Windows Performance Tweaks Debunked

Mon Sep 1, 2008 11:52PM EDT

See Comments (27)

Who doesn't want another couple of seconds shaved off their startup or application load time, or an extra few frames per second in their favorite game?

Windows tweakers will go to outrageous tweaks to "tune up" their systems, but how many of those tweaks actually do any good? The truth: Just about none.

Lifehacker has one of the most comprehensive looks at the common performance tweak advice I've seen. It pretty much dismisses everything you might have heard as bunk. Among the highlights:

  • > Disabling QoS will not speed up your computer at all. (One rumor says that Windows reserves "20 percent of your bandwidth" for Windows Update... which is pretty absurd if you think about it.
  • > Clearing out the Prefetch in Windows XP won't speed up your machine, either. This one's been going around the block for years. Deleting the Prefetch folder files simply won't help anything.
  • > "Optimizing your RAM" is useless. Plenty of downloadable products make great claims that they can speed up your system if you just run a simple application to "optimize your RAM." The same logic applies here that does to those selling gizmos to give your car better mileage: If they really worked, the manufacturer (in this case, Microsoft) would have included the software in Windows to begin with, right?
  • > Turning off System Restore won't speed up your system. (It will save you hard drive space, though.)

A couple of points on the post are a little more controversial.

Yes, turning off services can destabilize your system, but there is plenty of stuff in the average Windows services list that is total junk: Various quick-launchers, duplicate management utilities, and the like. The problem comes in knowing what you can disable and what you need to keep your machine stable. Lifehacker offers good advice in suggesting you show only non-Windows services before you start hacking away, but its suggestion that some people may actually want to hang on to the useless Windows Defender is silly. Contrary to Lifehacker's advice, disabling unneeded services will likely make your rig more stable, not less.

Finally there's the issue of registry cleaner utilities. Lifehacker says never to use them, but I've seen the proof in the pudding: Seriously slow systems can benefit from a registry cleaning, at least when it comes to startup time. Yes, your best advice is to upgrade the amount of RAM in your machine, but I disagree that Registry cleaners never work.

Give the story a spin here.

Comments on Windows Performance Tweaks Debunked

Post a Comment

Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.

  • 6 Posted by muscogeekid on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:30PM EDT Report Abuse

    Chris, this is a little frustrating for us mid-level users. I'm not a hacker, but I'm not a know-nothing about computers, either. You have debunked the debunker, so knowing who is right becomes difficult. And can anyone explain why a total system reinstall almost always results in a better running system?

  • 7 Posted by aa4mw on Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:43PM EDT Report Abuse

    Essentially htis is a problem with an closed system! There is simply no way to knoe if a particualr tweak is doing nay good. Only one of the reasons thta Linux shows much better performance. I have substituded SUSE Linux for Vista on my new AMD Quad machine and it really flys now. It was slower than my old Athlon 1800+ machine (running Win 2k). Best part - there is less hassle migrating to SUSE Linux from XP than there was migrating to Vista!

  • 8 Posted by jirojas on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:35PM EDT Report Abuse

    Windows suck. I prefer my Mac 100%.

  • 9 Posted by jirojas on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:35PM EDT Report Abuse

    Windows suck. I prefer my Mac 100%.

  • 10 Posted by grandpagumby on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:12PM EDT Report Abuse

    Where can I get more info about changing my Windows system to Linux ? What effect will the switch have on my e-mail accounts ? Can I expect to lose my Office program, if so, does Linux offer something comparable?

  • 11 Posted by rogueist on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:49PM EDT Report Abuse

    I just keep a tight grip on what software / services are allowed to run during startup - and either totally disable or make the loading manual for other service that I actually might use later on. Shopping around for a RAM and resource friendly set of anti-virus programs also helps. And using some utilities that are designed to have both always running in the background mode and stand alone modes, run them in only stand alone mode also helps. And finally, yes, extra RAM (4Gb for WinXP, 16Gb for Windows Vista) and running a registry cleaner also helps immensely.

  • 12 Posted by alan_r_cam on Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:49PM EDT Report Abuse

    An article starts out about Registry tweaks, and degenerates into another (boring) OS competition? Yawn. I use XP, so I can run Photoshop. To the Mac Users- If Psystar win their case and I can eventually put OSX on my PC, maybe I'll switch and run Photoshop there. Until then, Shut Up. To the linux camp - when WINE runs Photoshop flawlessly (it doesn't) or Adobe bring out a Linux version, I'll switch. Until then, Shut Up. To both camps - if you insist on behaving like children, I say you're in need of a Time Out.

  • 13 Posted by kupriaa1 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:54PM EDT Report Abuse

    No more defragging- johnbradshaw- you are a complete moron. No updates for MAC. Keep them coming- you are living proof why americans are considered idiots all over the world.

