# Driver Heaven Tune XP 1·5 to speed up your computer's performance.



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

*Memory and File System *

The Memory and File System category is clearly the biggest category of them all.

In this category, you will find reccomendations that alter the very way in which Windows XP works with memory.

*ACCELERATE DLL UNLOADING* _Recommended for benchmarking._

This affects the swiftness of Windows to unload cached DLLs from the main memory. It makes sure that no DLL will clog up the RAM by uncaching them quicker. Might be a performance gain in benchmarks, but might slow down general Windows usage by a small amount.

*CLEAR PAGEFILE ON SHUTDOWN* _No recommendation._

This makes Windows clear the pagefile on shutdown. It will make shutdown slower, but might make bootup and paging
a bit faster. (marginally)

*DISABLE PAGING EXECUTIVE* _*512MB RAM, or more, required.*_

This removes the pool of system files that Windows will force to be paged. Instead, they will be loaded into the
RAM. It will use a bit of memory, but will make Windows quicker and more responsive.

*FASTER SHUTDOWN* _Recommended for everyone._

This alters the speed of Windows application/service shutdown times from 20 seconds to 1, and will make
Windows shutdown around 5 times quicker.

*FILE ALLOCATION SIZE TWEAK* _Recommended for everyone._

This alters the size of the memory file allocation size. The effect is not drastic, but most people see a
(slight) improvement in general responsivity.

*OPTIMIZE PREFETCH* _Recommended for everyone._

This optimizes the way in which the Windows prefetcher works. The prefetcher allocates short bits of applications and
DLL's and speeds up the process of application loading (especially larger applications) by doing so.

*INCREASE NTFS PERFORMANCE* _Recommended for NTFS users._

This removes the "Last Access Stamp" from all files. This improves general disk performance by removing 
massive bandwidth overhead.

*IO PAGE LOCK LIMIT* _Recommended for everyone._

This alters the size of the IO paging area in memory. The larger RAM amount you have, the higher a limit
you can set. Improves general performance, especially when loading larger applications.

*CLEAR PREFETCH FOLDER* _Recommended for everyone._

This cleans out the folder with all the prefetches Windows has allocated. This is recommended to be done
every now and then (for instance, every week) to improve general Windows performance.

(NOTE: In version 1.5, this tweak has been bug fixed.)

*DEFRAG BOOT FILES* _Recommended for everyone._

This function quickly assembles the bootfiles and stacks them together. Speeds up boot performance.

*DISABLE ZIP FOLDERS* _Recommended for people with a 3rd party archiving tool._

This function uninstalls the builtin ZIP capability of Windows. This frees up resources, but if you want to open
ZIP-files afterwards, you will need a 3rd party application, like WinZip or WinRAR.

*ULTRA-FAST BOOTING* _Recommended for everyone._

This is a multi-stage tweak. First, it moves the bootfile to the edge of the drive, after which it defrags the
system drive. Can reduce Windows boot time substantially, sometimes more than 300%

*Hardware*

*CD-BURNING* _Recommended if you need it._

This tweak enables/disables the builtin CD burning capabilities of Windows. 
If you have a 3rd party CD writing tool, you can turn it off to save resources

*ENABLE UDMA-66* _Recommended for most people._

Enables UltraDMA-66 on Intel chipsets. Recommended for people with ATA-66/UDMA-66 or higher compatible IDE controller
chipsets

*INCREASE CPU PRIORITY* _Recommended for benchmarking._

Changes the way Windows works with CPU resources. Increases performance for the primary application, and slightly neglects background services. Useful for benchmarking

*INCREASE USB POLLING INTERVAL* _Recommended for mobile users/benchmarking._

Changes the latency of USB polling from 1ms to 5ms. Usable for some mobile users, as polling uses a fair slice of CPU performance. Hence, the CPU might not be able to enter a power-saving state. Likewise, it might be usable for benchmarkers because of a slightly reduced CPU load.

*SPEED-UP WINDOWS IRQ HANDLING* _Recommended for everyone._

This optimizes the way Windows deals with the system bus IRQ, and in turn, makes the whole lot run quicker.

*Internet*

*IP SETTINGS* _Recommended for everyone._

This small tool lets you view, release and renew your IP adress(es).

