That additional load is going to offset any perceived benefit. Perhaps the timing of that load needs to be better allocated. With Superfetch, Windows Search, Windows Defender and your anti-virus of choice all competing for the most limited bandwidth on your hardware has to take a hit. In Vista, superfetch starts before you log into your system. For a single user, it actually does work well at least for me, and depending on how much RAM you have for superfetch to preload.
In Windows 7, microsoft is further lowering the priority of the superfetch thread, and also delaying it from starting until after the desktop has been loaded. Windows 7 also in general just has less processes and services at startup, with a rewritten service stack with better delayed loading partial loading on demand.
When I upgraded to a 10K rpm Raptor, I can now boot windows and pretty much immediately open any application. A typical rpm is at least twice as slow, and a is even slower. Most laptops of course using the slowest option, sometimes even a rpm, or a poor SSD.
But for more generic hard drives of the rpm variety, I have seen Superfetch make the machine unbearable to use during boot. Superfetch tries to guess what one is going to do and autonomously allocates resources accordingly. Sounds good on the surface. But on a deeper level, offends my design sensibilities. Includes range of applications: wordprocessors, spreadsheets, internet browsers, games and image editors. Extra software in the form of dotpets. There is a Puppy Software Installer included.
Puppy is easy to use and little technical knowledge is assumed. Hardware is automatically detected. Once it has booted and loaded itself entirely into RAM, it is super fast, as you might imagine. Anything over that, you are laughing! It was kinda slow, and the disk would thrash for minutes after the desktop appeared. I was trying to find out what was hitting the hard disk and when, using my trusty optical detectors, so I turned off Superfetch.
Microsoft, on the other hand, went the Rube Goldberg route, apparently compelled to build a rather complex caching scheme which tries to predict what you will do.
So I have to ask why? Is it because Microsoft knew Vista was going to have performance issues, and was desperate to do anything to make it appear that that was not the case even if that something, in cases like mine above, amounted to nothing more than good advertising buzzwords? Both folks chose XP. FreeBSD and Linux, which generally stick to doing the basics well, both wipe the floor with even XP on my personal hardware. If you crafted it carefully, pre-loading can work.
May as well use the time, hey, until the user hits the start button? We are going to get lucky a good percentage of the time and have some stuff pre-loaded that will be needed later, and even if not … well the system would have been idle otherwise. As soon as the user hits the start button … all bets are off … we will need the system to be responsive.
And thus the hate brigade on OSNews. It is nothing in the grand scheme of things when you compare it to the time wasted because of problems that cause down time. They need to focus on the big time wasters rather than a couple of seconds here and there. I have two Vista machines and 6 XP machines. It was amazing! XP just works… XP just boots…. These machines are super slow!!!!
They require about 5 minutes to completely boot up after logon. But I have GB drives nearly full and then it just churns and churns and churns… The operating system is constantly needing to do something and it drives me bonkers! Vista is garbage and Windows 7 will be the same rehashed garbage! I already played with it and was not impressed. I think Vista is using a cludge to somewhat get around the fact that it is just plain slow compared to Windows XP.
There are too many services being loaded, too much IO going on. I have Office Professional installed on my XP netbook, and it loads without the splash. Vista and Windows 7 in its gimmickry makes the entire system appear faster when it fact it is slower. And I see it many times especially when I am on battery mode and Vista has this undying habit of having to search something….
I obviously would like to live in a world where BeOS was the norm. Dear lord that machine is slow because of the low RAM. I still need to order him some extra RAM.
With that in mind, anything that improves thing — trickery or not — is welcome. I dont care if numbers crunch in 1 or 2 seconds, but tearing on XP GDI desktop spoils the fun for me. It would indeed same a waste to have 3 out of 4GB sit idle when you are using a low-memory application. However, I would have expected that in this day of age, with all the focus on power saving technologies, it would actually be possible to shut down RAM chips that are not used.
Put its shortcut in Start Up the whole thing, not just the pre-loader , restart Windows about 10 times and see if it makes a difference as in whether OOo will start to launch quicker. Where Writer 2. We are talking about SuperFetch and memory management and this has nothing to do with an ordinary pre-loading.
