Windows XP Optimization Guide

[Alcpone]

Dont dis' this thread, very good indeed, keep it up!

 

[Alec§taar]

Dont dis' this thread, very good indeed, keep it up!

He's not "dissing" it I don't think, but is merely stating he "operates on the side of err'ing on the side of caution" more than anything... & he IS right about that much, I won't argue!

One of the BEST sayings in life, imo @ least?

"If you don't know WHAT to do? DON'T!"

(@ least, not until you KNOW what it is you're doing!)



* This is WHY I did the prebuilt set of .reg files I did, even BETTER than the .mht files, because they (UNLIKE the HTML & .MHT files I did for this stuff, which require manual entry via regedit.exe) can be INSTANTLY "merged" implemented into a system... fast.

BETTER THAN HAND-EDITING using regedit.exe etc., imo @ least, but also the reason WHY I fully internally documented them w/ references & descriptions from Microsoft (mostly)... so you CAN understand what's going on in them.

You can't go TOO far wrong using the "horses own mouth" as documentation of what each tweak/tune/security setting does & implements.

APK

P.S.=> Anyhow/anyways, if you would like a copy of those Jimmy2004? Just say the word, & I'll zip 'em up & attach them here!

DO examine their interiors, & apply them when you feel safe about them...

Again: & inside of them, if you don't LIKE or TRUST a setting (or it interferes w/ something YOU do that needs them active etc.? Comment particular lines off using a ";" (like a REM statement in batchfiles, but for .reg files))...

All you need to understand them? IS INSIDE OF THEM... (complete reference!)... apk

 

[Jimmy 2004]

Yeah, uploading your .reg files in one zip would be great Alec, I'm going to give your

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Contro l\Session Manager\Executive]
"AdditionalCriticalWorkerThreads"=dword:00000002
"AdditionalDelayedWorkerThreads"=dword:00000002

tweak a try and see how I get on. The settings I'm think of that don't have a positive impact on performance are the Unload DLLs tweak (not supported after windows 2000 AFAIK), the IRQ priority tweak and the Large System Cache tweak which actually keeps windows in the RAM meaning other applications such as power hungry games have less RAM that they can use. Admittedly that one does make windows itself slightly faster but at a cost.

As for dissing the thread? Certainly not, I've tried to contribute to it where I can.

 

[Alec§taar]

Yeah, uploading your .reg files in one zip would be great Alec,

I'll get on it later, & sorry for the delay!

See, I just got a SamSung 250gb SpinPoint on sale ($65 after tax/title/registration) @ a CompUSA 'going out of business' sale (for store in my area only)... good deal, & now have IT as my storage disk... my other one (w/ the .reg files on it)?

I have to hookup again (WD "Raptor" 74gb, too small, but FAST). It's "offline" now, & I have to transfer its FILES (near completely full) to this larger disk, w/ other data here.

I'll put them up in here later, when I get those 2 straight!

I'm going to give your

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Contro l\Session Manager\Executive]
"AdditionalCriticalWorkerThreads"=dword:00000002
"AdditionalDelayedWorkerThreads"=dword:00000002

tweak a try and see how I get on.

Do so, but read on the limitations & caveats of playing w/ it, first... this matters on this one!

The settings I'm think of that don't have a positive impact on performance are the Unload DLLs tweak (not supported after windows 2000 AFAIK),

This one no longer works? News to me... but, I wouldn't recommend it anyhow... keeping DLL's in RAM (ref counts by memmgr subsystem) helps speed things up, by NOT having to "hit disk" all the time to reload.

(In low memory situations though (purely relative condition)? It MIGHT help though... this is one of those "it depends" ones imo!)

the IRQ priority tweak

This one? It's an "older windows OS" tweak afaik, & no longer applies (nowadays & iirc, not for a while... still, if it IS in place? It harms nothing - just a 'bulk entry' single line in the registry (which lol, I suppose you could call 'registry bloat', but MASSIVELY negligible)).

and the Large System Cache tweak which actually keeps windows in the RAM meaning other applications such as power hungry games have less RAM that they can use. Admittedly that one does make windows itself slightly faster but at a cost.

Actually, this one? It allocates MORE to the array/buffer the diskcache subsystem uses... keeps MORE in it, @ once, cached. AND, it also changes the "flush" algorithm aging some too, iirc, Holds data, longer.

The "rules" for how much the system uses? HUGE... I have read them, & it depends on system RAM online (starting @ 32mb & going up it increases & hits a point where for every (iirc) 64mb additional online, it boosts the cachesize by 16mb or something near that amount).