*INCREASE DNS CACHE* _Recommended for everyone._

This increases the size of the Windows DNS cache, and will make access to websites or other network locations
with DNS faster

*FAST USER SWITCH*

This is a service, which allows for several users to be logged on at the same time, so the user switching process
can be speeded up. This service, however, uses a fair bit of RAM and CPU cycles. If you want performance,
you should turn it off.

*MESSENGER*

The messenger service (Not Windows/MSN Messenger) is the ill-rumoured net send service. If disabled, you won't
see any annoying popups.

*THEMES*

This service handles all Windows graphic layout themes. If it is disabled, resources and CPU will be freed up,
but Windows will be more "classic" (ugly say some) to look at.

*Miscellaneous*

*CHECK DISK*

This well-known tool checks the disk for errors. *EDIT* (Only runs without any switches.)

*DEFRAGMENT*

Another well-known tool, with a small GUI client.

*SYSTEM FILE CHECKER*

Starts the Windows System File CHecker Checks to see if the syetm files are valid.

*WINDOWS UPDATE*

Launches Windows Update in Internet Explorer, if it is set as your default Browser.

Well I have tried it and like it. So it would be nice to see what you think of this Freeware product, provided freely due to somebodys careful work and unselfish generosity.

Very nice, and easy to use! :up:

Thank you. 

*Home page.* Driver Heaven Tune XP 1·5


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Just thought to add this little tip in here.

In IE, Tools, IE Options, Advanced, & under "Navigation" Uncheck:

"Activate install on demand" [Other] , and, "Activate install on demand" [Internet Explorer]


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Hopefully we aren't just switching advertising for Diskeeper 9 to this new program? Seems like a lot of your posts have changed to recommending the previous program to the new one. 

Problem is that the suggestions for solutions have tended be extremely generalized this way. 

For example, previously you generally suggested to pad the MFT and Defrag to fix all kinds of unrelated problems. Now it seems you are doing this same with the new program. 

While it is convenient to offer a solution by pointing to the same single link, it usually takes a bit more depth in understanding and time to really resolve it.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

I like people to understand the basics first of all. This is a free program as you can see.

Personally I think the the world was a better place without computers.

After good preparation, preventative maintenance and tuning, comes fault finding.

I have found, during thirty eight years of engineering, and fifteen years of using computers, that if you look after the first three on a regular basis you have far less trouble.

Generally, computers are the least important thing in my life, as they are so very easy to work with, providing that they come equipped with enough RAM to cover all eventualities.


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

"Whitphil", "I'm not going to try it, you try it."

"Bob Cerelli", I'm not going to try it"

"Whitphil" "Lets get Skivvy he'll try it, he'll try anything"


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Skivvywaver said:


> "Whitphil", "I'm not going to try it, you try it."
> 
> "Bob Cerelli", I'm not going to try it"
> 
> "Whitphil" "Lets get Skivvy he'll try it, he'll try anything"


And don't look at me either, my comp ain't broke


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Skivvywaver,

Not going to try it either. 

Over the years there have been so many of these little utility programs that claim to make these changes that will then greatly enhance your computer's performance. Never really found anything that made any dramatic changes. 

This is just one more. Can't hurt but no big deal either. Most of the information for all this has been around for years.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Stoner,

Awe come on....no guts no glory... or is it gory ;-)


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Every time I check another of these tuning tabs it gets just a little bit better. Have to re-boot and then try it out for a while.

Each tab produces a nearly imperceptible increase in performance, but the overall result seems to be that it is actually producing a perceptible improvement.

Quick and easy to do it will probably give most people what they are looking for. Then they can just get on with using their computer instead of twiddling with it like a bunch of fidgits. 

Not as good as tuning the old BMW used to be. Got the speed up from 155 to 164 mph just by changing the engine management chip.

Accelleration :up: fuel economy :down:


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Rampage,

Given that you are extremely concerned with performance, and that this information has been around for several years, it is curious why it has it taken you so long to try these basic steps to help increase performance. You can't have been relying on just defragging all this time.


----------



## WhitPhil (Oct 4, 2000)

Skivvywaver said:


> "Whitphil", "I'm not going to try it, you try it."
> 
> "Bob Cerelli", I'm not going to try it"
> 
> "Whitphil" "Lets get Skivvy he'll try it, he'll try anything"


        

ROFL ROFLMAO ROFLAHMS ROFLGO


----------



## Kenny94 (Dec 16, 2004)

I've been playing with Tune XP 15 for the past hour. It's user friendly for one. The utilities use DOS. Heck, I can go on and on with this program! And has a nice look/face to it. And it's free. Pretty clever program. Thanks Rampage 

Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Thank you.