  • 14 Posted by kupriaa1 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:54PM EDT Report Abuse

    muscogeekid - to answer your question regarding system reinstalls- Every computer (yes mac and linux too) has a series of configuration files that are processed and used to maintain the system. Today, Windows operating systems primarily use the Registry to maintain these configuration files. The problem is that around 1995, Microsoft sort of suggested to software developers to store configuration data in the registry for their programs. The problem is that they all did. The real issue became that when you uninstalled software (uninstaller program) the software developer may have configured the uninstaller program to leave some of these configurations in the registry.

  • 15 Posted by kupriaa1 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:54PM EDT Report Abuse

    This is because some programs may SHARE these configuration options. If one program uninstalled these options, other programs may not run correctly. This means that if you uninstalled certain software, some settings may stay forever. The more "stuff" in your configuration file, the more data the computer has to process- which in turns slows it down. Microsoft has developed a new way of writing software that does not rely on this old technique, however, many software developers who choose not to educate themselves or stay current with current best practices do not leverage these new techniques. It is certainly a problem.

  • 16 Posted by devon1234562002 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:42PM EDT Report Abuse

    i find that linux is a better alternative for an os. it is actually better than windows and mac because it is open source and most of the everyday needed software is free as well. the one downside to linux is its compatabilty with games most can work well in wine but there are some that still need mac or windows to work.

  • 17 Posted by ssd_ro on Thu Sep 3, 2009 9:38PM EDT Report Abuse

    Microsoft, Windows, Registry cleaners.... defrag programs....it's all about marketing , buy that product it's better than previous, it's updating your registry to "our new something" ... it's cleaning nothing , best registry cleanear I know it's a clean install ( and even that is not perfect ) so why should I be interested in something that don't do anything ?? If U try to tweak your computer too much U'll have to reinstall your operating system 'cause it's " recovered from a serious error" :)) according to Microsoft.

  • 18 Posted by kemble238 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:49PM EDT Report Abuse

    Glary Utililites works wonders! Speed my PC right the F$#@ up!

  • 20 Posted by descolada_virus on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:41PM EDT Report Abuse

    I've never tried tweaking my computer to increase speed, whenever I was shown a tweaked computer and asked if it was faster than mine, I couldn't really tell. Playing games it probably was, but im using a outdated pci card and alittle over a gig of ram, I don't expect Speedy Gonzales for a motherboard. Though I agree registry cleaners do a bit of good for a machine where you've had alot of stuff in the past or removed a couple of uneeded programs.

  • 21 Posted by northernmeguy on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:41PM EDT Report Abuse

    My PC's run a lot faster with Linux Ubuntu 8.04 on them. I can create/open/modify Microsoft documents like Word, Excel, PowerPoint etc... so no one is the wiser that I'm not using Windows.

  • 22 Posted by ashpro2000 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:58PM EDT Report Abuse

    alexgannis there are a lot of third party registry cleaners out there. I use glary utilities myself (when I remember to do it) and it does the trick. The thing is, none of them will completely clean your resigstry because they have a flaw in telling which reg entries are from current programs and which aren't. It's annoying and, as much as I like PC (because I like to tinker around under the hood so-to-speak) Mac's do not have these problems (although they have problems) and linux is just about as stable as it gets.

  • 23 Posted by kaotic_x6 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:46PM EDT Report Abuse

    kupriaa1 wrote: No more defragging- johnbradshaw- you are a complete moron. No updates for MAC. Keep them coming- you are living proof why americans are considered idiots all over the world. Shut up! Idiots? I think not. You ought to thank us 'Americans' for the pc/mac and the internet...if we didnt share the technology with the world in the first place, you stupid third world dummys would still be rubbing sticks together. Pwnt.

  • 24 Posted by hueydvr38 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:21PM EDT Report Abuse

    I would like to clear up one myth about the more RAM you have, the faster your system will be. Windows XP and Vista can effectively only use 3.5 GB of RAM (this takes into consideration how much video RAM you have) because it cannot map to memory addresses beyond that limit (reserving it for VRAM). So essentially, anything more than 3 GB is a waste...UNLESS...you are running either the 64 bit version of XP or Vista. If someone feels this is incorrect, feel free to respond. No need to flame, just correct me if I'm wrong.

  • 25 Posted by desert_gooner on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:41PM EDT Report Abuse

    I'll listen to any constructive comments but these wankers with their macs and linux ought to shove it up their arses.

More Posts: First Prev 1 2 3 Next Last

Post a Comment

Sign In to Post a Comment

My Tech

Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.

Also on Yahoo! Tech

Computers Home Office Wi-Fi & Networking Phones & PDAs Cameras & Camcorders TV & Home Theater Portable Audio
 

Site Map | Tour | Subscribe to Yahoo! Tech

Question and Answer content at Yahoo! Tech is written by Yahoo! users at Yahoo! Answers. Yahoo! does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any Yahoo! Answers content. For more information, read the Full Disclaimer.

Opinions expressed by the Advisors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Yahoo! Inc. Yahoo! receives no compensation from any manufacturer or distributor nor does it compensate any Advisor for the coverage of any product or service in any Advisor's content.