Yup, that's a memory-intensive one, & one of the ones you HAVE to understand what it is you're doing, before you set it.

(I use SuperCache-II here, a better diskcache period, & turn off Windows one (the program allows for that)).

As for dissing the thread? Certainly not, I've tried to contribute to it where I can.

Never thought you did man... not once! You just voiced the necessary things, & did a SMART thing: Questioned them, or made voice about things to be cautious about!

APK

 

[Jimmy 2004]

If you go to this page and look down a little it says that the unload DLLs setting is no longer supported in 2000 or later, in case you were interested in my source!

This page links to an M$ article explaining that large system cache is only useful for servers (to put it in a general way).

For anyone interested in how to set windows services correctly to maintain funtionality/performance you should look here and here for more detail than provided on this thread. The black viper one may now be out of date, it's been a long time since that website disappeared...

 

[Alec§taar]

If you go to this page and look down a little it says that the unload DLLs setting is no longer supported in 2000 or later, in case you were interested in my source!

Well, like I said: I don't really recommend it anyhow... for reasons noted above.

[URL2http://support.microsoft.com/kb/895932"]This[/URL] page links to an M$ article explaining that large system cache is only useful for servers (to put it in a general way).

This is one I would POSSIBLY debate though... for reasons noted above.

For anyone interested in how to set windows services correctly to maintain funtionality/performance you should look here and here for more detail than provided on this thread. The black viper one may now be out of date, it's been a long time since that website disappeared...

The BlackViper guide, & yes others?

They came LONG after the ones I put up, & noted in this thread in fact early on & proven so unless others can show/prove otherwise!

In fact, I am fairly certain the one I list showing the original model of my guides here:

http://www.blacksheepnetworks.com/security/resources/article1-2.shtml

?

Show they ARE, afaik, & I have checked - the OLDEST online, bar-none...

It started life in 1997 @ NTCompatible.com as "Article #1" & was housed there until 2002 in fact, & LONG before that, @ 3dfiles.com (no longer in existence) before that on their forums!

I hate putting it that way, because it sounds pretty 'bogus', but I would not say it unless I was TOTALLY confident of the statement!

Still, I have proofs of this I noted online & here in THIS thread & in the URL above earlier posted here now.

HOWEVER, I didn't 'invent' very many of the tweaks, admittedly (but, some I did, some not)... Ms & their OS design teams did!

I just consolidated a LOAD of them, a decade ago almost, & MOST (like 99%)?

Still work fine!

(and I haven't REALLY had to edit the files since then, unless SOME exception results over time (OS internal changes), but that is what the URL's from MS in my docs are for - to check that)...

APK

P.S.=> Another one that is "dead" supposedly, FYI, is the L2 cache detection in Memory Mgt. in the registry... leaving it @ "0" default is supposed to do the job on today's more "modern" NT-based OS'... apk

 

[Jimmy 2004]

HOWEVER, I didn't 'invent' very many of the tweaks, admittedly (but, some I did, some not)... Ms & their OS design teams did!

Shame they don't integrate more of them into the OS by default! I guess it's linked to the fact that they want an equilibrium of performance in all environments, so if they apply some tweaks they may have adverse effects on the OS when used in a different situation.

 

[Alec§taar]

Shame they don't integrate more of them into the OS by default! I guess it's linked to the fact that they want an equilibrium of performance in all environments, so if they apply some tweaks they may have adverse effects on the OS when used in a different situation.

Some of them? Yes... Windows Server 2003 & its IP stack does (supposedly it is largely "Self-Tuning" but giving it a little help based on YOUR unique setup hardware/connectivity/software wise, never hurts - because THIS varies, & large... I get more into it later, read on & think about it!)

For instance, & so does its SCW now (security configuration wizard), much of what these guides do?

It does... including services cut offs, automatically, and VERY GOOD JOB of it too, never messes up on 'dependencies', period... (the HARD part of that type of tuning!).

I don't think they can though, apply them OUTRIGHT wholesale to every OS distro... not really.

Some stuff, which you ARE aware of? Is memory dependent for example, how much you have online, others based on how many CPU's you have online & more...

Sure, the OS installer SHOULD check that & apply them based on say, mem amt. online... but, afaik they do not to date.

MS ships it as "generic" as possible for both speed & security... they sort of HAVE to... so it fits "many feet" (many OS & hardware setups)...

That's my thoughts on it anyhow...