Please clarify? In Windows Vista, SuperFetch and ReadyBoost extend upon the prefetcher and attempt to accelerate application and boot launch times respectively by monitoring and adapting to usage patterns over periods of time and loading the majority of the files and data needed by them into memory so that they can be accessed very quickly when needed.
This results in faster application startup times as less data needs to be fetched from disk. Damn prior art! So far, no tech magazine i trust has ever found the slightest bit of a speed improvement through SuperFetch. Yes, compared to load times after turning off superfetch, some of my most commonly used apps started slightly faster … slightly. Yes, with superfetch enabled, there was a lot of disc thrashing. It seemed to be constantly trying to figure out what to have loaded, what to flush out of RAM, and in what order to do it in.
Once I turned superfetch off, disc thrashing went down dramatically, and the overall responsiveness of the system improved. Look, some RAM caching is good.
Linux does it, and does it well. That seems much much much much more sensible to me. If your disc dies, so does your data. If your RAM dies, who cares. RAM is cheap and easily replaced. Really, traditional, spinning, hard discs are the weakest technological link in modern computers. They are the slowest part of the system, they are the least reliable, and the most devastating when they fail. I see Flash Memory storage as the possible answer.
But until then, using something like SuperFetch, which definitely causes more disc thrashing, just does not seem like a good idea. In any case, in my own anecdotal example, disabling SuperFetch made my Vista experience much better.
Please read up on the page cache and demand paging mechanisms, and how the Linux VM works in general. As mentioned in my previous post, this misapprehension can only be based on the fact that you are not generating enough of a workload. In computing, less is more. The less unneeded crap loaded, the better. That is a cost. On Arch Linux OpenOffice 3. When I first upgraded, on my modest system, i got these results:.
So, as an experiment, I also install preload. So preload has done some good. So pre-loading such as done by preload and SuperFetch CAN actually work … in some circumstances, if done right. Maybe on OO. This menu usually contains default links such as personalize or properties, view, new, and more. This tutorial will show you how to add items to your right click menu. You can basically link to anything as long as you know the command to enter.
For example if you type a command into the run box to start a program, then this is the command to use. To change the desktop right click menu we need to edit the registry which is not for the new computer users to try. Editing the registry can cause your computer to not run or stop working completely. My name is Milica Pantic but everyone calls me Mitz. Hope you enjoy my website and learn everything you need to know in an easy to understand way..
Tips4pc Youtube Channel. Note that Superfetch is not the same thing as Prefetch, the preloading memory manager introduced back in Windows XP. Superfetch is actually the successor to Prefetch. What's the difference? Prefetch did not analyze usage patterns over time and adjust its preloading parameters accordingly.
For the most part, Superfetch is useful. If you have a modern PC with average specs or better, Superfetch most likely runs so smoothly that you won't even notice it. There's a good chance Superfetch is already running on your system right now, and you didn't even know. Superfetch has also been known to cause performance issues while gaming , particularly on systems with 4GB of RAM or less.
It's unclear why this happens because it doesn't occur for everybody, but we suspect it has to do with RAM-heavy games that constantly request and free up memory, which may cause Superfetch to load and unload data constantly.
Is it safe to disable Superfetch? There is no risk of side effects if you decide to turn it off. We recommend that if your system is running well, leave it on. A number of Windows users have also noted SuperFetch causing spikes of hard drive and CPU usage, especially during gaming sessions.
It's possible that because of the way games will pick up and drop RAM as and when it's needed, that SuperFetch is getting in the way and causing gameplay stutters while everything shuffles around in memory. If you want to check in on what effect SuperFetch might be having on your system, you might find it a little hard to spot when you first pull up the Task Manager.
That's because like a number of Windows 10 services, SuperFetch isn't run as its own process, or at least, isn't listed as such. It's instead collected under a generic "Service Host. This is all part of Microsoft moving away from the powerful, but problematic,.
To find that process you'll need to scroll through the exhaustive list of Service Host processes to find the one called "Service Host: Superfetch. If your system is running fine with no slowdowns, it's unlikely you'll see any kind of benefit from turning off SuperFetch.
0コメント