Tweak programs

dcyphure · Post by **dcyphure** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:34 pm

ive tried several tweak progs like pc accelerator 2004,tweak xp, ashampoo tweak,xteq..etc but i dont notice any real performance gains, same fps in games, same speed loading software..etc.... is software like this actually doing anything or is it all about getting your money? which of these types of progs do you guys use and what do you really think of it?

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:00 pm

dcyphure wrote:which of these types of progs do you guys use and what do you really think of it?

None, I don't believe in them.

Building system with good specs, quality hardware, choose antivirus and other protection programs wisely, and things naturally will run great.

Norm · Post by **Norm** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:10 pm

I totally agree with YOSC

And would like to add that a lot of the problems you read about in forums are due to tweaks done, and either forgotten about, or the consequences were not considered before applying them. One thing affects another, and if you aren't in the know, leave well enough alone.

Prey521 · Post by **Prey521** » Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:10 pm

I use X-Setup, has the most hidden Windows tweaks of any tweaking app. And yes, it is good to have a solid base system, but there are some things in Windows that need to be tweaked, regardless of the system.

TonyT · Post by **TonyT** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:05 am

Tweak apps for XP are intended for the user who does not wish to tweak his system by using the registry editor and all of the various security and control panel applets. These tweak apps are usually just an interface to the registry/control panel, an all-in-one interface.

Some tweal apps are good and some are poorly designed. I use the registry editor and control panel myself.

Tweaking XP memory via tweak apps is a 100% waste of time and completely unnecessary. The solution to an efficient XP system was stated above by YeOldeStonecat. Add to that a sufficient amount of RAM and a good control of XP Services and startup apps.

Keep in mind that a system can be made "too efficient" as well. For example, I use a Winbook V240 notebook (P4-3.04GHz w/ HT, 512 RAM). It is so efficiently setup that often applications will complete their functions before sound events have a chance to execute! For example, IE has that 'click' sound when a page is requested and sometimes the page will render prior to the click-sound event firing. This is because the sound card cannot keep pace with the other hardware.

So be careful what you tweak and know your hardware so as not to cause limitations in some of it.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:47 am

Norm wrote:I totally agree with YOSC

And would like to add that a lot of the problems you read about in forums are due to tweaks done, and either forgotten about, or the consequences were not considered before applying them. One thing affects another, and if you aren't in the know, leave well enough alone.

And I've seen those so called tweak programs or system tuning apps cause a lot of problems.

Back years ago I found many of those system tweaks did make a difference with Win9X. By "System tweaks"...I meant all those tweaks you'd apply to the OS, fiddling with stacks, buffers, himem.sys, the virtual memory (386.swp), VCache, etc etc. Fiddling with those could get the system running better, along with following basic rules. However I find Windows NT (meaning NT 4WS, Windows 2000 {NT 5} and WinXP {NT 6}) runs quite well by default. I really don't see further system tweaks amounting to much of any performance boost at all as far as a desktop rig is concerned. The only change I make that I've found makes it snappier is changing that fluffy XP desktop theme to the classic Windows theme.

Now for servers, like a gaming server, yes I've found shutting down tons of services make a difference, I can get memory usage down from a default 120 megs to about 60 megs, but then again, it doesn't need networking services all a buncha other stuff.

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 9:13 am

xteq can do lots of great things, but **** up 1 thing in orange and you'll risk losing everything.

Norm · Post by **Norm** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 9:27 am

I'm in agreement with both TonyT and YOSC about tweaking. There's nothing wrong with tweaking in itself. The system, whether it be Win3.1 or XP was designed to be customized according to the needs of the user. There are litterally hundreds, if not thousands, of settings that can be changed. Some settings can improve performance, some remove unwanted services or applications, some are mear appearance options etc.

The thing about using programs such as X-Setup is that a user goes through a long list of tweaks, changing a number of settings as they go not fully aware of the tradeoffs. As an example: Disabling one service can affect other services(one service can depend on one or more other services) and cause problems the user is unaware of until such time he/she needs a certain function working, unaware that it was thier own tweaking that caused the problem in the first place, making it difficult to diagnose.

As TonyT mentioned, doing tweaks manually the user knows exactly what they have done, either by a registry change, or a service change etc. Usually when tweaks are done manually more research was done and the user is more aware of the consequences. When an app such as X-Setup is used the user just checks off a bunch of boxes.

I have to agree with Prey as well. Of all the tweaking apps out there X-Setup (http://www.xteq.com/) is one of the best. It is fairly thorough in it's available tweaking options, it has little explanations to most tweaks (with warnings) and it's free.

Beware, and backup your registry BEFORE using ANY tweaks.
Some tweaks can prevent windows from booting if used improperly, or in conjunction with other tweaks. Read ALL warnings, and make sure you have a thorough understanding of what you are tweaking, and the consequences of each tweak.

