Windows Vista forum: Need opions informatin on Superfetch service

When I need to see what effects these have I go get a guinea pig machine and then run a benchmark with the stock settings. Then I make ONE change and get new benchmarks.

This is from a method called The Scientific Method which helps to remove opinion and inject facts and solid(?) reasoning to support your theory.

Why would you do anything else?
Bob

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/features/superfetch.aspx

1) You down load a program you'd like to try you use it for three days as you review it carefully, you change your mind and now you want this program off your PC. Superfetch has put it in "priority" memory in your RAM drives.

2) You down load a big 300 MB software program to do a task. You use this software for three days straight. Superfetch does it's thing. You remove the program to save drive space.

3) Your PCs screwed up your using all kinds of programs you normally would not use to fix it, Superfetch puts these in "priority" memory.

None of these a far fetched scenarios. All of these I've done at one time or another.

The logical question would be how often does Superfetch renew itself, if it does? If it doesn't then restarting it would be the logical thing to do. This would insure that it has a current set of programs your using.

Another question might be how long does it take to do this? If weeks then restarting it might be a bad idea, if days, hours, minutes then "go for it".

Is it logical to expect average home PC users to use benchmarking software?

Which one would you suggest?

http://www.netlib.org/cgi-bin/search.pl

If you read about Superfetch and RAM optimizers/cleaners in depth you'll find you are currently contradicting your own commands. Specifically, you use Superfetch, which loads data into memory when it's not being used at the exact moment, but you also use a RAM optimizer/cleaner, which removes from RAM what is not being used at the moment (what was just loaded). Thus, in your case it is meaningless to discuss as a potential performance boost as you're preventing it from working and, in many aspects, slowing down your computer, something I brought up before.

To answer your questions, though:
1.) Superfetch is dynamically adjusted in the background. (More or less real-time.)
2.) Restarting your computer does not affect Superfetch.
3.) Uninstalling a program/deletign its files eliminates all but a few bytes of the space Superfetch would have consumed regarding that application.
4.) The longer you run/do not run a program the further it moves up/down the listing until it reaches #1 or is dropped from the list entirely.
5.) If memory is needed, any Superfetch setting is overridden then and there.
6.) No, most home users have no need for benchmarking software. That's primarily a gamer's tool.

John

Let's make this simple, shall we?

RAM "optimizers" are not necessary, and in fact will tend to HINDER performance. Free RAM is wasted RAM, and pretty much all these programs do is flush the cache Windows builds up to improve performance. The memory manager for XP and Vista is actually pretty good. It's not great, and could be improved, but given that for RAM "optimizer" programs to really be effective they would need to completely replace the Windows memory manager, and that's not possible... Well, the quandary should be clear.

As was explained, the Superfetch system is dynamic. Every time something on your system changes, this service evaluates that change and adjusts things as necessary. What you're proposing, using an "optimizer" along with restarting the service, is like putting a speed governor on a car that limits it to 60mph, then hoping that speeding up to 60mph, with the occasional bout of slamming on the brakes bringing the car to a complete stop, then starting again... Hoping that somehow this will allow you to break free of the speed governor that YOU YOURSELF put on the car.

Or if you want a non-car analogy... It's like putting a humidifier and dehumidifier in the same room, where the condensed water from the dehumidifier is put into the humidifier's tank. It's completely pointless, and any intelligent person would immediately ask you the very simple question of, "Why?" Probably with a bit of an incredulous inflection that hints at them questioning your intelligence and/or sanity.

Second, think of a RAM optimizer as the oil filter in your car. Does yours have a filter?

Sorry, no, you're confusing a whole bunch of things which I don't have the time or inclination to get into. Let's just say that if Intel and AMD (who has the Phenom CPU not Intel) released a CPU where data could become corrupted due to electrons going off every which way, they wouldn't be able to sell it. If they did, they'd be facing lawsuits like you wouldn't believe, shareholders would likely revolt, and the entire top brass of the company would be looking for a new job. Look back to the release of the original Pentium and how much flak Intel took for a fairly minor flaw in the math coprocessor. This was back when computers were still something of an expensive toy that was more of a status symbol than anything else.

And let's just assume for a moment that your hypothesis is correct, and we take your analogy of RAM optimizers as an oil filter. Well, are these RAM optimizers not programs themselves? So shouldn't they be subject to the same gradual corruption effect as everything else? If these programs are made somehow immune to the process, why couldn't that then be applied to every other program? Your analogy falls apart, even if we look at it from the flawed perspective of your hypothesis.

What you are positing is simply not true. There is no way AMD or Intel would sell a CPU that had this kind of a problem. Same with RAM manufacturers. A few bad chips due to manufacturing issues is one thing, but you're talking a systemic failure in the product's very design. There's just no way a company would try to sell something like that, knowing of the problem beforehand, because they would be sued into oblivion.

Finally, it's either memory OR RAM, not "RAM memory". RAM memory is redundant, since they both refer to the same thing.

In any case, if anyone needs a refresher it would appear to be you. I don't have the time or inclination to get into the finer details of electrical engineering theory with you to explain exactly how you are wrong, but if you happen to be majoring in Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering at a university... Might be time to consider a different major. In any case, feel free to pick up a few texts on Electrical Engineering and it shouldn't take too long to figure out that whatever your source of information for this, you didn't understand it as well as you thought you did.

You are of course free to do what you want with your own system. However, when you start posting this kind of erroneous information as some kind of divine revelation, people are going to call you on it. So maybe when several knowledgeable people tell you it's a load of crap, you should listen to them.

1.) Bob, Jimmy, and myself, along with people who designed two of the RAM optimizers you have recommended, have explicitly disagreed and provided factual foundations for why your previous claims are invalid. I thought you might believe the developers of the software you use, but evidently you will not. Doesn't matter to them, really, since it means more money in their pockets, but your computer would rather you listen to them. After all, they might have some minuscule amount of knowledge about how the software works.

2.) Think about it: Shutting down terminates all processes and services, including Superfetch. Terminating Superfetch terminates Superfetch. Therefore, if terminating Superfetch by shutting down does not have an effect, neither does terminating the service alone. The settings are persistent.

3.) Elaborating on #5, if you need RAM for an active task it will make room by removing data for inactive tasks, including that loaded into RAM by Superfetch.

4.) The "set priority" feature is not broken. Some process priorities are locked, but otherwise you can change it provided you have not corrupted the feature through system modifications.

5.) No, you cannot 'move' services.

6.) USB is a standard, not a device.

John