Originally published at: http://www.howtogeek.com/173648/10-windows-tweaking-myths-debunked/
Windows is big, complicated, and misunderstood. You’ll still stumble across bad advice from time to time when browsing the web. These Windows tweaking, performance, and system maintenance tips are mostly just useless, but some are actively harmful.
I heartily agree with most of this, with one exception - I routinely delete browser cache files. Not for performance, but for security/privacy concerns.
Mucking about with the Page File is often counter productive. Apart from occasionally defragmenting it.
Clearing browser caches won't slow you down much if you aren't on a slow dial-up connection.
And one thing you haven't mentioned, many places still advise turning off the Indexing Service which may have had problems on some XP systems but is essential with terrabyte drives.
So, yes, maybe paging is good. But is there a setting to tone down how much paging is used? In Android, there was something like "Swappiness", which lets you set the priority of swap in comparison to internal memory.
Best thing to do regarding the swap file is to set it to a static size. Dynamic sizing theoretically can slow you down if it has to adjust the pagefile size whilst you're in the middle of something extremely important (like downloading your porn vids). Plenty of guides out there describing the particulars.
Eh, for me, "extremely important" is downloading Steam games, not junk. But yeah, I've set it to 1 GB.
I agree with most of the recommendations except those regarding the use of a page file. "However, if you do have enough RAM, Windows will only use the pagefile rarely anyway." So that begs the question, why dedicate the space on your HDD to a page file? Performance aside, if you're using a 128gb SSD like I am (and 16gb of ram) I want to preserve as much drive space as possible. FYI, I've also disabled hibernation (set size to 0). I managed to reclaim over 20gb in free space on my SSD without any side effects. That's well worth it to me.
Page file? Sure. Decreased it to 1 GB.
Hibernation. No way. It's essential to me.
XP is set to auto-defrag? Not seen this at my work as computer tech.
Maybe I should check my kids XP pcs.
DisablePagingExecutive might fix KERNEL_DATA_INPAGE_ERROR bsod
otherwise theres no point in this
So Soluto don't make any difference?
With broadband, browser cache is useless... Especiallly if you have never cleaned it. Therefore i recomend ccleander once a week. The windows disk defrag on vista, win7 &8 is supposed to be aytomatic..... But i have yet to see a pc that is a few months old and is not hooribly fragmented. months have tested them all and they defrag the disk in reality
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic about your kids and windows XP, but if you're not: Why windows xp instead of a linux distro? They would probably learn a lot more about computers if you went with linux.
What does this have to do with a thread titled "10 Windows Tweaking Myths Debunked" ???
Nope, on HTG Explains: Do You Really Need to Defrag Your PC? it says: "Sadly there’s no automatic defragmenter in Windows XP, which isn’t surprising since it’s 10 years old."
I agree with it all except for the disabling of windows services, and I don't mean delayed start, I mean either disabled or manual. It depends on the situation for speed, but for wasting a lot of RAM if you let services like Nessus or Rapid 7's Nexpose service start every time you boot and run when you aren't using them, then you better be running RAM in the teens. I've seen Nexpose use 3 or 4 gig when on idle.
That's what confused me. The article said since Windows 98. But you can schedule a defrag in Win XP in the task scheduler. Done that for a few PCs on our domain.
What ticks me off is Adobe updater adding an updater to the task scheduler to check for an update EVERY HOUR! seriously?!?
That's one seriously messed up updater.
As for setting a task to defrag the HDD, that's not something the average user really does. Windows is a pretty decent operating environment, and you can do pretty much everything you do in one version of Windows in another one.
Meh. With the breach they had, they want to be able to get an update out as soon as possible after they release it. It's an overhead of running a small program and a few packets each hour. I'm sure they would rather have a listener running and be able to push updates instead of having every computer poll their servers. But that would be an even less acceptable solution.
next page →