----------



## Big-K (Nov 22, 2003)

Am I weird because I'm satisfied with my computers performance?


----------



## bkpeck (Jan 6, 2005)

I tried some of these and like them....but if you set it to boot faster the boot files are moved and Perfect Disk moves them back to where they were!!


----------



## Kenny94 (Dec 16, 2004)

Big-K said:


> Am I weird because I'm satisfied with my computers performance?


U don't know?? I do know this guy is weird/funny at: http://homestarrunner.com/sbemail118.html 
;-D


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

There are quite a few of these little utility programs out there. Most just make basic registry changes that you could do as well.

Another program that has been around for quite a while is X-Setup Pro

http://www.x-setup.net/

Something like 1,700 functions to be controlled.

Even lets you generate the Reg files to make the specific change you like. Then you don't even need the program if you want to make these at a later time or on other computers.


----------



## Big-K (Nov 22, 2003)

heheh...never seen that particular one. "Virus=very?"


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

That has been around for a long time. A lot of them have. It's just one I've used from time to time. 

Have no idea what "Virus=very?" means or refers to however.


----------



## WhitPhil (Oct 4, 2000)

For what it's worth.

But it could explain the imperceptible increases in performance, if valid!


----------



## funkdmonkey (Dec 7, 2004)

Hey guys stop complaining, i used Tune-XP 1.5 about 3 months ago and my performance has had a good increase, especially in my shutdown and boot times. I reccommend it, i use it about every 2 weeks. Very user friendly program and has its own documentation about all the tweaks it applies. I give it 3 hairy thumbs ups.


----------



## Big-K (Nov 22, 2003)

Bob Cerelli said:


> That has been around for a long time. A lot of them have. It's just one I've used from time to time.
> 
> Have no idea what "Virus=very?" means or refers to however.


I was actually responding to the post above yours.


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

Most of these tweaks are probably good, and all are included in other tweakers, such as X-Setup, TweakNow 2005, ITweakU, and so on.

But I do take issue with a couple of them. I notice that many of these tweakers no longer exhort the disabling of the creation of 8.3 filenames in order to speed up file access. It no doubt speeded access, though imperceptibly, but it also made many installers and programs that still use 8.3 filenames to fail, among them all the installations produced by Norton.

ACCELERATE DLL UNLOADING
Maybe. But since thse same dll's may need to be reloaded, and many dll's are used for multiple apps, this one may actually slow things down.

CLEAR PAGEFILE ON SHUTDOWN
Why? Unless you are running some super secure machine and you arer worried what someone with a hex editor might find in a pagfile, it only slows down booting and shutting down.

FASTER SHUTDOWN
This changes the time-out value when XP considers an application "hung" and forces shutdown. Data may be lost if caches aren't emptied and settings saved before the forcible shutdown. Who is really in a hurry to shut down?

INCREASE NTFS PERFORMANCE
Disabling the last access date stamp makes it impossible for defraggers that order files by last access to work properly, such as Diskeeper and O&O.

IO PAGE LOCK LIMIT
This really does work in 9x. The registry value doesn't exist by default in XP and I'm not convinced it does anything at all in NT.

CD-BURNING
Not sure if it's necessary, but whenever I use Nero, XP's IMAPI (Burner) starts up. Will it still work correctly if I disable X:'s burner?

ENABLE UDMA-66
Most modern drives use at least UDMA-100.

SPEED-UP WINDOWS IRQ HANDLING
Well, you can read it for yourself.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/XPMyths.html

In short, I'm not sure that all these tweaks work, and some may actually cause trouble. It would be nice if they explained a little more fully what they actually do so that people can decide intelligently.


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

Elvandil, That link is interesting. Thanks.


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

Skivvywaver said:


> Elvandil, That link is interesting. Thanks.


Yeh. I'm not sure I agree with every word they say, but it really is amazing how since the internet became so widely used, not only do people have ready access to the truth, but lies spread faster than wildfire, too.

Hopefully, they'll update that page as peoples' imaginations become even more creative.