TonyT · Post by **TonyT** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:03 pm

[quote]I really don't see further system tweaks amounting to much of any performance boost at all as far as a desktop rig is concerned. [/quote[
To this I'd have to disagree slightly. I do a lot of setups for clients that buy their new oem xp systems. These systems, whle high in performance potentially, and advertised as high in performance already, all need tweaking that is usually abover the average user's skill level.

This is because these newer systems come packed with a zillion 3rd party apps as well as oem apps that are either (1) unnecessary, (2) a waste of resources or (3) both. Some oem systems come preloaded with spyware/adware too.

I worked on a lot of newer oem systems that are sluggish right out of the box. Yes, they are super fast compared to win98, but nowhere near what xp & half decent hardware is capable of.

example: ever see a new xp system with 512 ram and a 3.0 GHz P4 boot when it has McAfee Security Suite installed? lol!

dcyphure · Post by **dcyphure** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 7:07 pm

seems you guys are right, earlier today i thought of benchmarking using passmark after using each program
xp stock i got 450
powerup xp was 453
pc accel was 440
xteq was 448
overclocking p4 2.8 to 3.4 was 473

guess theres no real cheap way around it,i know of registry tweaking sites that do all the same things but these apps didnt cost me anything
however the pcpitstop test score did improve an average of 100 pts using these, havnt tried other benchmarks but looks apparant these would be a waste of money for those considering. thanx for the input

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 6:50 am

TonyT wrote:
I really don't see further system tweaks amounting to much of any performance boost at all as far as a desktop rig is concerned. [/quote[
To this I'd have to disagree slightly. I do a lot of setups for clients that buy their new oem xp systems. These systems, whle high in performance potentially, and advertised as high in performance already, all need tweaking that is usually abover the average user's skill level.

This is because these newer systems come packed with a zillion 3rd party apps as well as oem apps that are either (1) unnecessary, (2) a waste of resources or (3) both. Some oem systems come preloaded with spyware/adware too.

I worked on a lot of newer oem systems that are sluggish right out of the box. Yes, they are super fast compared to win98, but nowhere near what xp & half decent hardware is capable of.

example: ever see a new xp system with 512 ram and a 3.0 GHz P4 boot when it has McAfee Security Suite installed? lol!

OEM systems, yes, but I was talking about a hand install of XP on a homebuilt rig...specifically "operating system tweaks"...which is different that cleaning up some overbloated OEM machine.

Comparing a fairly straight install of XP, to what someone calls a tweaked XP. Now I'll agree with you 100%, most OEM systems come loaded with junk, especially those 120 day OEM trials of retail antivirus software and/or "suites". And various other OEM installed utilities they feel necessary to cram into the systray. Yes uninstalling that junk is a good move towards pepping up the system. Compare a rig running McAfee antivirus to a rig running what I've found to be the lightest antivirus out there...NOD32, it's like night and day, like a Celeron 533 versus a Pentium 4HT 3.4. But that's not "tweaking the OS' to me, that's simply getting rid of poor quality software like overbloated ineffective antivirus apps.

Years ago in the Win9X days, tweaking the OS would yield in substantially higher scores in benchmarks like 3Dmark gamers benchmark, and a noticable "seat of the pants" feel of more snappy performance. I don't notice those differences anymore, IMO Windows NT does a good job of memory and virtual memory...the tweaks that helped 9X seem to do little if anything for NT. Tweaks to XP seem to make little actual difference in performance other than giving someone the satisfaction of knowing they're controlling the OS more. The performance gain in benchmarks is barely noticable compared to what they did for 9X.

TonyT · Post by **TonyT** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 7:21 am

YeOldeStonecat

Agreed!
XP handles stuff, spec memory, much different than 98's, and even different/better than 2k and earlier nt's. This is the primary performance increase in xp vs earlier operating systems. In fact, tweakin memory mgmt in xp is quite useless and will more often than not cause problems. I laugh at these tweak apps that claim to 'free xp unused memory' or similar claims.
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Articles/In ... ab=Article

dcyphure · Post by **dcyphure** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 9:50 am

overall i have a good system 3.4 oc's,6800gt..etc but still never happy especially when i cant play a game at fps i want for hi res, while i figure windows longhorn will be about the same as xp i hope it will have some performance advantages, too bad their not goin to put in winfs file system though, also looks like the 64 bit version wont provide any performance gains with current software either...i want a pc from the future, like a 100 years from now, then i'd be satisfied with performance

TonyT · Post by **TonyT** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 10:29 am

dcyphure wrote:i want a pc from the future, like a 100 years from now, then i'd be satisfied with performance

In a hundered years, probably less, your pc games will have a setting for amount of blood lost in a battle and your shirt & pants will be stained! Of course, the 'lost blood quantity limit' will be regulated by the AGIHSA. (Al Gore Internet Health & Saftey Administration)