APK

P.S.=> Are/were there 'specially hardened' versions of NT-based OS in the past? Yes... there were. From 3rd party vendors & such... possibly today too, but this I am no longer sure of... I can do the job myself, w/ little effort... those .reg files? They make 'short work' of it for me... I will have those up later... apk

 

[Alec§taar]

I'm not saying all of them don't work, just personally I don't know which ones I can trust so often avoid them. If you have prebuilt reg files with setting that you know work I (and I expect many others too) would actually be quite interested in getting hold if those if you could upload them (unless they're already on your site of course).

Jim, files are attached: Before you use them? I truly, STRONGLY, suggest you look @ each one's interior, to see what I meant about each .reg file having "built-in" documentation & references from MS & other sites of note/good rep!

Read them, prior to applying them, & use the ones you see fit to try out, after knowing what it is each does, OR just ";" comment out the sections you do NOT see fit to use in them, & thus, only use partial sections of each if you wish!

(This WILL take you some time, but it is worth it, imo @ least).

* Can't just put my own descriptions in there: I didn't design the settings, only tested them on systems of mine over the years/over time (all the way from dialup, to CableModem, & now to DSL).

You asked for them, so enjoy!

APK

P.S.=> Sorry about delay also!

(I had trouble getting new Samsung Spinpoint 250gb working here in my external USB 2.0 drive enclosure, & instead found it worked best/fastest, using the onboard mobo Silicon Image 3114 SATA 2.0 capable controller instead (just as a singledrive) set @ SATA 2.0)

So, I had been TRYING to move files to it the past 2 days now was not working out in the external USB enclosure set @ SATA 1 or SATA 2... kept dropping data, hanging overnite even on copies, etc.!

(Which is funny, because a WD Raptor 74gb works just fine in it set SATA 1!)... apk

 

[Jimmy 2004]

Sorry Alec, forget to check this thread. Just downloaded your zip file, thanks for that, I will take a look at it. Another thing I've decided upon is to re-enable the NTFS Last Access update setting, because a number of optimisation programs nad windows settings seem to use them as you have mentioned in this thread and others. TBH I'm not sure how much of a performance impact it has anyway, but I will leave it enabled for a few weeks before I run bootvis and perfect disk and see if I can get a little extra out of my system.

Edit: WOW... you really did cram in a lot of registry tweaks didn't you? I'll try to take a look few some of them, but TBH I think there is just too much there for me! You really know a lot about windows if you know what all of those settings do.

 

[InfDamarvel]

So any of these helping FPS in games?

 

[Jimmy 2004]

So any of these helping FPS in games?

Well disabling the services should help... if you're refering to registry tweaks, some do, some don't.

 

[Alec§taar]

Sorry Alec, forget to check this thread. Just downloaded your zip file, thanks for that, I will take a look at it. Another thing I've decided upon is to re-enable the NTFS Last Access update setting, because a number of optimisation programs nad windows settings seem to use them as you have mentioned in this thread and others. TBH I'm not sure how much of a performance impact it has anyway, but I will leave it enabled for a few weeks before I run bootvis and perfect disk and see if I can get a little extra out of my system.

That is one I have some potential 'reservations' about, & w/ the very programs you mention in fact... are they using it to gauge how often a particular file is accessed? IF SO, I would NOT turn it on (enable it)...

Fact is, I have been thinking about writing to folks like Raxco &/or Executive Software & finding out HOW they are gauging how often a file is accessed & IF they are utilizing what that setting does by default.

Turning it on/enabling it, means you aren't moving the heads doing the write for that, updating it... which is "good" for performance.

Question is though: HOW DO DEFRAGGERS "JUDGE" THIS? Are they using the entries this turns off?

Edit: WOW... you really did cram in a lot of registry tweaks didn't you? I'll try to take a look few some of them, but TBH I think there is just too much there for me! You really know a lot about windows if you know what all of those settings do.

Yes... most all of them I had ever done any study on actually, for performance gains... like I said earlier about them? It took me FOREVER and a day to get them all into those files w/ their definitions from MS (or other reliable sources) & to place referring URLS into them also for validation/verification by end users (like both yourself & myself).

APK

 

[Millennium]

I've read that Diskeeper IFAAST uses the last update flag. But then, you needn't leave it on, you could just profile your (base system?) usage for a while (maybe) then turn it off and your done.

By the way, I've not read the 9 pages of this thread, but is anyone else using

Win32PrioritySeparation = 22 decimal

?

This is a non-standard setting, I.E one that that GUI (in XP at least) won't set by the way.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/regentry/29623.mspx?mfr=true

Setting of 22 is;

Longer intervals, Variable Length, 3:1 foreground weighting

which is in HAL quantums (not 100% sure about this -yet);

walk max 36 quantums (server-style app) for foreground process and 12 quantums for background processes.

