gibberishtalk.com— This is a very small tutorial, that will help you make your windows XP much faster, by loading the windows kernel in memory. This is a very effective tweak for windows XP.
Apr 13, 2006View in Crawl 4
This article has currently succumbed to the Digg Effect, so I'll have to try it again later. I'll post this comment so that it is easier to find in my user profile.While I'm waiting for the page to become accessible, I'm wondering something else: does this also work with Windows 2000? (Perhaps the tutorial actually says it does or doesn't, or somebody has tried it with Windows 2000?)(I will wait until I can read the article to decide if I want to digg it or not.)
OK you guys are lame. No i didn't read TFA...But here's how virtual memory works... 32 bit addressable memory locations gives you access to 4GB of virtual memory. Windows splits that up into two 2GB regions: 2GB for user space programs (word, excel, games, etc) and 2GB for the kernel. Obviously most people don't have 4GB so most of it ends up being paged out to hard disk.Forcing your kernel to always reside in memory will obviously force other stuff out, and increase page swapping for user programs. Could be good if you have a lot of memory, but horrible if not. Then again if you have enough memory your kernel would probably not even be swapped out.....
Maybe you could ask if that was the case instead of -1 digging?The program shows you all the services you can enable and disable to improve boot time.That's the purpose of the app.BTW, I wrote one of the first guides on how to use it on annoyances.org shortly before they moved the app out of the public section of microsoft.com. You can still find it in their archives (circa 2001).
Gah, I was editing and it cut me off :(Upon further inspection (and rebooting after the tweak), that number I pointed out must be the amount of memory USED by the kernel, not the amount of memory the executable actually takes up. That makes more sense, really, come to think of it. Either way, I now have about 200 MORE megs free than I did before the reboot, so the size of the kernel is less than the aggregate size of memory leaks my other programs had ;)
Yes, they would, because you can't possibly account for all configurations.Disabling paging, for instance, DOES increase system responsiveness, as long as you have adequate ram for the task at hand.All the arguments about whether disabling paging is good or bad are really mostly nonsense.. it all comes down to this: Do you have enough physical ram to do everything you need to do, or not? If you do, there is no need for paging. Period.
Okay, "Windows" is 200% Faster! But all my programs are opening 500% slower. This is with 1 gig of mem on a dell 700m xp sp2. I think your tweaks have failed the test
tried the hack. boot time was a bit faster, but no appreciable difference in application performance. i tried itunes, word, excel & quicken. i'm running a dell inspiron notebook with 1.5ghz celeron, 1gb of ram, integrated video.i'm undoing the hack, and no digg.its been a long time since i worked in tech support, so i'm willing to concede that others know better than me about increasing system performance. but, if you really want your system to be faster, more memory and a faster hard drive will make a bigger difference than any reg hacks. this, of course, is my humble opinion, and it is probably worth less than you paid for it.
i say if you have enough memory do this. you could go faster. otherwise. dont. i got 1 gig of ram and 522meg availble runnin winxpsp2.. gonna give it a shot.
The truth is that the quickest way to really improve the performance of Windows XP the slowest OS (and Firefox the memory hog) is to buy more RAM and buy faster hard drives. Period.Well.. it's quite pathetic that right now I am reading this large-size page with Firefox on XP. I can feel that the mouse pointer is responding slowly.
Closed AccountApr 14, 2006
it might be 6 years oldn but for some people is (good) new info.
dualityApr 14, 2006
This article has currently succumbed to the Digg Effect, so I'll have to try it again later. I'll post this comment so that it is easier to find in my user profile.While I'm waiting for the page to become accessible, I'm wondering something else: does this also work with Windows 2000? (Perhaps the tutorial actually says it does or doesn't, or somebody has tried it with Windows 2000?)(I will wait until I can read the article to decide if I want to digg it or not.)
potatomasherApr 14, 2006
OK you guys are lame. No i didn't read TFA...But here's how virtual memory works... 32 bit addressable memory locations gives you access to 4GB of virtual memory. Windows splits that up into two 2GB regions: 2GB for user space programs (word, excel, games, etc) and 2GB for the kernel. Obviously most people don't have 4GB so most of it ends up being paged out to hard disk.Forcing your kernel to always reside in memory will obviously force other stuff out, and increase page swapping for user programs. Could be good if you have a lot of memory, but horrible if not. Then again if you have enough memory your kernel would probably not even be swapped out.....
benthereApr 14, 2006
Maybe you could ask if that was the case instead of -1 digging?The program shows you all the services you can enable and disable to improve boot time.That's the purpose of the app.BTW, I wrote one of the first guides on how to use it on annoyances.org shortly before they moved the app out of the public section of microsoft.com. You can still find it in their archives (circa 2001).
rabid_llamaApr 14, 2006
Gah, I was editing and it cut me off :(Upon further inspection (and rebooting after the tweak), that number I pointed out must be the amount of memory USED by the kernel, not the amount of memory the executable actually takes up. That makes more sense, really, come to think of it. Either way, I now have about 200 MORE megs free than I did before the reboot, so the size of the kernel is less than the aggregate size of memory leaks my other programs had ;)
3denApr 14, 2006
Yes, they would, because you can't possibly account for all configurations.Disabling paging, for instance, DOES increase system responsiveness, as long as you have adequate ram for the task at hand.All the arguments about whether disabling paging is good or bad are really mostly nonsense.. it all comes down to this: Do you have enough physical ram to do everything you need to do, or not? If you do, there is no need for paging. Period.
linuxmasterApr 14, 2006
Okay, "Windows" is 200% Faster! But all my programs are opening 500% slower. This is with 1 gig of mem on a dell 700m xp sp2. I think your tweaks have failed the test
lenwoodApr 14, 2006
tried the hack. boot time was a bit faster, but no appreciable difference in application performance. i tried itunes, word, excel & quicken. i'm running a dell inspiron notebook with 1.5ghz celeron, 1gb of ram, integrated video.i'm undoing the hack, and no digg.its been a long time since i worked in tech support, so i'm willing to concede that others know better than me about increasing system performance. but, if you really want your system to be faster, more memory and a faster hard drive will make a bigger difference than any reg hacks. this, of course, is my humble opinion, and it is probably worth less than you paid for it.
Closed AccountApr 15, 2006
i say if you have enough memory do this. you could go faster. otherwise. dont. i got 1 gig of ram and 522meg availble runnin winxpsp2.. gonna give it a shot.
yahoofromApr 15, 2006
The truth is that the quickest way to really improve the performance of Windows XP the slowest OS (and Firefox the memory hog) is to buy more RAM and buy faster hard drives. Period.Well.. it's quite pathetic that right now I am reading this large-size page with Firefox on XP. I can feel that the mouse pointer is responding slowly.
maverick1972Apr 21, 2006
The windows code has become so bloated it's ridiculous.