free memory is more important than program startup speed, no thanks.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

  come on Ripley, you might want to remove the hook before you get reeled in too far. it doesn't take that long to start affecting the system. as soon as you have the os installed and perform the first full system restart superfetch is peforming part of its touted usefulness...analyzing and caching windows startup files to improve windows boot times. on a slow mechanical drive with a windows install that is old and bloated like you would find on a business laptop, it could be useful. to that point, generally speaking for general business or basic home use, i wouldn't argue against using superfetch. on a dedicated gaming system and/or instances where free memory is more important than program startup speed, no thanks.

Laugh as much as you want. MS took the lessons from Vista and tuned down superfetch just so it wouldn't work as you described. It won't just cache every program you start from the get-go, it takes statistic data from your usage patterns and then caches the apps you use most frequently. Also, superfetch won't even load the cached stuff right from the boot, it slowly and incrementally fills up the cache in order to prevent bogging down the i/o.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Any process, whether it is sleeping or running, in Windows takes up resources and CPU cycles.  You can argue to the percentages of what that is, if you like.

Which is where the wording 'never seen any benefit' comes from. The theoretical benefit is just too marginal to see with a human eye, then again in practical situations disabling it may result in visibly slower app startup times.

There was a time when I disabled everything possible from win7. I found no performance benefit in doing so, most commonly just the opposite when apps that relied on some rarely used service, failed to function properly. Turn of WPF - fine, untill you happen to launch software that's built on wpf.

The only tuning I do on win7 currently is turn off netbios helper, simple services discovery protocol, and every service in networking except basic ipv4. TCP settings I tweak by setting manual dns (google, opendns). I also disable remote differential compression protocol on gaming machines. Honestly speaking I haven't seen any visible performance gains in doing even any of the above tweaks (except the DNS setting which has been problematic with my isp).