By the way, I read that there is a disparity in the length of a quantum between Multiprocessor XP HAL and Uniprocessor XP hal (15ms vs 10ms). Does anyone know why, that is?

 

[Alec§taar]

I've read that Diskeeper IFAAST uses the last update flag. But then, you needn't leave it on, you could just profile your (base system?) usage for a while (maybe) then turn it off and your done.

Excellent, & Thank you for the feedback on this note!

I did suspect "Last Date Accessed" stamps placed on files was what was being utilized... it makes sense, & no need to "reinvent the wheel" in this case.

Good point, & same principal as using BootVis (great for when you first setup your system, & then Windows Prefetch features take over after that, along w/ defraggers & BootVis' benefits are no longer apparent/worth it to use because of the other programs taking over said duties of fileplacement of most used files, by date of access stamps, nearer the fastest/outermost tracks of the diskdrive)

Turning the OS placing time/date stamps of access on files off? Good stuff, in that it prevents excessive & possibly unneeded hdd head movements & writes from occuring!

However, I agree & suspected it to be the case & true that turning it off should only be done when the system has been run for awhile & has begun optimizations based on YOUR personal use-patterns of files on your disk.

By the way, I've not read the 9 pages of this thread, but is anyone else using

Win32PrioritySeparation = 22 decimal

?

This is a non-standard setting, I.E one that that GUI (in XP at least) won't set by the way.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/regentry/29623.mspx?mfr=true

Setting of 22 is;

Longer intervals, Variable Length, 3:1 foreground weighting

which is in HAL quantums (not 100% sure about this -yet);

walk max 36 quantums (server-style app) for foreground process and 12 quantums for background processes.

That's not one I use (lol, one of the few), but I have heard tell of it, messing w/ the process priority quantum timeslice separations

By the way, I read that there is a disparity in the length of a quantum between Multiprocessor XP HAL and Uniprocessor XP hal (15ms vs 10ms). Does anyone know why, that is?

Perhaps due to overheads in the process scheduler subsystem component of the OS, & time it takes to send multiple threads to the multiple cores 2-N cpu's present?

* Not sure... just "guessing" on this note!

APK

 

[rhythmeister]

If anyone wants faster boot times Google an M$ program called Bootvis and give it a go. Here's the best way to use it:

1. Install it (obvious!)
2. Go to "C:\Windows\Prefetch" and delete everything in there
3. Load Bootvis and click on "Trace >Next Boot + Driver Delays" (this is required so Bootvis can work out how to best optimize your system) and click "Ok" or whatever comes up
4. When it restarts bootvis should reload go "Trace >Optimize System"
5. After it reboots, leave it for 5 minutes to do it's job (or until the window disappears)
6. Enjoy 30 second or better boot times (not guaranteed!!!)

Jimmy, u ROCK my box! Cut my booting times from over 1 min 30 to just over 45 seconds
I advise EVERYBODY with XP Pro to use this tool

 

[Jimmy 2004]

Jimmy, u ROCK my box! Cut my booting times from over 1 min 30 to just over 45 seconds
I advise EVERYBODY with XP Pro to use this tool

Glad it's still helping - I actually need to remove the thing about emptying the prefetch - it doesn't actually make any difference in the long run, but it's argued to be bad in the shortrun.

Bootvis is a great tool, it's a shame M$ don't support it anymore, Vista could use something like that.

 

[rhythmeister]

Now I've got the 3200 upto 2.45GHz I can boot in 38 seconds WOOT WOOT!

 

[ex_reven]

mine gets a windows error on bootup
just as it loads the program it stops responding and kills the process

 

[rhythmeister]

mine gets a windows error on bootup
just as it loads the program it stops responding and kills the process

I needed to give it a couple of goes after defragging the master drive. Also, I had some services turned off and it didnit like that, try running with default service settings 1st

 

[ex_reven]

mine are default

 

[rhythmeister]

Hmm, I had a few issues with it but I just kept rebooting and letting it do it's thing. Try stopping so many progs starting on bootup perhaps...I'm not the man to ask about it, try the guys with the BIG posts for better advice lol

 

[demonbrawn]

This might be a dumb question, but when setting the SecondLevelDataCache for my X2 3800 939 CPU, should i make it 512 or 1GB?

 

[psychomage343]

512
it sets ti per physical core demon

 

[demonbrawn]

I see. Thank you.