Here's a couple more sites that debunk "urban myths", but they are more general than just XP:

http://www.campusnut.com/urbanmyths.cfm
http://www.snopes.com/snopes.asp
http://www.vmyths.com/


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

I know what you are saying. The system tweaks are something I learned about quite awhile ago. I am happy to just keep her running well without virus' and spyware.

I built her to be a powerful machine so any loss because of the OS isn't going to be noticed really. Tweaks can cause more problems than they fix. One tweak I wouldn't want to be without is tweak ui. I hate shortcut arrows and tweak ui takes care of it without messing in the registry. The auto logon is cool also, even though control userpasswords can do the same thing. Tweak UI is good for lazy people like me.

I have used x setup in the past but I don't even bother with it anymore. I guess I have just become complacent or maybe even boring.


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

I've tried every tweak that was ever made. Except for ones like you mentioned that make some cosmetic improvements, few have been very impressive.

We need to assume that the people who made the operating system, and know a great deal more about it than anyone else, have already done what they could to optimize it.

So, my view of "tweaking" has changed somewhat. I used to try to make the OS better than it was. Now, I just assume that it is for the most part already optimized, and that Microsoft, in its efforts to make an OS compatible with all types of different machines, may have made one or two settings that don't work especially well on some machines, even if they do on most. "Tweaking" then becomes an effort to make minor adjustments for a particular machine.


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

Here is a quick snap of the tools I use on my machine. I don't use every part of Ashampoo or system mechanic. I am experimenting with registry mechanic right now but I actually think registry first aid is better. I don't run it very often but I do run it occasionally.

As you can see most of my programs are security related. I have been smacked hard a few times. It hasn't happened in a long time now.:up:

I keep ashampoo for its drive cleaning capabilities, that and I paid money for it years ago. System mechanic was a gift. Adaware was bought back when adaware 6 came out. Spysweeper is a keeper. I think we all get certain programs we like and that is what we use because they work for our machines. 

I am very used to my machine the way I have it set up. I don't have Zone Alarm in the folder or diskeeper. They have there place in the quick launch bar beside mailwasher and nero. I am stuck in my ways.


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

Yeh, well I do like my tools. Note the position of the scroll bar. And this is just one folder.


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

Your picture didn't work.


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

Spelling.


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

Wow, You got some mean stuff going on there. I feel inadequate.


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

I'll have to confess that I use less than 10% of it. Most was installed just to try it out before recommending to others and just never uninstalled. One of these days....


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Elvandil said:


> Most of these tweaks are probably good, and all are included in other tweakers, such as X-Setup, TweakNow 2005, ITweakU, and so on.
> 
> But I do take issue with a couple of them. I notice that many of these tweakers no longer exhort the disabling of the creation of 8.3 filenames in order to speed up file access. It no doubt speeded access, though imperceptibly, but it also made many installers and programs that still use 8.3 filenames to fail, among them all the installations produced by Norton.
> 
> ...


I think that you are right to be sceptical other than my system is running better. You have to know that some of these adjustments put things back the way they should be. Optimise Prefetch, for example. Sure enough it is now set at 3 just te way Microsoft intended it to be, and I note, on another site that you should indeed have it set at 3 if you have 512Mb of RAM, or more.

I am not to keen on having defraggers order files by 'last access', as I don't see the validity of doing so.

Unloading DLLs (AlwaysUnloadDLL) was present in '98se. I think that if a DLL is to be unloaded then it uses up less space which might be a good thing, that it may need to be loaded again doesn't really matter as long as the program using it is performing well.

With a sufficiency, or even with an overabundance, of physical memory there is less need to spend a lot of time tuning.

So I agree completely that using memory optimisers are a TOTAL waste of time, when adding more RAM is the better option and improves the computer's overall ability substantially.

I have been there with a memory optimiser called, naturally, RAM-Page, I think it was version 1·6, and it did help when burning CDRs as I only had 256Mb of RAM at the time as that was all this Windows 2000 machine was supplied with. (Although built for Windows 2000, according to the front panel label, it had ME installed, a sort of Microsoft Edsel version of '98se)

Jim Foley (the Elder Geek) makes a reference to driving a Ferrari with a Ford Pinto engine. Well this was more like driving a Ford Pinto with a rubber band. You had to stop and wind it up again by rebooting.

It could equally have been a Ford Pinto with a Nascar engine, in that it was wildly unstable on a 60Gb drive, until it got partitioned to get the partitions down under 32Gb.

CD Burning? I wouldn't do that as you might need them both, the MS system and your own Burning program.

Clear Pagefile on shutdown. Why not? You get a fresh one on start up, and if the old one is fragmented there may a better chance of getting an unfragmented one in its place.

Start-up and shutdown are faster, even with the clearing of the pagefile. Certainly if data in use is not written back to the drive in time you could get data loss. Something that was a problem with ME and Microsoft released an update to cure the problem on IDE drives, if I remember correctly.

Dare I mention, the one-time use of Frag-Shield to pad the MFTs was necessary on my drives as the MFTs were too small.

It seems that the system couldn't manage them correctly before this operation, but does now. How this works I don't know, but it seems that the correct size is computed according to the files on the drive and the drive size. Thereafter the MFTs are maintained at the right size in relation to both, and I wonder if the initial use of Frag-Shield enters information into the defragmenter to maintain the MFTs. (I really don't know, but I do know that it has improved running and reduced fragmentation.)

I did notice that manually padding the MFT on the C: drive (because Frag-Shield failed to adjust it to its recommended size, although it did the other three drives OK) allowed Frag-Shield to pronounce the new setting to be alright, and was followed by frag-shield running defrag automatically as soon as this occured.

Thereafter on opening Frag-Shield again I see that the setting has been reduced automatically from the 200,000 which I set it at, to clear the hold-up, down to 70,048. So it is now running as it should do.

Also the green hatched areas are now appearing in the defrag window, which they didn't do before.

Overall, the main 'argument' centres on the amount of RAM available for use. It is clear that the true minimum for the correct functioning of XP is really 512Mb so that all the original Operating System settings may be retained.

So I had a look in the shops yesterday at new computers for sale. Oh Oh! 256Mb with shared video RAM. Bah!

Better models had 512Mb or 1024Mb of RAM installed with NO video sharing and are certainly worth the extra outlay, or capital expenditure.

Now when Microsoft is making recommendations it could have recommended that computers sold with Windows XP should not be sold with less than 512Mb of RAM. That would make everyone's life just that bit easier, in my esimation.

Maybe there is a problem with Windows, in that it is also 'having' to cater to low-end hardware, or is it that it just chooses to do so?

Big Brother, the Porno Pope, and the three monkies, ordained by the devil and satan, like to know and SEE what you are doing, especially on Big Brother's computer.

A rather sickening game of catch as catch can, and holy (sexual) entrapment, a very unworthy reason to keep these idle, and evil, fools in slippered elegance within their Palaces, whilst the poor go hungry, in my estimation.

NERO Burning? The Fiddler on the roof? Whilst Rome burns people alive?

Doubtless some sort of criminal conspiracy.

Now THAT is more to the point.

Not for me, thank you, I have work to do.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Rampage,

From a previous post you noted a "Each tab produces a nearly imperceptible increase in performance,". 

What were these increases. Boot time? Time to load apps? shutdown time?
What were they before any changes were made?
What were they after?

When it comes to performance, over the years I've learned not to trust what we want to see but actually measure it.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

But Elvandil continues to make the point that there are so many of these programs available. And like with other ones mentioned, either they or the information has been out for a long time. It's really no big deal advertising these tweaks since the information or utilities to let you make then has been around for years.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Bob,

Boot up and shutdown times are substantially improved. No point in my quoting figures here, as it will depend on the individuals hardware and software in all probability.

They will have to do before and after testing for themselves.

Applications are loading just that bit faster and the entire system seems to be performing better than before, however I have a problem with my firewall conflicting at the moment, so it is difficult to give a subjective statement, especially as other people will not be using the same software.

Better they try it out for themselves.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Maybe we could dispense with advertising altogether. That would be a good idea in my estimation as it costs very little to 'advertise' the Armed Services.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Big-K said:


> Am I weird because I'm satisfied with my computers performance?


Very!


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

> I am not to keen on having defraggers order files by 'last access', as I don't see the validity of doing so.


The defraggers that use "Last Access" to order files do not order them by last access. Rather last access is monitored so that the more frequently used files, those with more recent access dates, are placed toward the center of the drive where their future access will cause the least fragmentation.


----------



## RAM-PAGE (Dec 19, 2004)

Elvandil said:


> The defraggers that use "Last Access" to order files do not order them by last access. Rather last access is monitored so that the more frequently used files, those with more recent access dates, are placed toward the center of the drive where their future access will cause the least fragmentation.


Thanks, that is interesting. What other methods are employed by defragmenters?


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

"Last Access" is probably more appropriate to a server than a workstation.

"Last Modified" is a popular one. Then, files that are not modified are placed on the outer edge of the disk for faster access (exe's, dll's, ocx's) and those that are often modified, placed nearer the open space where their size changes cause the least amount of fragmentation to the drive. I had one included with V-COM suite that put all exe's on the outer edge.

Others place boot files first on the disk and then use some other method for the rest. O&O and Diskeeper put file attributes, metadata, and folders first on the drive. 

"Fast" defraggers usually just consolidate space with little regard to file placement.

I'm sure there are many others, none perfect, each appropriate to a particular type of machine use, and all better than nothing and not that much superior to one another.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

Rampage,

I am not asking what other people might be experiencing.

Again...

From a previous post you noted a "Each tab produces a nearly imperceptible increase in performance,". 

What were these increases. Boot time? Time to load apps? shutdown time?
What were they before any changes were made?
What were they after?

When it comes to performance, over the years I've learned not to trust what we want to sense but actually measure it.

What are your measurements on your computer for what performance gains you obtained.


----------



## Big-K (Nov 22, 2003)

I actually do do quite a few tweaks, but they are all manually done and almost always cosmetic or preventative. Preventative is things like a modified host file.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

I have also done many tweaks.
I also learned, early on, the value of drive imaging.. LOL!___


There's a super tweak for 98se called something like.... 98se SP1. I tried it on a fresh install with nothing installed but 98se and no other tweaks.
The first boot was a blue screen _
And the second............LOL!
Ah.........the benefits of DriveImage 

Some work, some don't.....By the time I commit to XP full time, I expect you guys will have thoroughly tested all the tweaks for me............(j/k.. )



smilin' Jack


----------



## WhitPhil (Oct 4, 2000)

Just some observations in relation to tweaks.

There seem to be the following kinds of Tweaks:

1. Ones that *do* what they are purported to do

2. Ones that *do not* do what they purport to do. If it is a "performance" tweak, it could be that the improvement is so nominal (due to the current configuration) that it is imperceptible. Or, because the tweak falls into the next category.

3. Ones that are for previous versions of Windows and do nothing on XP. (many who post tweaks assume if they are valid for Win9x/Me, even NT, that they are also valid on XP)

4. Tweaks that actually do *something*, but not what the website or tweak program states.

Here an excellent example is the ConservativeSwapFile setting on Windows 98, which on almost every site and program, is advertised as forcing Windows to use ram before the swapfile. This is NOT what the tweak does.

Another, which I notice in a post above (which is how some of this starts), is that Clearing the Pagefile at Shutdown is good since "you get a fresh one" and a "better change at getting a unfragmented one".

Since the Clearing is just "wiping" (this is a privacy tweak) not deleting the file, there are no performance or other benefits to be gained by doing this.

Other examples of the above 2 items are also nicely presented at Elvandils' XP Myths, and can probably be added to as a result of this thread.

4. Ones that are in fact dangerous and could do damage to your system.

An excellent example is tweaking LargeSystemCache. If you are the unlucky person with the "incompatible" configuration, changing this setting will force you into a reinstall.
I was one of those unlucky people, and as a result, do very thorough checking of all tweaks, before I even think about applying it.

There is another poster here who ran into it.

Suggestions:

1. After you apply a tweak, if it does not do what you expected, remove it. This "could" make the solving of future problems easier.

2. If you apply and keep a tweak, keep a diary that notes what you tweaked and when. This could help resolve future problems. As well, this will allow you to re-apply the tweak, if you ever find it necessary to do a reinstall.

3. All Tweaks are NOT for everyone.

A performance tweak on one box may have no affect on another, or may result in deteriorating performance. As well, performance improvements (or lack thereof) are extremely subjective, and like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Bob Cerelli (Nov 3, 2002)

And please, if you are going to start a thread with the words "to speed up your computer's performance. " in the title, please have something, anything to back up that claim.

The only information so far was the use of the phrase "Each tab produces a nearly imperceptible increase in performance". 

Not a lot to really make me want to go out and risk testing to see what they may or may not do to my computer.


----------

